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 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. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sat Apr 14 02:47:09 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:47:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] IG: constitution and participation In-Reply-To: <678663.97320.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <678663.97320.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <462078ED.4040107@bertola.eu> Mawaki Chango ha scritto: > 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. You're right, but that's just true of any social system, more or less. Reputation (as opposed to titles of various kind) is the major source of credibility over the Internet, and you have to build it with care (and it takes time) whenever you show up in a new circle. I don't see how you could route around this, especially in relatively informal, discussion- and consensus-based environments. On the other hand, "non insiders" have to realize that when they show up for the first time to a new place and think to know it all, possibly they should rather spend some time in learning why the things that look so wrong to them were done that particular way. I've never been sympathetic to the "we did it so we know better" argument that some old Internet engineers use to criticize proposals that they don't like, but, at the same time, there is value in listening and learning from history. -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sat Apr 14 03:21:19 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: <20070414072119.70032.qmail@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Having worked for an agency that deals with people who are blind and vision impaired, the main problem I encountered with the people dealing with internet etc was ensuring people who designed websites made them accessible. There's often little interest from most web designers, both those designing for websites intended for large and small numbers of users. A label won't help much for someone with a disability if the website is not accessible in the first place! Anyway, from what I can work out from the discussion, the UN page at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disacc00.htm should have some information of interest. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; siug-discuss at siug.ch Sent: Saturday, 14 April, 2007 12:14:03 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going? 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 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Apr 14 05:38:07 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:38:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <20070414072119.70032.qmail@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> (message from David Goldstein on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:21:19 -0700 (PDT)) References: <20070414072119.70032.qmail@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070414093807.A110F3F16E5@quill.bollow.ch> David Goldstein wrote: > Having worked for an agency that deals with people who are blind and > vision impaired, the main problem I encountered with the people > dealing with internet etc was ensuring people who designed websites > made them accessible. Yes. That is precisely the problem which the certification labels proposal addresses. > There's often little interest from most web designers, both those > designing for websites intended for large and small numbers of > users. Yes. They won't put in the extra effort to learn about accessibility and then apply this knowlegde unless their boss or customer tells them "it must be accessibile" and in addition they know that accessiblity experts of the certification organization will check whether they got it right. > A label won't help much for someone with a disability if the website > is not accessible in the first place! More than about anything else, the certification process is about making the website accessible! Here's how it works (leaving out supporting activities like contracts getting signed, the accessibility experts getting paid for their work, etc): Step 1: The people behind the certification initiative influence organizations to make the decision to make their sites accessible and get them certified. This influencing can happen for example through the legislative process (e.g. since a few years, all sites of the Swiss federal government are required by law to be accessible), or in other ways. For example, one of the major Swiss banks said "yes" to making their e-banking application accessible and getting it certified when it was approached by the accessibility certification advocates. I don't know to what extent the decision was influenced by the fact that doing this is simply morally right, and to what extent it was influenced by the fact that doing this is probably a good business strategy for them from a public relations perspective, but the fact remains that without the work of the accessibility certification advocates, this wouldn't have happened. Step 2: The technical people tasked with creating or improving the website are informed of the requirement that it must be accessible, and they are provided with information on how that can be achieved. Step 3: They try to make the site accessible. Step 4: Accessibility experts (some of whom, in the Swiss example at least, are themselves people with disabilities) review what has been done and point out the deficiencies and how to fix them. Step 5: The problems get fixed. Step 6: The site is re-checked by the accessibility experts and hopefully found to be ok now. Step 7: Periodically and after major changes the site needs to be re-checked in order to ensure continued compliance with accessibility requirements. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Apr 14 06:13:42 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:13:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IG and its linkage to technology In-Reply-To: <4620277F.1050107@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:59:43 -0700) 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> <4620277F.1050107@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070414101342.D12243F16E5@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > 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. I feel the same way (with the topic proposal that I made being certification labels.) > 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. I agree that this proposal is a good one. Compared to the certification marks topic, this proposal has the advantages that it's technologically very interesting (and is therefore much more attractive to technologists to think about), and that it has obvious significance with regard to economic development of economically disadvantaged regions. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sat Apr 14 06:56:18 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:56:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IG and its linkage to technology In-Reply-To: <20070414101342.D12243F16E5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <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> <4620277F.1050107@cavebear.com> <20070414101342.D12243F16E5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear all, The topic is commendable in that it can enable the mapping of outcome as we take into account the different interests of all partners -strategic/boundary.The topic further tickles in the handling of the technological aspect of IG That was well thought, Karl. Let the debate roll, therefore. On 4/14/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > 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. > > I feel the same way (with the topic proposal that I made being > certification labels.) > > > 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. > > I agree that this proposal is a good one. Compared to the > certification marks topic, this proposal has the advantages that > it's technologically very interesting (and is therefore much > more attractive to technologists to think about), and that it > has obvious significance with regard to economic development of > economically disadvantaged regions. > > 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 > -- 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 wcurrie at apc.org Sat Apr 14 13:37:51 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:37:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] IG: constitution and participation In-Reply-To: <462078ED.4040107@bertola.eu> References: <678663.97320.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <462078ED.4040107@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <856164340-1176550639-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1327178563-@bwe002-cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> That seems to imply that the Icann environment is opaque and dependent on complex relationships that are not transparent or based on criteria that meet certain standards of administrative fairness, criteria that should be simple, staightforward and not mystifying, that should be visible to insiders and non-insiders alike. Reputation is all very well in business and politics but not when it comes to public policy and matters of regulation in the public interest. The danger lies in the phenomenon of group think. And the development of an elite priesthood who protect their knowledge and status. This is why there is no answer on the issue of administrative fairness, suggestions of an administrative procedures act or a framework convention, even though the latest MoU between the USG and Icann requiress steps to be taken with respect to administraive procedures and accountability. Inevitably, in this kind of system non-insiders are perceived as the barbarians at the gates...who must be resisted by all means necessary...or tamed and incorporated into the elite... The issue remains that a claim was made by Icann during the debate on governance at WSIS that the system of managing critical internet resources "ain't broke' so there is no 'need to fix it' and that Icann was involved in technical matters not public policy. The practice adopted by Icann in the .xxx decision demonstrates at least to non-insiders that both claims were false. Icann insiders don't see this or in some cases act hysterically to criticism. This seems to confirm a diagnosis of group think inside Icann's castle of smoke and mirrors. Willie Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:47:09 To:Mawaki Chango Cc:governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] IG: constitution and participation Mawaki Chango ha scritto: > 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. You're right, but that's just true of any social system, more or less. Reputation (as opposed to titles of various kind) is the major source of credibility over the Internet, and you have to build it with care (and it takes time) whenever you show up in a new circle. I don't see how you could route around this, especially in relatively informal, discussion- and consensus-based environments. On the other hand, "non insiders" have to realize that when they show up for the first time to a new place and think to know it all, possibly they should rather spend some time in learning why the things that look so wrong to them were done that particular way. I've never been sympathetic to the "we did it so we know better" argument that some old Internet engineers use to criticize proposals that they don't like, but, at the same time, there is value in listening and learning from history. -- 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 Sat Apr 14 10:34:18 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IG and its linkage to technology In-Reply-To: <4620277F.1050107@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <882543.70724.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Karl, The questions you're raising are pertinent and I'd support IGC pursuing them (having them on our agenda) along with some other topics suggested by Parminda. However, I have to say I'm now struck by your techno-optimism, for there are so many public policy issues that could, should necessary, unfold from those so-called only technical problems. And there are so many occurrences where technical decisions can be biased (there are often different technical options available, so where the basis for a choice comes from?) and costly to change later on. Techies think they are not elitits, and I agree, with the reservation that their esoteric expertise and language (for the majority of people, or even of "stakeholders") do that well for them, while they go about making those "purely technical decisions" with value-laden, -embedded choices. An example is IDN: though very technical, the outcome would certainly not be the same depending on whether you bring in substantial participation from the non-ASCII world (including non techies) or you leave it in the hands of the incumbents ASCII geeks ;-) (and we know by now that you can "bring in" people or not based on choices that are non-technical design choices, e.g. settings, processes and procedures, etc.) Another day (not near ;-)), probably offline, will comment on your views of democracy, individual, and stakeholder (in your position paper,) based on some observations made about the role played by _organized_ interest groups vs. individual citizens, ur... consumers in the US democracy. Mawaki --- Karl Auerbach wrote: > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 14 11:56:08 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:56:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? Message-ID: >>> "Parminder" 4/13/2007 5:20:21 AM >>> >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. Yes, you can say any decision by ICANN that is generally applicable to the Internet either _is_ "public policy," or is derived from legal or normative policy assumptions, or has policy implications. I have always argued this. Where we seem to differ is that you, and many governments, believe that designating something as "public policy" means "we [governments] get to control it." My point is, not necessarily. It can be wise public policy, or a human right, to have governments _not_ interfere. And even when we want govts to intervene, they need to do so by means of clear, just rules, not just whims. I take strong exception to the view, that it is necessarily "progressive" or humanistic to advocate state intervention as a matter of principle, particularly after a century of experience showing how too much of it can be both oppressive and economically counterproductive. So don't get too excited about being able to call "everything" public policy, or showing that every decision has policy implications. It does not necessarily provide a rationale for state intervention, or redistribution of wealth, or the other things you are interested in. >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 publicvpolicy position of rejecting .xxx which, in your view, is an >adhoc interference by governments, and largely illegitimate. Not quite correct. I simply want to draw a clear distinction between lawless, arbitrary interventions by governments, and true, legitimate public policy, which is formed from deliberation, representation and due process. Some people seem to believe that whatever governments say they want at a given moment, is somehow "public policy." I disagree. The problem with GAC's intervention in .xxx was that it was not guided by any legitimately formulated law of global scope. And the same problem exists with the proposed GAC intervention in all future new TLD applications. It is self-evidently ridiculous for governments to take a "we know it when we see it" approach to public policy issues in ICANN -- but that is where we seem to be going. >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' Education, FoE and Internet are related but one aspect of this equivocation is just wrong. Internet is not the same as education. It is a data communication services platform, over which education and many, many, many other things can be delivered. There are other aspects of this equation that are troublesome to me. First, by "public" you always mean "state/government". Are you then suggesting that the governments of the world should take over the supply of Internet access, routing, etc? Do you seriously think that this would improve Internet access in developing countries? Second, while one can support efforts to subsidize access to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it, I see no need, and much damage, caused by an attempt to make it "free" (as in "free beer," not free software) for everybody. >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. Yes. And there is every reason to believe that the same will be true of developing countries, indeed, the advances in telecom access made in India as liberalization has progressed there are fairly obvious, aren't they? >(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) It's not cheap to do something about FoE, people get put in jail or even shot for it. As for "free" internet, I suspect that most people have enough economic historical knowledge to be suspicious of free lunch promises from politicians. >(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? not sure what you mean by 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Apr 14 12:32:03 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:32:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: (mueller@syr.edu) References: Message-ID: <20070414163203.3D36D3F150A@quill.bollow.ch> Milton Mueller wrote: > The problem with GAC's intervention in .xxx was that it was not > guided by any legitimately formulated law of global scope. And the > same problem exists with the proposed GAC intervention in all future > new TLD applications. It is self-evidently ridiculous for > governments to take a "we know it when we see it" approach to public > policy issues in ICANN -- but that is where we seem to be going. I'd like to challenge the assertion that this approach is "self-evidently ridiculous". I don't think that it's proper to redicule any kind of decision-making process before a better alternative has been demonstrated (i.e. an alternative decision-making process which verifiably leads to better decisions without requiring more resources, or where the resource requirements are greater but the resulting decisions are so much better that that justifies the increased resource requirements.) 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 Sat Apr 14 14:23:50 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:23:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] IG and its linkage to technology In-Reply-To: References: <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> <4620277F.1050107@cavebear.com> <20070414101342.D12243F16E5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <46211C36.8060904@cavebear.com> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > The topic is commendable in that it can enable the mapping of outcome > as we take into account the different interests of all partners > -strategic/boundary.The topic further tickles in the handling of the > technological aspect of IG > Let the debate roll, therefore. Thanks for the positive response. It is perhaps a bit premature to begin a debate. The issue needs to be framed with much greater precision. And, as has been mentioned, there are other possible topics. And any discussion of these matters requires the presence of the people and groups who have the primary knowledge about the machinery that such governance would affect: ISPs. When I've thought about the topic of a system to obtain end-to-end path quality assurance (and again, I emphasize, not guarantees) I've felt that the outcome, whatever it is, should be a soft system that permits and enables ISPs and end users (or end-ISPs representing their users) to cooperate rather than a more rigid system that would require such cooperation. --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 15:16:00 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IG: constitution and participation In-Reply-To: <856164340-1176550639-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1327178563-@bwe002-cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <525809.71270.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Vittorio, > On the other hand, "non insiders" have to realize that when > they show up for the first time to a new place and think to > know it all, possibly they should rather spend some time in > learning why the things that look so wrong to them were done > that particular way. And must do, as they have common sense and some amount of reason. I for sure take time to listen and eventually "take off" in a new setting for a new endeavor. It even occurs soemtimes that I receive signs of impatience from those who happen to rely on me to represent or echo their views. But it's not as if the "non insider" (= not only new comer, but not from the dominant/mainstream perspectives) necessary knows nothing about broader policy principles that are relevant across sectors; nothing (by experience or otherwise, outside the framing on the agenda of a specific circle) about the issues being dealt with, or others that should be dealt with. That should be good enough ground for meaningful participation without, as Willie suggests below, waiting to be totally assimilated in and with the mainstream. Most importantly, reputation is nececcarily based on a shared sense of what is _quality_ contribution; what is worthy, and what is considered disruptive, or more precisely, diverting from what is perceived as worthy? At that level, it takes more than the learning time (and curve) you're suggesting for building reputation. Obviously, that shared sense of what is worthy conditions also who join, in the first place. But please note that I'm not presenting this as an easy problem to solve; I don't think there would ever be perfect rules to resolve this. Just that there may be better ways to prevent unwanted or illegitimate capture. To that effect, it is necessary not only to frame right from the inception of the organization and during the design process, its values and mission in terms that speak to the widest possible constituencies it purports to serve; necessary not only to keep its processes open for wide as much participation; but also crucial to keep _visible_ by design the loci and guises of those possible threats to fairness, flaws and limitations in order to give the community the capability to control to the maximum extent possible their detrimental effects. Mawaki --- wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > That seems to imply that the Icann environment is opaque and > dependent on complex relationships that are not transparent or > based on criteria that meet certain standards of > administrative fairness, criteria that should be simple, > staightforward and not mystifying, that should be visible to > insiders and non-insiders alike. > > Reputation is all very well in business and politics but not > when it comes to public policy and matters of regulation in > the public interest. The danger lies in the phenomenon of > group think. And the development of an elite priesthood who > protect their knowledge and status. > > This is why there is no answer on the issue of administrative > fairness, suggestions of an administrative procedures act or a > framework convention, even though the latest MoU between the > USG and Icann requiress steps to be taken with respect to > administraive procedures and accountability. > > Inevitably, in this kind of system non-insiders are perceived > as the barbarians at the gates...who must be resisted by all > means necessary...or tamed and incorporated into the elite... > > The issue remains that a claim was made by Icann during the > debate on governance at WSIS that the system of managing > critical internet resources "ain't broke' so there is no 'need > to fix it' and that Icann was involved in technical matters > not public policy. The practice adopted by Icann in the .xxx > decision demonstrates at least to non-insiders that both > claims were false. Icann insiders don't see this or in some > cases act hysterically to criticism. This seems to confirm a > diagnosis of group think inside Icann's castle of smoke and > mirrors. > > Willie > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola > Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:47:09 > To:Mawaki Chango > Cc:governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] IG: constitution and participation > > Mawaki Chango ha scritto: > > 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. > > You're right, but that's just true of any social system, more > or less. > Reputation (as opposed to titles of various kind) is the major > source of > credibility over the Internet, and you have to build it with > care (and > it takes time) whenever you show up in a new circle. I don't > see how you > could route around this, especially in relatively informal, > discussion- > and consensus-based environments. > > On the other hand, "non insiders" have to realize that when > they show up > for the first time to a new place and think to know it all, > possibly > they should rather spend some time in learning why the things > that look > so wrong to them were done that particular way. I've never > been > sympathetic to the "we did it so we know better" argument that > some old > Internet engineers use to criticize proposals that they don't > like, but, > at the same time, there is value in listening and learning > from history. > -- > 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 ca at rits.org.br Sat Apr 14 18:04:03 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:04:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] IG and its linkage to technology In-Reply-To: <4620277F.1050107@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> <954259bd0704130749o1e8604c8obfe09a2f655e190d@mail.gmail.com> <4620277F.1050107@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46214FD3.6090101@rits.org.br> Karl Auerbach wrote: > 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. [...] > > 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. Well, governments will go (and are going) beyond the technical on Internet governance, of course, and we (I write as a member of civil society organizations) cannot just sit and wait... --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 dan at musicunbound.com Sat Apr 14 19:10:26 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:10:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello folks, Just joining the list as of yesterday, but I think I can add something to clarify here. I think what Milton seems to be getting at is the difference between "substance" and "jurisdiction" in public policy. A good example is the Brand X case in the US Supreme Court in 2005 that initiated all the current Net Neutrality shenanigans. The case was decided according to jurisdiction, not substance (i.e., SCOTUS ruled that SCOTUS did not have standing to contravene an FCC ruling satisfying a "rational basis" under the existing statute as written -- SCOTUS did not rule on substance of the FCC ruling, but there were indications that many on the court would have chosen differently on the substance -- the jurisdictional ruling is based on a SCOTUS precedent known as "Chevron deference" which established guidelines under the Administrative Procedures Act for how SCOTUS should deal with executive agency regulations vis-a-vis congressional legislation). The Brand X decision has effectively thrown the ball back to Congress, which is why it's such a fight there these days. SCOTUS basically said: "It's not my job. Fight it out in the legislative process, where all political decisions should be made. We are not a political body." (Note: I don't necessarily agree with the decision, as I'm not sure the FCC has a genuine "rational basis" for its ruling that cable broadband ISP services are not "telecommunications services" but rather "information services" and thus not governed by a lot of the common carriage and local-competition-preserving regulation that applies to telecom in the US, I'm just characterizing the SCOTUS decision as to type.) I believe that Milton is saying that ICANN should also say "it's not my job" when it comes to substantive (i.e., non-technical policy) matters regarding gTLDs. And I think I would agree, because ICANN is not structurally very accountable to a broad range of stakeholders with respect to such substantive policy decisions. Better to leave those substantive decisions to individual sovereign nations for now, as we do not have an effective "world government" at this time beyond the UN, a patchwork of international treaties, and specific bi-/multi-lateral agreements, and ICANN is really not equipped to become a world government in and of itself, either in terms of resources or systematic processes of accountability, even for what may seem at present to be a relatively "narrow" policy domain. It's potentially not nearly as narrow as it seems, especially if one takes into account the potential for additional "creeping jurisdiction" over time. It may not be necessary that all nations must come to agreement about these substantive policy matters in order for the Internet to "work". Trying to force political consensus at the global level when there is none in practice is ill-advised and potentially creates worse problems than anything it may solve. Technology is not capable of superseding these disagreements on its own. Full-fledged political processes will need to be engaged when the substance of the policy is political. And it is best if such political processes are located in the most broadly accountable venues possible. ICANN is currently not such a venue, and it is difficult to envision if or when it could become so. And if there is no specific alternative venue to replace it, that may still be the best alternative option, as a bad, forced "solution" to some political disagreements may be worse than no consensus agreement at all. Bottom line: I agree it would be good public policy for ICANN not to assume jurisdiction over nontechnical substantive policy matters with respect to gTLDs. A decision to deny the .xxx domain application on nontechnical grounds sets an unfortunate jurisdictional precedent in that regard, regardless of what one thinks about the substantive matter of whether to establish .xxx itself. The accountability of the ICANN gTLD process is simply not adequate to be making reliable decisions of such substantive nature on a global basis. Better that ICANN should be "minimalist" in its jurisdictional approach. Dan Krimm PS -- FYI, I am joining the ICANN Whois Working Group on behalf of NCUC, and look forward to contributing productively over the next few months and perhaps more. I anticipate learning much from the people on this list, as I did for a few months in the fall when I was working at CPSR and observed the conversations here. Brief background: I have an MPP degree concentrating in ICT policy as of last spring, following over 20 years working in production and project management roles for online service businesses. I am not a deep sysadmin-level techie (also have no law degree per se), but I know how to ask useful questions of those who know the answers, and I am primarily engaged in the public policy dynamics, from a public-interest stance. I have done some work for Robin Gross at IP Justice over the last couple years, which is where I got my initial introduction to international ICT policy issues. I am not nearly as experienced as most of the people here in the practical development of these issues, but learning quickly. At 11:56 AM -0400 4/14/07, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> "Parminder" 4/13/2007 5:20:21 AM >>> >>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. > >Yes, you can say any decision by ICANN that is generally applicable to >the Internet either _is_ "public policy," or is derived from legal or >normative policy assumptions, or has policy implications. I have always >argued this. > >Where we seem to differ is that you, and many governments, believe that >designating something as "public policy" means "we [governments] get to >control it." My point is, not necessarily. It can be wise public policy, >or a human right, to have governments _not_ interfere. And even when we >want govts to intervene, they need to do so by means of clear, just >rules, not just whims. > >I take strong exception to the view, that it is necessarily >"progressive" or humanistic to advocate state intervention as a matter >of principle, particularly after a century of experience showing how too >much of it can be both oppressive and economically counterproductive. So >don't get too excited about being able to call "everything" public >policy, or showing that every decision has policy implications. It does >not necessarily provide a rationale for state intervention, or >redistribution of wealth, or the other things you are interested in. > >>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 publicvpolicy position of rejecting .xxx which, in your view, is >an >>adhoc interference by governments, and largely illegitimate. > >Not quite correct. I simply want to draw a clear distinction between >lawless, arbitrary interventions by governments, and true, legitimate >public policy, which is formed from deliberation, representation and due >process. Some people seem to believe that whatever governments say they >want at a given moment, is somehow "public policy." I disagree. The >problem with GAC's intervention in .xxx was that it was not guided by >any legitimately formulated law of global scope. And the same problem >exists with the proposed GAC intervention in all future new TLD >applications. It is self-evidently ridiculous for governments to take a >"we know it when we see it" approach to public policy issues in ICANN -- >but that is where we seem to be going. > >>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' > >Education, FoE and Internet are related but one aspect of this >equivocation is just wrong. Internet is not the same as education. It is >a data communication services platform, over which education and many, >many, many other things can be delivered. There are other aspects of >this equation that are troublesome to me. First, by "public" you always >mean "state/government". Are you then suggesting that the governments of >the world should take over the supply of Internet access, routing, etc? >Do you seriously think that this would improve Internet access in >developing countries? Second, while one can support efforts to subsidize >access to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it, I see no >need, and much damage, caused by an attempt to make it "free" (as in >"free beer," not free software) for everybody. > >>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. > >Yes. And there is every reason to believe that the same will be true of >developing countries, indeed, the advances in telecom access made in >India as liberalization has progressed there are fairly obvious, aren't >they? > >>(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) > >It's not cheap to do something about FoE, people get put in jail or >even shot for it. As for "free" internet, I suspect that most people >have enough economic historical knowledge to be suspicious of free lunch >promises from politicians. > >>(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? > >not sure what you mean by 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 14 23:11:42 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 06:11:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hello Dan, On 4/15/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > > I believe that Milton is saying that ICANN should also say "it's not my > job" when it comes to substantive (i.e., non-technical policy) matters > regarding gTLDs. And I think I would agree, because ICANN is not > structurally very accountable to a broad range of stakeholders with respect > to such substantive policy decisions. Better to leave those substantive > decisions to individual sovereign nations for now, How's that work then? Filtering? Can we all remember to bottom-trim our mails pls? Ta! -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 15 01:29:53 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:59:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070415052942.745295CCB@smtp2.electricembers.net> Milton > Where we seem to differ is that you, and many governments, believe that > designating something as "public policy" means "we [governments] get to > control it." I don't know why you are resorting to such essentialism vis a vis my position. When did I say what you attribute to me? I can unearth many emails where I have argued for an evolutionary global public policy mechanism, where civil society has a big role (but governments have as well). But I don't have to do so because in the very email from which you picked the subject ' who does public policy then' I have stated my position on the public policy structures/ options around ICANN >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;.... How do you reconcile your accusation with this statement, which I think is made quite forcefully... So, lets not create divisions in the areas we agree. We both are for evolutionary global public policy structures where both civil society and government has respective roles. I think what got you in my email was reference to 'positive human rights' as possible basis of a global public policy regime as will - issues like 'redistribution' and free, public, internet. Yes, in this area we do have differences which will be good to discuss. When I think of why when I spoke about 'positive human rights' you brought in 'interference of governments' (which wasn't an issue on the table) I can see how terms like 'positive rights' and entitlements, and 'redistribution of wealth' make you think governments, and 'negative rights' as civil society areas. This is very problematic. In the developing world much of civil society is in constant struggle against governments to obtain these 'positive rights' for people. So I will request you not to pass off your version of civil society as the global civil society, which in any case better resourced groups/ persons from the North often succeed in doing. The precise objective of my email was to make this point. Yes, positive rights do mean 'redistribution of wealth' and more involvement of governments. And many negative rights are about minimalist involvement of the state. But you cant equate advocacy of enforcement of positive rights as endorsement of illegitimate exercise of power by the state, which you have done in this email. This only shows your impatience and frustration with discussion of any kind of positive rights. But be assured, you wont be able be move towards any kind of legitimate, stable, well-defined global public policy systems, for IG or otherwise, which you so aspire for, without admitting the legitimacy of these right. At the very least, having an open minded discussion on these rights. This is the very sine qua non of moving toward, what you call as ' true, legitimate > public policy, which is formed from deliberation, representation and due > process'. As for free lunches..... Do you realize that public spending in the US as a percentage of GDP is more than twice as in India, and in many European countries it is more than 3 times. This translates to an even greater multiple in terms of absolute public spending per capita Do you think this doesn't (mostly) end up as 'redistribution of wealth'.. So who do you think is having 'free lunches'? in this context, on what basis do you speak against 'free lunches' in terms of a revolutionary infrastructure which is (on the whole) relatively much cheaper than any other infrastructure to provide universal, and equalizing, access to to knowledge, education and opportunity. In fact, to fruitful participation in the social fabric of the global society. > Internet is not the same as education. As much as FoE of UDHR is not the same as a license for putting up a global infrastructure for pornography. You interpreted FoE in an evolutionary manner, in the digital age with globally common information/ content infrastructure. I am interpreting 'right to free education' in the same way for digital era. Is it possible to have free education (with which you seem to agree) without free Internet (with which you don't)? First, by "public" you always > mean "state/government". Are you then suggesting that the governments of > the world should take over the supply of Internet access, routing, etc? I have proved the first part of your statement wrong. As for the second part, it is just your hurry to connect all forms of equity consideration and 'positive discrimination' with governmental 'control'. It is evident that I don't want governments to 'take over' internet access, routing etc. I want any legitimate public mechanism which influences these issues to have considerations of equity, and 'positive discrimination' that it entails. Any legitimate governance system owes to do this. On the other hand there are these so-called governance systems that are merely platforms for negotiations for sectional interests, and since power itself is an instrument of negotiation, the more powerful ends up getting still better gains. These are the systems of 'private governance'. For me this is the difference between private and public governance. You can't force on me a stance of favoring greater illegitimate state interventions in people's lives when I speak of 'public'. > Yes. And there is every reason to believe that the same will be true of > developing countries, indeed, the advances in telecom access made in > India as liberalization has progressed there are fairly obvious, aren't > they? Right, Indian economy is growing fast, which is important. But that is only one part of the story. I can quote official statistics to show that in the same decade that India has made this spectacular economic growth, its health indicators have actually gone down. Why? Well, because someone of your ideological persuasion decided that access to public health systems constitutes 'free lunches'. So it is important to decide what are 'free lunches' and what not on the basis of a country's requirement and stage of growth. And these decisions have important bearing on polices. US court ruling that cable Internet isnt 'telecommunication' but a value-add 'information service' is an important indicator how a society's perception on what is an essential public service (telecom laws are written on this premise because they were written when US was still on the path to institutional maturity in many market areas) and what is normal economic service. Do you think US courts would have ruled thus 2 decades back? Why should present US outlook on these matters constitute the basis of global Internet polices.... The important point to note is that ICANN mostly works on this received wisdom. And when you want it to keep working without any public policy interventions, you want it to keep working per this political wisdom. This is my problem with 'policy vacuums' I spoke about, and 'ICANN shouldn't do public policy - but we don't know who should' kind of stances effectively translates into voting for ICANN working on these public policy principles.. When ICANN isnt doing public policy, it is doing public policy by the default political wisdom, which is mostly that of US's and powerful corporates' political interests. >I see no > need, and much damage, caused by an attempt to make it "free" (as in > "free beer," not free software) for everybody. First of all, it should be evident that I am not asking for free downloads of Hollywood movies on the Internet. I am asking for free access to basic information/ knowledge and services on the Internet, and the access to Internet itself. You would have heard of free stuff on all aspects of what constitutes Internet - connectivity (Muni Wifi in US, as also google's free internet), software (loads of free software on the Internet) and content (wikipedia, and numerous other free content). So, what's the big deal? The accent on 'free' is vis a vis the growing propertization of all aspects of the digital space... So stressing the 'free' part is only vis a vis complete and default propertization. No one is calling for everything whatsoever to be given out free. 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: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:26 PM > To: Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: who does "public policy" then? > > > >>> "Parminder" 4/13/2007 5:20:21 AM >>> > >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. > > Yes, you can say any decision by ICANN that is generally applicable to > the Internet either _is_ "public policy," or is derived from legal or > normative policy assumptions, or has policy implications. I have always > argued this. > > Where we seem to differ is that you, and many governments, believe that > designating something as "public policy" means "we [governments] get to > control it." My point is, not necessarily. It can be wise public policy, > or a human right, to have governments _not_ interfere. And even when we > want govts to intervene, they need to do so by means of clear, just > rules, not just whims. > > I take strong exception to the view, that it is necessarily > "progressive" or humanistic to advocate state intervention as a matter > of principle, particularly after a century of experience showing how too > much of it can be both oppressive and economically counterproductive. So > don't get too excited about being able to call "everything" public > policy, or showing that every decision has policy implications. It does > not necessarily provide a rationale for state intervention, or > redistribution of wealth, or the other things you are interested in. > > >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 publicvpolicy position of rejecting .xxx which, in your view, is > an > >adhoc interference by governments, and largely illegitimate. > > Not quite correct. I simply want to draw a clear distinction between > lawless, arbitrary interventions by governments, and true, legitimate > public policy, which is formed from deliberation, representation and due > process. Some people seem to believe that whatever governments say they > want at a given moment, is somehow "public policy." I disagree. The > problem with GAC's intervention in .xxx was that it was not guided by > any legitimately formulated law of global scope. And the same problem > exists with the proposed GAC intervention in all future new TLD > applications. It is self-evidently ridiculous for governments to take a > "we know it when we see it" approach to public policy issues in ICANN -- > but that is where we seem to be going. > > >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' > > Education, FoE and Internet are related but one aspect of this > equivocation is just wrong. Internet is not the same as education. It is > a data communication services platform, over which education and many, > many, many other things can be delivered. There are other aspects of > this equation that are troublesome to me. First, by "public" you always > mean "state/government". Are you then suggesting that the governments of > the world should take over the supply of Internet access, routing, etc? > Do you seriously think that this would improve Internet access in > developing countries? Second, while one can support efforts to subsidize > access to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it, I see no > need, and much damage, caused by an attempt to make it "free" (as in > "free beer," not free software) for everybody. > > >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. > > Yes. And there is every reason to believe that the same will be true of > developing countries, indeed, the advances in telecom access made in > India as liberalization has progressed there are fairly obvious, aren't > they? > > >(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) > > It's not cheap to do something about FoE, people get put in jail or > even shot for it. As for "free" internet, I suspect that most people > have enough economic historical knowledge to be suspicious of free lunch > promises from politicians. > > >(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? > > not sure what you mean by 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 vb at bertola.eu Sun Apr 15 05:57:15 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:57:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4621F6FB.1020105@bertola.eu> Dan Krimm ha scritto: > I believe that Milton is saying that ICANN should also say "it's not my > job" when it comes to substantive (i.e., non-technical policy) matters > regarding gTLDs. And I think I would agree, because ICANN is not > structurally very accountable to a broad range of stakeholders with respect > to such substantive policy decisions. Better to leave those substantive > decisions to individual sovereign nations for now, as we do not have an > effective "world government" at this time beyond the UN, a patchwork of > international treaties, and specific bi-/multi-lateral agreements, and > ICANN is really not equipped to become a world government in and of itself, > either in terms of resources or systematic processes of accountability, > even for what may seem at present to be a relatively "narrow" policy > domain. Are you sure that this is really what you want? Because ICANN issues are global in nature, and if we weren't experimenting with ICANN and referred them back to governments, they would either fall back to no one (i.e., not be governed, or, de facto, left to individual decisions by a technical entity taking the role of Jon Postel... which, in the end, would possibly be an ICANN without non-technical stakeholders) or fall back to the US Government (and this is unacceptable to other countries and to most of civil society as well). Trying to build a "new beast" like ICANN is, in my opinion, the only possible forward-looking solution that should be tried. We can discuss on how it should work, but I do not think that the way to go for global governance, especially on issues like these, is purely intergovernmental as you suggest. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Apr 15 06:21:08 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:21:08 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names References: <1531601261@web.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2D1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Michael Leibrand: I'm not aware of any substantial .cat discussions in the GAC. Wolfgang: It was probably not discussed in the GAC (unfortunately the GAC meets in closed sessions), but as Amadeu told us during the ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Brussels in October 2005 ICANN wanted to have a statement by the Spanish government which was provided by the relevant ministry via the Spanish ambassador in Washington to ICANN (and supported also by letters from Andorra and the relevant local authority in France where Catalans are living) . With such a letter ICANN had no reason to ask more questions or to approach the GAC as a whole. I personally had a number of individual discussions with GAC members in Luxembourg in July 2005, a couple of month before the .cat contract was signed. The majority of the GAC members was well aware that this case could become the starting point of a big wave with a lot of political dynamite (.basque, .tibet, .tschetschnia .ossetia etc.) but everybody told me "this is not my problem here". When the new gTLD issues was raised in the open GAC meeting, there was silence. Then Michael Niebel raised the .xxx case an the whole discussion on new gTLDs started to become re-focused while .cat continued (fortunately) in the shadow of any serious governmental discussion. My approach is that the existing formulations in the GAC gTLD principle give enough space to handle individual applications on a case by case basis. A GEO-TLD can always be linked to a public authority (or to a number of public authorities if you have cities/regions/lakes/mountains with the same name in different countries) so that you can bring the involved parties on one table and look into the specific constellation. If the applicant can demonstrate his technical and financial capability as well as a documented interest of a substantial clocal community and if there is no serious concern by an involved public authority, the GEO-TLD should be allocated without any furhter discussion by the GAC or any other committee. Certainly the local public authority has the right to formulate some conditions which can be incorporated into or annxed to the ICANN-Registry contract. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] Gesendet: Di 10.04.2007 16:12 An: Carlos Afonso; governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names 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. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Apr 15 10:28:38 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:28:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: <4621F6FB.1020105@bertola.eu> (message from Vittorio Bertola on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:57:15 +0200) References: <4621F6FB.1020105@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070415142838.70CC84EDBB@quill.bollow.ch> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Trying to build a "new beast" like ICANN is, in my opinion, the only > possible forward-looking solution that should be tried. I strongly agree. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Apr 15 12:20:46 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:20:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf References: <021801c77bb1$02c6f690$8c0efa0a@IAN> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2D6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Ian Peter 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. Wolfgang: This is exactly my point. We have to invent something which is new, which goes beyond the "either intergovernmental organisation or private sector organisation". ICANN has made a step in the right direction by trying to be multistakeholder (with all the the restrictions and deficiencies we have experienced since 1998). But ICANN, fortunately, has a limited mandate and gets problems if it enters fields where public policy or economics play a key role (the .xxx and .com/.net cases are good illustrations). To re-delegate such political/economic(cultural) issues to an intergovernmental body can not be the solution. So we need something in between. One source of inspiration (not a model) could be Milton Framework Convention (my ciritical point to the coinvention is that it uses a traditional legal instrument which can be sigend and ratified by governments only). We have to discuss where legitimacy for CS come from and how the power for agenda setting, policy development and decision making is re-arranged and re-distributed. Bertrand like me have always raise 2010 as the next checkpoint. JPA terminates 2009, ITU has its next PP in 2010. IGF mandate ends 2010. And some circles are planning something like a WSIS III (a ministerial ECOSOC meeting) in 2010. With other words, we have to start now to produce something which could be useful in three years from today. The four options from the WGIG report are not really a good start. They were not the result of a serious discussion. The compromise in the Chateau in July 2005 was: "If we can not agree on one model than please give the different model proposers a free hand to write down whatever they want". Linda produced her option, the EU another one. One came from Abdullah. Probably it ewas Avri who did No. 2. The result was this confusing proposal with four options whiach had been taken much too seriously by the public. Fortunately the negotiators in PrepCom3 ignored this and produced something which is really useful. Tunis is much more than IGF and enhanced cooperation. It is a framework of principles and the beginning of processes. In particular in the principles there is a lot of music. Certainly they are kopen for interpretation but the basic horzontal principle for all the other vertical principles is multistakeholderism, which is really much more than one could expect after the Geneva Decem,ber 2003 deadlock. BTW, there is not need to link 2010 to "enhanced cooperation". Enhanced cooperation is a buzzword for oversight over the root and DNS. This issue will remain on the agenda but will lose its political dynamite with anycastand more JPAs between ICANN and other governmentds (or a new MoU betwen ICANN and the GAC). Here we talk about a body which would go far beyond ICANNs limited mandate. Such a body will have to deal with issues which have both a technical and a politcal (economic) component and which are outside the mandate of ICANN but should not go directly under the sole decision making capacity of an existing (ore new established) intergovernmental organisation. Anyhow, lets move forward, using different channels, including IGF, GIGANET etc. I am planning to organise a small workshop in connection with the European Summer School on Internet Governance in Meissen/Germany (August 4, 2007). Input and ideas are welcome. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Apr 15 13:16:55 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:16:55 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf References: <021801c77bb1$02c6f690$8c0efa0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2D6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2E1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI I think it is important and we should produce diversified input. Wolfgang INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION General Secretariat Ref: Contact: Tel: Fax: Email: DM-07/1008 Tim Kelly/Christine Sund +41 22 730 5202/6126 +41 22 730 6453 spumail at itu.int 29 March 2007 Member States, Sector Members and Associates of ITU Organizations which have the right to attendITU conferences and meetings as observers All WSIS Stakeholders-- Governments -- Private Sector -- Civil Society -- International Organisations Subject: Consultation 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 Dear Sir/Madam, In 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 (attached), adopted at the 2006 Plenipotentiary Conference, paragraph 6 in resolves to instruct the Secretary General states: "as a concrete step, to organize consultations on these issues among the ITU membership and other relevant stakeholders, in order to prepare and submit proposals, based on those consultations and contributions from the ITU membership, to the 2007 session of the Council, through the Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS);". In that regard, Annex A to this letter initiates these consultations amongst the ITU membership and other relevant stakeholders on the issues referenced in Resolution 102, and in particular, on paragraphs 1-5 of resolves to instruct the Secretary General. These consultations will be used to prepare and submit proposals, based on those consultations and contributions from the ITU membership, to the 2007 session of the Council, through the Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS). As the next meeting of the WG-WSIS is scheduled for 13-14 June at ITU Headquarters, comments and contributions should be submitted by 25 May 2007. This consultation questionnaire can be completed online at www.itu.int/osg/spu/mina/ or sent via email (spumail at itu.int) Yours sincerely, (signed) Dr Hamadoun I. TOURE Secretary-General Attachment: Consultation on Resolution 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2006) and text of Resolution 102. Place des Nations Telephone +41 22 730 51 11 Telex 421 000 uit ch Internet: itumail at itu.int CH-1211 Geneva 20 Telefax Gr3: +41 22 733 72 56 Telegram ITU GENEVE X.400 S=itumail; P=itu Switzerland Gr4: +41 22 730 65 00 A=400net; C=ch - 2 - ANNEX A CONSULTATION 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 Note this questionnaire can be completed online at www.itu.int/osg/spu/mina/ . Please be specific and, where possible, indicate priorities for different activities. With regard to Resolution 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2006): Question 1: What specific activities should be undertaken for ITU "to continue to take a significant role in international discussions and initiatives on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU, taking into account future developments of the Internet, the purposes of the Union and the interests of its membership as expressed in its instruments, resolutions and decisions?" Question 2: What specific activities should be undertaken "to take the necessary steps for ITU to continue to play a facilitating role in the coordination of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, as expressed in § 35 d) of the Tunis Agenda, interacting as necessary with other intergovernmental organizations in these domains"? Question 3: What specific activities should be undertaken "in line with § 78a) of the Tunis Agenda, to continue to contribute as appropriate to the work of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)"? Question 4: What specific activities should be undertaken "to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the process towards enhanced cooperation as expressed in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda"? Question 5: What specific activities should be undertaken "to take the necessary steps in ITU's own internal process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet as expressed in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda, involving all stakeholders, in their respective roles and responsibilities"? Question 6: What specific activities should be undertaken by ITU-T "to ensure that the ITU-T performs its role in technical issues .. related to the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU, such as IP version 6 (IPv6), ENUM and IDNs, as well as any other related technological developments and issues; and continues to play a facilitating role in coordination and assistance in the development of public policy issues pertaining to Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU and their possible evolution; and works ... on issues concerning Member States' ccTLDs and related experiences"? Question 7: What specific activities should be undertaken by ITU-D "to organize international and regional forums and carry out necessary activities ... to discuss policy, operational and technical issues on the Internet in general, and on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU in particular, including with regard to multilingualism; to promote through ITU-D the exchange of information, fostering debate and the development of best practices on Internet issues, and to continue to play a key role in outreach by contributing to capacity building, providing technical assistance and encouraging the involvement of developing countries, LDCs and SIDS in international Internet forums and issues." General comments: - 3 - Question 8: Do you have any other contribution or comments, of a general or specific nature, on any other issues contained in Resolution 102 (attached), including the role of the ITU secretariat and the three Bureaux? You may also wish to upload relevant documents to the Resolution 102 website. - 4 - ANNEX B 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 Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union (Antalya, 2006), considering a) that the purposes of the Union are, inter alia, to promote, at the international level, the adoption of a broad approach to the issues of telecommunications/information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the global information economy and society, to promote the extension of the benefits of new telecommunication technologies to all the world's inhabitants and to harmonize the efforts of Member States and Sector Members in the attainment of those ends; b) that advances in the global information infrastructure, including the development of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and the Internet, taking into account the requirements, features and interoperability of next-generation networks (NGN), are of crucial importance as an important engine for growth in the world economy in the twenty-first century; c) that the development of the Internet is essentially market-led and driven by private and government initiatives; d) that the private sector is playing a very important role in the expansion and development of the Internet, for example through investments in infrastructures and services; e) that management of the registration and allocation of Internet domain names and addresses must fully reflect the geographical nature of the Internet, taking into account an equitable balance of interests of all stakeholders; f) the role played by ITU in the successful organization of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and that the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Geneva Plan of Action, adopted in 2003, and the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, adopted in 2005, have been endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly; g) that the management of the Internet is a subject of valid international interest and must flow from full international and multistakeholder cooperation on the basis of the outcomes of the two phases of WSIS; h) that, as stated in the WSIS outcomes, all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet, and that the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders is also recognized, - 5 - recognizing a) that ITU is dealing with technical and policy issues related to IP-based networks including the Internet and evolution to NGN; b) that ITU performs worldwide coordination of a number of radiocommunications-related and telecommunications-related resource allocation systems and acts as a forum for policy discussion in this area; c) that significant effort has been put in by ITU on ENUM, ".int", internationalized domain name (IDN), and country code top-level domain (ccTLD) issues through workshops and standardization activities; d) that ITU has published a comprehensive and useful Handbook on Internet Protocol (IP)-Based Networks and Related Topics and Issues; e) §§ 71 and 78a) of the Tunis Agenda with regard to the establishment of enhanced cooperation on Internet governance and the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF); f) the relevant WSIS outcomes in §§ 29-82 of the Tunis Agenda concerning Internet governance; g) that Member States represent the interests of the population of the country or territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated; h) that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's ccTLD, emphasizing a) that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations in accordance with §§ 35 a)-e) of the Tunis Agenda; b) that the role of governments includes providing a clear, consistent and predictable legal framework, in order to promote a favourable environment in which global ICT networks are interoperable and widely accessible to all citizens and to ensure adequate protection of public interests in the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses; c) that WSIS recognized the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact on international public policy issues; d) that ITU should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation, as one of the relevant organizations referred to in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda; e) that ITU can play a positive role by offering all interested parties a platform for encouraging discussions and for the dissemination of information on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU, noting - 6 - the decision to convene the fourth World Telecommunication Policy Forum (Decision 9 (Antalya, 2006) of this conference), resolves to instruct the Secretary-General 1 to continue to take a significant role in international discussions and initiatives on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU, taking into account future developments of the Internet, the purposes of the Union and the interests of its membership as expressed in its instruments, resolutions and decisions; 2 to take the necessary steps for ITU to continue to play a facilitating role in the coordination of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, as expressed in § 35 d) of the Tunis Agenda, interacting as necessary with other intergovernmental organizations in these domains; 3 in line with § 78a) of the Tunis Agenda, to continue to contribute as appropriate to the work of IGF; 4 to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the process towards enhanced cooperation as expressed in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda; 5 to take the necessary steps in ITU's own internal process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet as expressed in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda, involving all stakeholders, in their respective roles and responsibilities; 6 as a concrete step, to organize consultations on these issues among the ITU membership and other relevant stakeholders, in order to prepare and submit proposals, based on those consultations and contributions from the ITU membership, to the 2007 session of the Council, through the Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS); 7 to report annually to the Council on the activities undertaken on these subjects and to submit proposals as appropriate, instructs the Directors of the Bureaux 1 to contribute to the consultations under resolves to instruct to the Secretary-General 6 above; 2 to provide assistance, within the Union's expertise, and within available resources, as appropriate, in cooperation with relevant organizations, to Member States, if so requested, in order to achieve their stated policy objectives with respect to the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU; 3 to liaise and to cooperate with the regional telecommunication organizations pursuant to this resolution, instructs the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau 1 to ensure that the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) performs its role in technical issues, and to continue to contribute ITU-T expertise and to liaise and cooperate with appropriate entities on issues related to the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU, such as IP version 6 (IPv6), ENUM and IDNs, as well as any other related technological developments and issues, including facilitating appropriate studies on these issues by relevant ITU-T study groups and other groups; - 7 - 2 in accordance with ITU rules and procedures, and calling upon contributions from the ITU membership, to continue to play a facilitating role in coordination and assistance in the development of public policy issues pertaining to Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU and their possible evolution; 3 to work with Member States and Sector Members, recognizing the activities of other appropriate entities, on issues concerning Member States' ccTLDs and related experiences; 4 to facilitate the exchange of technical information in order to assist the ITU membership to participate in the consultations referenced under resolves to instruct the Secretary-General 6 above; 5 to report annually to the Council, and also to the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly, on the activities undertaken and achievements on these subjects, including proposals for further consideration as appropriate, instructs the Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau 1 to organize international and regional forums and carry out necessary activities, in conjunction with appropriate entities, for the period 2006-2010, to discuss policy, operational and technical issues on the Internet in general, and on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU in particular, including with regard to multilingualism, for the benefit of Member States, especially for developing countries, least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS), and Sector Members; 2 to promote, through the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector programmes and study groups, the exchange of information, fostering debate and the development of best practices on Internet issues, and to continue to play a key role in outreach by contributing to capacity building, providing technical assistance and encouraging the involvement of developing countries, LDCs and SIDS in international Internet forums and issues; 3 to report annually to the Council and the Telecommunication Development Advisory Group, and also to the World Telecommunication Development Conference, on the activities undertaken and achievements on these subjects, including proposals for further consideration as appropriate, invites the Council Working Group on the World Summit on the Information Society 1 to consider and discuss the activities of the Secretary-General and Directors of the Bureaux in relation to the implementation of this resolution; 2 to prepare ITU inputs into the above-mentioned activities as appropriate, instructs the Council 1 taking into account annual reports presented by the Secretary-General and the Directors of the Bureaux, to take appropriate measures in order to contribute actively to international discussions and initiatives related to issues on international management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU; 2 to review the activities of WG-WSIS; 3 to report to the 2010 plenipotentiary conference on the activities undertaken and achievements on these subjects, including proposals for further consideration as appropriate, - 8 - invites Member States 1 to participate in the discussions on international management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses, and in the process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet governance and international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, so that worldwide representation in the debates can be ensured; 2 to continue to participate actively in the discussions and development of public policy issues related to Internet resources, including domain names and addresses, their possible evolution and the impact of new usages and applications, cooperating with the relevant organizations, and to contribute in ITU study groups on related matters, invites Member States and Sector Members to seek the appropriate means to contribute to enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet, in their respective roles and responsibilities. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 15 15:34:36 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:34:36 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2D6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <021801c77bb1$02c6f690$8c0efa0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2D6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <46227E4C.5050205@cavebear.com> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > ICANN has made a step in the right > direction by trying to be multistakeholder ... I have very severe reservations about that formulation. "Multistakeholder" is a euphemism that means that many interests are excluded. Most notably those people, groups, and countries that have fewer resources or a diffuse, but often cumulatively large interest. Moreover, we have seen via ICANN how some groups can recast themselves at will to obtain multiple voices as multiple stakeholders - as for example how a business can be both a trademark stakeholder, a business stakeholder, a registry stakeholder, a registrar stakeholder, etc. As I have urged elsewhere, I consider the "stakeholder" method of assigning weight and authority to be a kind of not-so-slow acting poison that will, sooner or later, transform and ossify a governance body into a body of industrial protection. Aggregations and legal fictions that wish to express opinions are quite proper vehicles and they ought to have the right to speak and debate. But when it comes to measuring the weight of opinions, the measure should be of the opinions of the natural people that form such aggregations or legal fictions. Yes, I know that this is contrary to the current vogue. However, if we continue the method of giving weight and preference to organized industrial interests, under the euphemism of "stakeholder", we are going to end up with a system of collective industrial baronage not unlike that which obtained in the US during the period between 1870 and 1900, a system that had to be dismantled. Do we really want to include a fatal gene into systems of interenet governance and create a genetic defect that will over time doom all of our efforts? We can begin by abandoning the words "stakeholder" and "multistakeholder" and use a phrase that more properly encompasses what we want to achieve which is systems of internet governance that are considerate of and responsive to all concerns but that measure the value of their decisions on the basis of the effect on the entire internet community, present and future. --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 dan at musicunbound.com Sun Apr 15 16:53:25 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:53:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: <20070415143940.254F8C97B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070415143940.254F8C97B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 8:09 PM +0530 5/15/07, Parminder wrote: >> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> >> > Trying to build a "new beast" like ICANN is, in my opinion, the only >> > possible forward-looking solution that should be tried. >> >> I strongly agree. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert. > >I have no doubt ICANN will have an important role in any future IG >dispensation. However, it is important to develop appropriate public policy >principles and processes to interface with ICANN so that it can deal with >its technical-public policy dilemma better, and in a more legitimate manner. Yes, this is the point. If one were to set up some form of "new beast" that is to act on a global scale to coordinate the interests of a world-wide range of stakeholders in an accountable democratic process, it would not look like the current ICANN organizational structure. ICANN is a corporation, not a government. There is no elective process by citizens to determine representation ("constituencies" are not the same thing as genuine accountable representation). There is no rule-of-law judicial process by which to decide disputes, or to which individual citizens can appeal for redress. There are a lot of advisory groups, but their makeup is set from the top down, with a small amount of bottom-up discretion within the bounds of an org structure set by authoritarian fiat (most corporations have a "democratic" setup only in terms of shareholders -- the management setup is distinctly military-authoritarian, regardless of how "flat" some forward-looking corporate org structures are becoming). Whatever process there is of judging disputes is not governed by genuine rule-of-law procedures -- it's basically a Star Chamber. If you want to set a up a governance process to handle this stuff properly, then by all means do it, but do it according to democratic principles of accountability and representation and balance of power with structural checks and balances. That would be called "world government". It's not an easy thing to just hack together in a few weeks for the beta version. Real political power must be taken into account. The idea that anyone can somehow do an "end-around" on the hard work of political processes seems unrealistic to me, at best. Politics cannot be avoided, and processes to balance political powers cannot be avoided if we want to have a result that is broadly fair. Some political problems have no perfect solution available in the short term, and a realistic approach to politics must acknowledge that a quick fix is not at hand. So, to answer McTim: I don't know exactly how "it" will work. How does it work today? If China wants to deny a TLD from visibility inside its national networks, does it not have a way to do that? And if there is no easy solution to the problem today, why should anyone think that ICANN can by itself hack together something that has all the checks and balances of democratic national constitutions, etc.? I mean, sure, an easy way to solve the problem would be to set up a world monarchy with complete authority to decide all political issues from the top down. That would certainly set consistent standards and "get the trains running on time". But does anyone here truly think that comes without a cost? It would be bad public policy to set up ICANN as a global monarchy with feudal relationships governing its constituencies. But as far as I can see, this is essentially what ICANN is, at the moment, in terms of structure, within the domain of Internet Assigned Names and Numbers. Perhaps an extreme description, but it seems closer to the authoritarian model than the democratic model, to me. Remember that authoritarian governments can include many of the "trappings" of democratic governments, such as "elections" and so forth. But if such trappings are constrained in ways that make "choice" an illusion, then that is no more than a big finesse to hoodwink the public so that the power players can run things without interference from mere citizens. Given that is the status quo, we must of course work within that system for now. And perhaps there is still enough play in the system that we can push back against egregious wrongdoing from within. But right now the best way to do that seems to be to appeal to the libertarian approach of "constrained governance" at ICANN. If we want "strong governance" over political issues that have to do with the Internet, then we have to consider the full range of structural governance issues that come along with that political domain, and ICANN is just not very plausible from that point of view, today. First, do no harm. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Apr 15 16:58:11 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:58:11 +1000 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2D6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <01f401c77fa0$cbc85ff0$01e1ed0a@IAN> -----Original Message----- From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: 16 April 2007 02:21 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Vittorio Bertola Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Ian Peter 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. Wolfgang: This is exactly my point. We have to invent something which is new, which goes beyond the "either intergovernmental organisation or private sector organisation". ICANN has made a step in the right direction by trying to be multistakeholder (with all the the restrictions and deficiencies we have experienced since 1998). ........ Bertrand like me have always raise 2010 as the next checkpoint. JPA terminates 2009, ITU has its next PP in 2010. IGF mandate ends 2010. And some circles are planning something like a WSIS III (a ministerial ECOSOC meeting) in 2010. With other words, we have to start now to produce something which could be useful in three years from today. Ian Peter again: And it would probably take three years before people accepted any new proposal and the necessary stakeholder acceptance was obtained to give a new body momentum. So, how to get there? I often do structural analysis and structural proposals for organizations - what I know is that a lot of discussion is needed with a variety of stakeholders - but also a structured approach and the use of appropriate methodologies for analyzing needs and recommending suitable structures to meet those needs. I don’t see much happening without some funding for a bit of independent expert full time commitment here to production of a set of recommendations in this area. But in the mean time discussion is good and some growing realization of the necessity for new structures will help! The alternative is of course continuance of the present structure, with its expansion into new areas as they emerge. That will give us * more potential grounds for interference by a single government * more turgid and protracted policy discussions of the whois type * more confused structure and deals of the ICANN/Verisign type Ian Peter -- 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sun Apr 15 17:49:24 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:49:24 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: Hi Karl, Just catching up, from a critique of ICANN's administrative practices around .xxx we've morphed into the phantasmagoria of alternate new internet governance beasts. Or inter-related global governance processes. Multi-stakeholder processes can be imperfect and can be captured, but I didn;t see the alternative you were preferring - certainly not just states, or just businesses ie a pure trade association model? Neither would work here I believe there is general consensus on that. And while debating global governance in general is fun, we have a more limited objective here. 'Only' global Internet governance ; ). Which yes may set a model for other international areas, but that's not for us to say. And yeah in political science it is considered that corporatism led to fascism but except for occasionally intemperate emails here I don;t see multistakeholder as more prone to abuse than other interational processes. In fact looks a lot more transparent, and potentially, accountable. I also recognize the multi-stakeholder elephant in the room, ICANN, which personally I also prefer to the state-centric mastodon some seem to yearn for. Before ICANN learned regulation 101 there was regulatory capture theory 101 taught to some stakeholders locked out of some virtual rooms, tis true, but hey that's politics. And ICANN has shown itself adaptive, so I for one don't underestimate ICANN's staying power as it evolves yet again into a somewhat different beast. I also see the new, very lightweight, possibly shape-changing (after 2010) Internet Governance Forum. Neither is 'democratic' in the sense of a local or national election, but on the other hand we're not talking about local or national things here. And yes there is this minor detail of it being REALLY important to loads of businesses. governments, and individuals that the Internet work. And compared to the state/UN-centric alternatives, no offense, but these beasts both look more lively and more attuned to changing interests - of civil society as well as the usual suspect government and business interests - in the Internet working. Ok, if that's the zoo we got, the question on the virtual table is whether and how to perform surgery on these beasts, what they may evolve into next, or whether instead to conjure up one or more additional Internet governance institutions. Since there seems a limited number of folks interested in debating these issues, my caution would be to make sure beasts 1 & 2 get along, before adding a further new species to the zoo. Hence the suggestion of coordinated discusions around 'ICANN at the IGF' or however this gets characterized by then. This doesn't replace the need for the Framework Convention which could be the design studio for as many democratic and representative Internet governance institutions - or current institutions transformed into ALSO internet governance bodies - as governments, businesses, and civil society determine are needed. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> karl at cavebear.com 4/15/2007 3:34 PM >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > ICANN has made a step in the right > direction by trying to be multistakeholder ... I have very severe reservations about that formulation. "Multistakeholder" is a euphemism that means that many interests are excluded. Most notably those people, groups, and countries that have fewer resources or a diffuse, but often cumulatively large interest. Moreover, we have seen via ICANN how some groups can recast themselves at will to obtain multiple voices as multiple stakeholders - as for example how a business can be both a trademark stakeholder, a business stakeholder, a registry stakeholder, a registrar stakeholder, etc. As I have urged elsewhere, I consider the "stakeholder" method of assigning weight and authority to be a kind of not-so-slow acting poison that will, sooner or later, transform and ossify a governance body into a body of industrial protection. Aggregations and legal fictions that wish to express opinions are quite proper vehicles and they ought to have the right to speak and debate. But when it comes to measuring the weight of opinions, the measure should be of the opinions of the natural people that form such aggregations or legal fictions. Yes, I know that this is contrary to the current vogue. However, if we continue the method of giving weight and preference to organized industrial interests, under the euphemism of "stakeholder", we are going to end up with a system of collective industrial baronage not unlike that which obtained in the US during the period between 1870 and 1900, a system that had to be dismantled. Do we really want to include a fatal gene into systems of interenet governance and create a genetic defect that will over time doom all of our efforts? We can begin by abandoning the words "stakeholder" and "multistakeholder" and use a phrase that more properly encompasses what we want to achieve which is systems of internet governance that are considerate of and responsive to all concerns but that measure the value of their decisions on the basis of the effect on the entire internet community, present and future. --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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sun Apr 15 23:34:26 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:34:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee, (distribution list cleaned up) the point you are getting at is what in the WGIG we brought up as follows: what little there is of Internet Governance organizations and institutions is oriented to solve a problem at a time, not to create a Government of the World or even a Government of the Internet, well, not even a single, all-encompassing system of Internet Governance. There are too many problems which are not amenable to the same type of solutions (other than the general principles that WSIS sort of managed to pick up) nor bring together the same actors. Varying weights and roles for governments, for the direct or indirect representation of individuals within different mechanisms, for profit-seeking and for non-profit organizations, for academic institutions, for academics, and for the technical community are required to face stuff as different as are, for example, spam and freedom of access to information. What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote: > Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:49:24 -0400 > From: Lee McKnight > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight > To: karl at cavebear.com, governance at lists.cpsr.org, > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > Cc: Vittorio Bertola > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Hi Karl, > > Just catching up, from a critique of ICANN's administrative practices around .xxx we've morphed into the phantasmagoria of alternate new internet governance beasts. Or inter-related global governance processes. > > Multi-stakeholder processes can be imperfect and can be captured, but I didn;t see the alternative you were preferring - certainly not just states, or just businesses ie a pure trade association model? Neither would work here I believe there is general consensus on that. And while debating global governance in general is fun, we have a more limited objective here. 'Only' global Internet governance ; ). > > Which yes may set a model for other international areas, but that's not for us to say. And yeah in political science it is considered that corporatism led to fascism but except for occasionally intemperate emails here I don;t see multistakeholder as more prone to abuse than other interational processes. In fact looks a lot more transparent, and potentially, accountable. > > I also recognize the multi-stakeholder elephant in the room, ICANN, which personally I also prefer to the state-centric mastodon some seem to yearn for. Before ICANN learned regulation 101 there was regulatory capture theory 101 taught to some stakeholders locked out of some virtual rooms, tis true, but hey that's politics. And ICANN has shown itself adaptive, so I for one don't underestimate ICANN's staying power as it evolves yet again into a somewhat different beast. > > I also see the new, very lightweight, possibly shape-changing (after 2010) Internet Governance Forum. > > Neither is 'democratic' in the sense of a local or national election, but on the other hand we're not talking about local or national things here. And yes there is this minor detail of it being REALLY important to loads of businesses. governments, and individuals that the Internet work. And compared to the state/UN-centric alternatives, no offense, but these beasts both look more lively and more attuned to changing interests - of civil society as well as the usual suspect government and business interests - in the Internet working. > > Ok, if that's the zoo we got, the question on the virtual table is whether and how to perform surgery on these beasts, what they may evolve into next, or whether instead to conjure up one or more additional Internet governance institutions. Since there seems a limited number of folks interested in debating these issues, my caution would be to make sure beasts 1 & 2 get along, before adding a further new species to the zoo. > > Hence the suggestion of coordinated discusions around 'ICANN at the IGF' or however this gets characterized by then. > > This doesn't replace the need for the Framework Convention which could be the design studio for as many democratic and representative Internet governance institutions - or current institutions transformed into ALSO internet governance bodies - as governments, businesses, and civil society determine are needed. > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> karl at cavebear.com 4/15/2007 3:34 PM >>> > Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > >> ICANN has made a step in the right >> direction by trying to be multistakeholder ... > > I have very severe reservations about that formulation. > > "Multistakeholder" is a euphemism that means that many interests are > excluded. Most notably those people, groups, and countries that have > fewer resources or a diffuse, but often cumulatively large interest. > > Moreover, we have seen via ICANN how some groups can recast themselves > at will to obtain multiple voices as multiple stakeholders - as for > example how a business can be both a trademark stakeholder, a business > stakeholder, a registry stakeholder, a registrar stakeholder, etc. > > As I have urged elsewhere, I consider the "stakeholder" method of > assigning weight and authority to be a kind of not-so-slow acting poison > that will, sooner or later, transform and ossify a governance body into > a body of industrial protection. > > Aggregations and legal fictions that wish to express opinions are quite > proper vehicles and they ought to have the right to speak and debate. > But when it comes to measuring the weight of opinions, the measure > should be of the opinions of the natural people that form such > aggregations or legal fictions. > > Yes, I know that this is contrary to the current vogue. However, if we > continue the method of giving weight and preference to organized > industrial interests, under the euphemism of "stakeholder", we are going > to end up with a system of collective industrial baronage not unlike > that which obtained in the US during the period between 1870 and 1900, a > system that had to be dismantled. > > Do we really want to include a fatal gene into systems of interenet > governance and create a genetic defect that will over time doom all of > our efforts? > > We can begin by abandoning the words "stakeholder" and > "multistakeholder" and use a phrase that more properly encompasses what > we want to achieve which is systems of internet governance that are > considerate of and responsive to all concerns but that measure the value > of their decisions on the basis of the effect on the entire internet > community, present and future. > > --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 16 00:01:24 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:01:24 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4622F514.9000602@cavebear.com> Lee McKnight wrote: > Multi-stakeholder processes can be imperfect and can be captured, but > I didn;t see the alternative you were preferring... As for the alternative that I am suggesting: Ultimately it comes down to natural, living, breathing people. The "stakeholder" approach (which as you mention bears a rather strong semblance to the "corporatist" approach) measures power and authority in questions of governance on the basis of some arbitrary and highly subjective metric, usually the financial interest, of some aggregate body. Virtually all of these bodies suffer from monomania - they focus upon and optimize one thing (usually their financial well being) to the exclusion of all other things. Governance that admits such players, particularly to the exclusion of real people, tends to result in systems of governance that ultimately become nothing more than mutual trade protection pacts between the chosen players. Now, all of those aggregate bodies are owned by natural people. People are non (usually) monomaniacs. Instead people make their own choices, balancing among all of their interests, many of which are non-economic in nature. So I am suggesting that we return to the principles of governance that came about in the latter 1700's and that today form the basis of democratic (whether direct or representative) modern liberal, constitutional national governments. By focusing on systems that make individual people the unit of authority we obtain a system of governance that is not only more stable but also more able to accommodate non-economic values. Now I am not proposing a direct democracy for the internet. And I recognize that people will aggregate. I don't mind representative systems, or even recognizing that people often aggregate part of their interests for purposes of economic advantage into for-profit corporations. What I am proposing is that when we discuss internet governance we carefully avoid presupposing what groups have what interests and, instead, recognize that the opinions and value of individual men and women will vary and that they will coalesce in different ways on different issues and that we should look to those individual men and women for the expression of opinion rather than presupposing that some aggregate entity speaks authoritatively and permanently on their behalf on all issues. Thus, rather than recognizing, for example, a trademark body as a "stakeholder" that we construct systems of governance that look past the trademark body and measure the consensus or weight of opinion of the natural humans who stand behind that body - it may well be, for example, that when they come to weigh, for example, the privacy concerns of "whois" that some might value the safety of their children against predators above the protection of their trade and service marks. If we look at ICANN we see the kind of disaster that has occurred, and continues to occur, because in its initial creation certain industrial segments were arbitrarily given preferred status as "stakeholders' and other segments, as well as the public at large, were left with a disadvantaged, indeed excluded, status. --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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Apr 16 01:58:50 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:58:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: References: <20070415143940.254F8C97B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 4/15/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > > So, to answer McTim: I don't know exactly how "it" will work. How does it > work today? In many cases, it couldn't. It's called filtering, and can only be done by coercion or by draconian legislation. In a few cases, there is one ASN per country, in which case it is easy to set up filters to drop packets from .xyz. If China wants to deny a TLD from visibility inside its > national networks, does it not have a way to do that? It does, few others do though. > > And if there is no easy solution to the problem today, why should anyone > think that ICANN can by itself hack together something that has all the > checks and balances of democratic national constitutions, etc.? A) It's only a problem if you live in one of the countries that filter (Iran, China, Saudi, etc) B) It's not ICANN's "problem" to solve. > > It would be bad public policy to set up ICANN as a global monarchy with > feudal relationships governing its constituencies. But as far as I can > see, this is essentially what ICANN is, at the moment, in terms of > structure, within the domain of Internet Assigned Names and Numbers. If you had experience in the numbering/port assignment world, you would not have this opinion. It's all the naming biz which gives ICANN it's black eye, and names aren't critical resources IMO. > Perhaps an extreme description, but it seems closer to the authoritarian > model than the democratic model, to me. Remember that authoritarian > governments can include many of the "trappings" of democratic governments, > such as "elections" and so forth. But if such trappings are constrained in > ways that make "choice" an illusion, then that is no more than a big > finesse to hoodwink the public so that the power players can run things > without interference from mere citizens. Well that's how it currently works in the banana republic where I live, but that's not how ICANN processes work in my experience. I, as a clueful individual end-user CAN and DO have a significant effect on policy development. In fact, I did just that a few minutes ago on another list! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Apr 16 02:06:17 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:06:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] Free Internet (was RE: who does "public policy" then?) Message-ID: On 4/15/07, Parminder wrote: > > First of all, it should be evident that I am not asking for free downloads > of Hollywood movies on the Internet. I am asking for free access to basic > information/ knowledge and services on the Internet, and the access to > Internet itself. It appears that the giant US telco's want something very much like this as well (two-tiered pricing). This violates net neutrality, no? Also a violation of e2e principle? You would have heard of free stuff on all aspects of what > constitutes Internet - connectivity (Muni Wifi in US, as also google's free > internet) not free for Google, is it! , software (loads of free software on the Internet) not free 4 the developers, who either don't mind working as volunteers, or who have a biz model that doesn't require payment from end-users. and content > (wikipedia, and numerous other free content). So, what's the big deal? How do you pay for all the infra of ISPs, if you give svcs away for free? Who pays for my routers/servers/radio/modems? I, as an African ICT4D guy would love to blanket my part of the world with a free wireless Internet for everybody. As an ISP staffer, I would need to be able to figure out how it pays the bills!! > > The accent on 'free' is vis a vis the growing propertization of all aspects > of the digital space... So stressing the 'free' part is only vis a vis > complete and default propertization. No one is calling for everything > whatsoever to be given out free. If you give out basic svcs for free, very few will pay for premium svcs. I don't think I would (as a consumer) -- 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 02:12:22 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] stakeholders vs. natural individuals In-Reply-To: <4622F514.9000602@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <54864.52433.qm@web58714.mail.re1.yahoo.com> All this is a little bit too romantic, and away of the notion of "stakeholder" I've seen used in the IG debates. Though it conceptually makes sense to call individual organizations stakeholders (because they have a stake) in this context, people seem to refer to this label to categorize sets of actors in the internet (and global) governance; in other words they are types of actors (typology), not coherent or homogenous single organizations. CS as "stakeholder" is a collection of organizations and _individuals_ (we had this debate before, I beleive) who clearly don't all agree of all relevant issues at any time. Neither do the Governments as "stakeholders" etc. Besides, it is not because ICANN has stopped the so-called "democatic" election of board members that individuals' views are totally ignored in its processes, or that anyone that advocates "multistakeholderism" advocates the exclusion of individuals. Far from that. And democracy itself has evolved big time since the city-state of Athens where "demos" was not necessary a collection of all "natural" individuals, but a social construct that was... well, a staekeholder of "free citizens", which left out many: slaves, captured, immigrants, etc. who also where subjects to the athenian rules. mawaki --- Karl Auerbach wrote: > Lee McKnight wrote: > > > Multi-stakeholder processes can be imperfect and can be > captured, but > > I didn;t see the alternative you were preferring... > > As for the alternative that I am suggesting: Ultimately it > comes down > to natural, living, breathing people. > > The "stakeholder" approach (which as you mention bears a > rather strong > semblance to the "corporatist" approach) measures power and > authority in > questions of governance on the basis of some arbitrary and > highly > subjective metric, usually the financial interest, of some > aggregate body. > > Virtually all of these bodies suffer from monomania - they > focus upon > and optimize one thing (usually their financial well being) to > the > exclusion of all other things. > > Governance that admits such players, particularly to the > exclusion of > real people, tends to result in systems of governance that > ultimately > become nothing more than mutual trade protection pacts between > the > chosen players. > > Now, all of those aggregate bodies are owned by natural > people. People > are non (usually) monomaniacs. Instead people make their own > choices, > balancing among all of their interests, many of which are > non-economic > in nature. > > So I am suggesting that we return to the principles of > governance that > came about in the latter 1700's and that today form the basis > of > democratic (whether direct or representative) modern liberal, > constitutional national governments. > > By focusing on systems that make individual people the unit of > authority > we obtain a system of governance that is not only more stable > but also > more able to accommodate non-economic values. > > Now I am not proposing a direct democracy for the internet. > And I > recognize that people will aggregate. I don't mind > representative > systems, or even recognizing that people often aggregate part > of their > interests for purposes of economic advantage into for-profit > corporations. > > What I am proposing is that when we discuss internet > governance we > carefully avoid presupposing what groups have what interests > and, > instead, recognize that the opinions and value of individual > men and > women will vary and that they will coalesce in different ways > on > different issues and that we should look to those individual > men and > women for the expression of opinion rather than presupposing > that some > aggregate entity speaks authoritatively and permanently on > their behalf > on all issues. > > Thus, rather than recognizing, for example, a trademark body > as a > "stakeholder" that we construct systems of governance that > look past the > trademark body and measure the consensus or weight of opinion > of the > natural humans who stand behind that body - it may well be, > for example, > that when they come to weigh, for example, the privacy > concerns of > "whois" that some might value the safety of their children > against > predators above the protection of their trade and service > marks. > > If we look at ICANN we see the kind of disaster that has > occurred, and > continues to occur, because in its initial creation certain > industrial > segments were arbitrarily given preferred status as > "stakeholders' and > other segments, as well as the public at large, were left with > a > disadvantaged, indeed excluded, status. > > --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 dan at musicunbound.com Mon Apr 16 02:29:07 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:29:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: References: <20070415143940.254F8C97B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 9:11 AM +0300 4/16/07, McTim wrote: >On 4/15/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > >> >> So, to answer McTim: I don't know exactly how "it" will work. How does it >> work today? > >In many cases, it couldn't. > >It's called filtering, and can only be done by coercion or by >draconian legislation. In a few cases, there is one ASN per country, >in which case it is easy to set up filters to drop packets from .xyz. And so, if this filtering is not done, why exactly does that not "work" in a policy sense? Isn't allowing unfiltered traffic one possible "working" solution? >If China wants to deny a TLD from visibility inside its >> national networks, does it not have a way to do that? > >It does, few others do though. That's probably a good thing (that few others do), isn't it? >> And if there is no easy solution to the problem today, why should anyone >> think that ICANN can by itself hack together something that has all the >> checks and balances of democratic national constitutions, etc.? > >A) It's only a problem if you live in one of the countries that filter >(Iran, China, Saudi, etc) > >B) It's not ICANN's "problem" to solve. Well, I would totally agree with that. So why is ICANN trying to solve this "problem" in the first place? Wouldn't it be better if ICANN did not try to solve this "problem"? >> It would be bad public policy to set up ICANN as a global monarchy with >> feudal relationships governing its constituencies. But as far as I can >> see, this is essentially what ICANN is, at the moment, in terms of >> structure, within the domain of Internet Assigned Names and Numbers. > >If you had experience in the numbering/port assignment world, you >would not have this opinion. It's all the naming biz which gives >ICANN it's black eye, and names aren't critical resources IMO. Why exactly do you think I would not have this opinion if I "had experience in the numbering/port assignment world"? I'm curious to learn something here, because clearly I've been missing something. >> Perhaps an extreme description, but it seems closer to the authoritarian >> model than the democratic model, to me. Remember that authoritarian >> governments can include many of the "trappings" of democratic governments, >> such as "elections" and so forth. But if such trappings are constrained in >> ways that make "choice" an illusion, then that is no more than a big >> finesse to hoodwink the public so that the power players can run things >> without interference from mere citizens. > >Well that's how it currently works in the banana republic where I >live, but that's not how ICANN processes work in my experience. I, as >a clueful individual end-user CAN and DO have a significant effect on >policy development. In fact, I did just that a few minutes ago on >another list! That's very nice, good for you. Did you affect policy development at ICANN or somewhere else? If somewhere else, do you think that anyone else has the same capability of affecting policy development in that somewhere else? If not, do you think that your having an elite voice in the governance process where you have affected policy development is good for a broad range of people, or more narrowly good for your own individual interests? That is do you formally represent the interests of a broad range of citizens? Just asking. Thanks, Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 16 03:58:14 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:58:14 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] stakeholders vs. natural individuals In-Reply-To: <54864.52433.qm@web58714.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <54864.52433.qm@web58714.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46232C96.4060001@cavebear.com> Mawaki Chango wrote: > All this is a little bit too romantic... Hmm, perhaps I have not articulated my point adequately. I'm not looking for Athenian democracy, far from it. Rather I'm trying to prevent the opposite - the pre-ordained choosing (by whom?) of "stakeholders" that have built-in, fixed, permanent seats of power and authority. Unless there is a period re-evaluation of whether aggregations actually express the opinions of the people who form them, those aggregations become detached from any reality except themselves. There are not many national governments that overtly claim that they are constructed on the principle that for-profit aggregations run the show; most governments still retain the appearance of people electing representatives to the governments they live under. And even for-profit corporations give shareholders a vote for directors, to vote on important measures and, if enough shareholders agree, to even on occasion, to supersede the board of directors. So I am not really convinced that occasional recourse to living, breathing people is all that much of a romantic notion. And if it is such a notion, then I am proud to be a romantic. The larger question is why we have chosen to so quickly abandon the idea that people have no place in internet governance? As for the point of ICANN - You are right that it is more than ICANN's erasure of elections that has caused it to become a combination in restraint of trade and an impediment to internet innovation. It is also the fact that for some reason the many seated directors have chosen to treat their seats as honorific positions on an advisory panel rather than as the representatives of the public interest who have a strong, fiduciary obligation to that interest. How do we cure that? The answer is not nominating committee that pick the least of the least prickley. Rather it is elections that allow the public to throw the incumbents out on their bums and install people who understand that they are the plenary authorities on their body of governance. --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 Mon Apr 16 08:41:11 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 05:41:11 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] stakeholders vs. natural individuals In-Reply-To: <46232C96.4060001@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <016701c78024$84066ca0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Because of other responsibilities I've been only able to follow this discussion on a hit and miss basis but I'm wondering what it does to the issue of "Internet Governance" especially issues for example concerning "individual users", if we recognize that almost certainly a majority of the world's Internet users don't individually "own" their own access and that a very large number of users in fact access the Internet through some sort of community/collectively utilized facilities (cybercafes) or collectively owned/managed facilities (Telecentres)? A few other questions that come immediately to mind (and I don't' have ready answers) * what would be the process of giving (privately owned) cybercafe users some opportunity to participate in Internet governance--the vast majority of users in China for example * what would be the process of integrating the governing structures for communally managed (publically and NGO funded) telecentres into Internet Governance--the vast majority in India for exasmple * what is the inter-relationship to be between national regulatory and administrative management regimes which are "governance" intermediaries between a global internet and local users and globally oriented Internet governance regimes MG -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: April 16, 2007 12:58 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango Subject: Re: AW: [governance] stakeholders vs. natural individuals Mawaki Chango wrote: > All this is a little bit too romantic... Hmm, perhaps I have not articulated my point adequately. I'm not looking for Athenian democracy, far from it. Rather I'm trying to prevent the opposite - the pre-ordained choosing (by whom?) of "stakeholders" that have built-in, fixed, permanent seats of power and authority. Unless there is a period re-evaluation of whether aggregations actually express the opinions of the people who form them, those aggregations become detached from any reality except themselves. There are not many national governments that overtly claim that they are constructed on the principle that for-profit aggregations run the show; most governments still retain the appearance of people electing representatives to the governments they live under. And even for-profit corporations give shareholders a vote for directors, to vote on important measures and, if enough shareholders agree, to even on occasion, to supersede the board of directors. So I am not really convinced that occasional recourse to living, breathing people is all that much of a romantic notion. And if it is such a notion, then I am proud to be a romantic. The larger question is why we have chosen to so quickly abandon the idea that people have no place in internet governance? As for the point of ICANN - You are right that it is more than ICANN's erasure of elections that has caused it to become a combination in restraint of trade and an impediment to internet innovation. It is also the fact that for some reason the many seated directors have chosen to treat their seats as honorific positions on an advisory panel rather than as the representatives of the public interest who have a strong, fiduciary obligation to that interest. How do we cure that? The answer is not nominating committee that pick the least of the least prickley. Rather it is elections that allow the public to throw the incumbents out on their bums and install people who understand that they are the plenary authorities on their body of governance. --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 !DSPAM:2676,46232cbb138746256011190! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 16 09:59:45 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:59:45 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2E6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 16 12:42:23 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] stakeholders vs. natural individuals In-Reply-To: 016701c78024$84066ca0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln Message-ID: We should look further into the future, wherein the ownership of Internet-Access is between the Individual and Carriers on a one-to-one basis which is the ultimate end. Not unlike today�s Phone service. Intermediaries such as: Cybercaf�s and Communal Ports, would be managed under an authority such as an, Internet Park Service. Not unlike; National, State, County, and City Park services. In fact, we may even see these pre-existing entities graft into Internet-Governance (regulations) of their own. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 16 12:22:32 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:22:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] FTA likely to limit freedom for South Korean Web users: lawmaker Message-ID: <01ef01c78045$2010f730$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Possibly of interest from an Internet Governance perspective as well... MG -----Original Message----- From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Mike Palmedo Sent: April 16, 2007 6:03 AM To: a2k at lists.essential.org Subject: [A2k] FTA likely to limit freedom for South Korean Web users: lawmaker http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070416/64000000002007041618075 3E4.html FTA likely to limit freedom for South Korean Web users: lawmaker By Kim Young-gyo 2007/04/16 18:07 KST SEOUL, April 16 (Yonhap) -- An opposition lawmaker on Monday warned that the free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States will greatly limit the Internet use of South Koreans due to excessive protection of the intellectual property rights of online contents. "The U.S. is the information provider for 40 percent of the contents worldwide, while South Korea is rather an information demander," said Rep. Kim Young-sun of the main opposition Grand National Party (GNP) during a plenary session of the parliamentary committee for science and technology policy. "The recent agreement in the Korea-U.S. FTA talks to benefit the copyright holders was more favorable to the U.S.," Kim said. The FTA recognizes a copyright for files temporarily saved on the hard drive of the user's computer in addition to the standard copyright, meanwhile tightening copyright rules applicable to the online service providers. Appropriate injunctions will be issued by courts against service providers if they profit from or encourage activity on their systems that infringes on the rules. "It is impossible for the users to surf on the Net without temporarily saving files in their computers. To recognize a copyright for temporary copying is to control access to the contents," Kim said. "Toughening the patent and copyright rules would impose a heavy burden on the South Korean online service providers," she added. "The number of legal claims to be brought against online service providers will increase." ygkim at yna.co.kr -- Mike Palmedo Research Coordinator Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property American University, Washington College of Law 4910 Massachutsetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20016 T - 202-274-4442 | F 202-274-0659 mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k !DSPAM:2676,462384bc138741862514005! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Apr 16 16:23:10 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:23:10 -0700 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: At 3:59 PM +0200 4/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >... In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we >are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and >neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and >there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing >decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. >But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the >Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee >with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited >number of very specified cases. > Why "ad hoc"? What would be the criteria for membership on this committee and how are those criteria applied in practice? Would there be a balancing authority to appeal to for redress if this committee makes a decision by fiat that is not entirely defensible? How exactly would real accountability be built into the system? When setting up governance structures such as this, *process* becomes very important, not merely scope and function. And process is often shaped by structure of authority -- i.e., jurisdiction and enforceability by separate, balancing bodies of power. This is the sort of thing that produces structural accountability, not merely "elections" etc. You can't avoid the reality that substantial power is involved in any such institution, and such power needs to be channeled and balanced very carefully when there are global ramifications. And why should ICANN do the "inventing" here? Should ICANN even be involved in the political aspects? Why exactly does something *need* to be "invented" here in the first place, and is the time really ripe for it now? Another option is for ICANN to simply recuse itself from political functions, then there is no need to create anything, ad hoc or otherwise. Not all "gaps" in governance necessarily need to be immediately filled in a pre-determined top-down manner (ad hoc or otherwise). Sometimes chaos is the best present option, given available alternatives. At the very least, that would put pressure on genuinely political institutions to address political matters on their own turf(s). Should ICANN be "at the crossroads between political and technical questions" at all, or should it more properly confine itself to the technical questions and let legitimate political institutions deal with the politics? Is this "crossroads" really there in the first place? Perhaps politics and technology domains are actually still distinct, and need not be conflated into a unified process of governance in the first place. Perhaps there is some potential for IGF to serve a productive role as a venue to explore the options more thoroughly. Dan PS -- There is a common phenomenon in the policy world known as "venue shopping" -- if you can't get a policy result that you want in one governance venue, try another one (for example, do telcos in the U.S. try to get their way in federal legislature, federal regulatory agencies, state legislature or agencies or popular referenda, local government, the judicial system, private enterprise or industry collectives, etc.). The political dynamics at ICANN strike me as an extreme form of political venue shopping: creating a *brand new venue* (or expanding the jurisdiction of an existing venue in brand new ways) while simultaneously attempting to co-opt the new venue, when existing venues in a particular policy space are generally frustrating the attempt to increase elite control over certain policy domains by special interests. I return to the point that ICANN was not originally created as a political body, and its institutional structure was not originally designed to be tasked to resolve political issues. I still have much to learn about the (apparently arcane) history of how the advisory penumbra surrounding ICANN came into being, but my a priori guess would be that that process was somewhat "ad hoc" itself. Not exactly the result of a coherent constitutional convention, or anything -- not even an "informal" deliberative forum systematically tasked to explore the possibilities such as IGF. And to assume (implicitly or otherwise) at the outset that all relevant political issues are subject to timely "resolution" in the first place is rather presumptuous, given the mind-boggling complexity of existing global political dynamics. You can't just throw out that complexity and replace it with a "clean" system -- those complex political crosscurrents will continue to exist because they originate not in the structure of global institutions of governance but rather in the complex distribution of intrinsic political interests across the globe itself. The relevant structures of governance must adapt themselves to that inherent complexity, because the complexity is not going to adapt itself to the governance structure. Global governance institutions are complex *because* global politics are inherently complex. ICANN is not about to change that any time soon, certainly not unilaterally. The attempt by ICANN to address political issues seems to me like someone taking a bite *much* bigger than they can chew. Exponentially bigger. Kind of like Pop Rocks candy, except of the magnitude of expansion of the instant pudding in the movie "Sleeper" by Woody Allen. ;-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 16 17:15:49 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:15:49 -0400 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: Wolfgang, Alejandro, I generally agree with both of you. Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet governance, not global governance in general. But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in our case. A technical matter. ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or should not be next are appropriate. Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d recommendations.) I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say 'start.' Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not yet created. 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Mon Apr 16 17:39:40 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:39:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee, where we differ mostly is that I still think we are in a stage in which we need to build the governance (structures, organizations, or in some cases only practices) adequate for each problem. Take a look at http://www.apwg.org to see how different phishing looks from the DNS at this stage, for example... Re your concept of Framework Convention, the idea becomes clearer - you want it drafted by all stakeholders, then signed by governments? - and has some parallels with environmental governance including all the thorns ;-). I still see huge differences but none that impede rational discourse and civil treatment at this stage of discussion. Not ripe for Rio though - this plays too much into the local hosts' very own agenda. And they are not playing a loyal game. The practical politics is another set of considerations of much weight here. Glad to talk to you. Yours, alx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote: > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:15:49 -0400 > From: Lee McKnight > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de, > Alejandro Pisanty > Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Wolfgang, Alejandro, > > I generally agree with both of you. > > Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and > something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be > needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet > governance, not global governance in general. > > But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly > not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro > coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize > a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in > our case. A technical matter. > > ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without > the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of > WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite > aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay > out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's > noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In > EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to > leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. > > IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the > design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power > are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. > So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or > should not be next are appropriate. > > Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and > authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is > the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best > just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there > is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. > (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from > igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d > recommendations.) > > I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help > elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet > governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is > necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally > by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list > discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. > > In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with > Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric > so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say > 'start.' > > Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of > IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, > with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not > yet created. > > 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>>> > Alejandro: > > What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up > institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, > and then of course build up the right type of organization (always > making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, > the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an > all-encompassing institution. > > So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different > beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the > coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers > of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying > the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to > build up > other organizations properly. > > In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure > that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty > work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a > Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with > the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may > become a separate track when timely. > > Wolfgang: > > I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, > trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into > directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a > "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of > multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with > the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are > the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that > some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators > of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much > more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that > we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and > technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full > responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a > division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here > I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be > neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big > organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined > (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very > specified cases. > > Regards > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 robin at ipjustice.org Mon Apr 16 20:46:23 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:46:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] 14 May Deadline for Submissions to IGF consultation on 23 May Synthesis Paper Message-ID: <462418DF.1010505@ipjustice.org> -- apologies for cross-posting -- Contributions submitted by 14 May 2007 will be included in the Synthesis Paper for the next IGF consultations on 23 May in Geneva. Since the May consultations are intended to address the RIO meeting, comments that focus on what you would like to see for IGF-RIO, both substantively and otherwise, are most welcome (see below and keep an eye on the IGF website). - Robin From IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/ "[NEW] Meeting Announcement - *Preparing for the Second Meeting of the IGF * A new round of consultations will take place on the 23 May 2007. The meeting will be held at the ITU Tower, Room C. It will be part of a cluster of WSIS related events which will take place in Geneva from 15-25 May, 2007. All stakeholders interested in attending are invited to register online now. The purpose of these consultations is to address the agenda and the programme of the Rio de Janeiro meeting. *Contributions:* Stakeholders are invited to send in contributions, as an input into these consultations to : igf at unog.ch or post their comments in our online discussion section . Contributions and discussion posts received by 14 May, 2007 will be reflected in a synthesis paper summarizing the input received. The paper will be made available on this website prior to the consultations." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 16 21:43:58 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:43:58 -0400 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: Alejandro, I still don;t see the disagreement, I was just making your specific apwg point in class an hour ago. and yes of course governance should be appropriate to the domain, and we are just developing mechanisms for particular areas, that's the whole point. In earlier commentary I was talking about the framework thing as probably a ten year process, so any 'premature' conclusions are a decade away. And I doubt ICANN, or industry for that matter, need fear a discussion at IGF II. You're seriously worried? You see how well the Bush admin's 'I don't want to talk about it, and especially not with them' policies worked - I advise a more proactive, and positive, agenda-setting stance. Because otherwise you can be sure it will be spun by others. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Alejandro Pisanty 4/16/2007 5:39 PM >>> Lee, where we differ mostly is that I still think we are in a stage in which we need to build the governance (structures, organizations, or in some cases only practices) adequate for each problem. Take a look at http://www.apwg.org to see how different phishing looks from the DNS at this stage, for example... Re your concept of Framework Convention, the idea becomes clearer - you want it drafted by all stakeholders, then signed by governments? - and has some parallels with environmental governance including all the thorns ;-). I still see huge differences but none that impede rational discourse and civil treatment at this stage of discussion. Not ripe for Rio though - this plays too much into the local hosts' very own agenda. And they are not playing a loyal game. The practical politics is another set of considerations of much weight here. Glad to talk to you. Yours, alx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote: > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:15:49 -0400 > From: Lee McKnight > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de, > Alejandro Pisanty > Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Wolfgang, Alejandro, > > I generally agree with both of you. > > Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and > something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be > needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet > governance, not global governance in general. > > But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly > not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro > coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize > a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in > our case. A technical matter. > > ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without > the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of > WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite > aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay > out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's > noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In > EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to > leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. > > IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the > design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power > are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. > So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or > should not be next are appropriate. > > Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and > authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is > the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best > just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there > is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. > (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from > igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d > recommendations.) > > I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help > elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet > governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is > necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally > by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list > discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. > > In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with > Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric > so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say > 'start.' > > Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of > IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, > with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not > yet created. > > 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>>> > Alejandro: > > What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up > institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, > and then of course build up the right type of organization (always > making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, > the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an > all-encompassing institution. > > So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different > beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the > coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers > of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying > the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to > build up > other organizations properly. > > In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure > that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty > work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a > Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with > the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may > become a separate track when timely. > > Wolfgang: > > I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, > trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into > directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a > "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of > multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with > the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are > the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that > some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators > of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much > more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that > we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and > technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full > responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a > division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here > I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be > neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big > organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined > (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very > specified cases. > > Regards > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Mon Apr 16 22:13:13 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee, glad to read this, esp. affinity in relationship with domain-specific governance. As far as anyone can tell, there will be a discussion about ICANN in Rio, before Rio, and after Rio. Your comment is very well taken. Now, I guess it is time to discuss something related to any of the many domains that still are waiting for some form of solution to their problems. Now that you mentioned your use of APWG in class, my interest is piqued about your views on phishing-related governance! Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote: > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:43:58 -0400 > From: Lee McKnight > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Alejandro Pisanty > Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Alejandro, > > I still don;t see the disagreement, I was just making your specific > apwg point in class an hour ago. and yes of course governance should be > appropriate to the domain, and we are just developing mechanisms for > particular areas, that's the whole point. > > In earlier commentary I was talking about the framework thing as > probably a ten year process, so any 'premature' conclusions are a decade > away. > > And I doubt ICANN, or industry for that matter, need fear a discussion > at IGF II. You're seriously worried? You see how well the Bush admin's > 'I don't want to talk about it, and especially not with them' policies > worked - I advise a more proactive, and positive, agenda-setting > stance. Because otherwise you can be sure it will be spun by others. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> Alejandro Pisanty 4/16/2007 5:39 PM >>> > Lee, > > where we differ mostly is that I still think we are in a stage in which > we > need to build the governance (structures, organizations, or in some > cases > only practices) adequate for each problem. > > Take a look at http://www.apwg.org to see how different phishing looks > > from the DNS at this stage, for example... > > Re your concept of Framework Convention, the idea becomes clearer - you > > want it drafted by all stakeholders, then signed by governments? - and > has > some parallels with environmental governance including all the thorns > ;-). > > I still see huge differences but none that impede rational discourse > and > civil treatment at this stage of discussion. Not ripe for Rio though - > > this plays too much into the local hosts' very own agenda. And they are > > not playing a loyal game. The practical politics is another set of > considerations of much weight here. > > Glad to talk to you. > > Yours, > > alx > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico > UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 > http://www.dgsca.unam.mx > * > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . > > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:15:49 -0400 >> From: Lee McKnight >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de, >> Alejandro Pisanty >> Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >> >> Wolfgang, Alejandro, >> >> I generally agree with both of you. >> >> Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and >> something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might > be >> needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet >> governance, not global governance in general. >> >> But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am > expressly >> not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the > euro >> coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to > rationalize >> a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity > in >> our case. A technical matter. >> >> ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - > without >> the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of >> WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite >> aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather > stay >> out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's >> noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. > In >> EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to >> leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In > general. >> >> IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the >> design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard > power >> are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months > old. >> So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or >> should not be next are appropriate. >> >> Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and >> authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it > is >> the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so > best >> just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there >> is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this > discussion. >> (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' > from >> igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d >> recommendations.) >> >> I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help >> elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet >> governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is >> necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham > principally >> by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email > list >> discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. >> >> In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with >> Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very > state-centric >> so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t > say >> 'start.' >> >> Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda > of >> IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we > going, >> with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts > not >> yet created. >> >> 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>>>> >> Alejandro: >> >> What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up >> institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a > problem, >> and then of course build up the right type of organization (always >> making sure that the different stakeholders are represented > properly, >> the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an >> all-encompassing institution. >> >> So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat > different >> beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on > the >> coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value > identifiers >> of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, > studying >> the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow > to >> build up >> other organizations properly. >> >> In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make > sure >> that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty >> work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving > towards a >> Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates > with >> the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may >> become a separate track when timely. >> >> Wolfgang: >> >> I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, >> trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing > into >> directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where > a >> "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of >> multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems > with >> the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) > are >> the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us > that >> some people will start to fill the box with something that the > creators >> of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means > much >> more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning > that >> we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political > and >> technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full >> responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a >> division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. > Here >> I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be >> neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big >> organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined >> (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very >> specified cases. >> >> Regards >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 wcurrie at apc.org Tue Apr 17 09:08:45 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:08:45 +0000 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1010830799-1176793694-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-216660641-@bwe005-cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Except that it's curious in the case of the .xxx decision that one of the things that susan crawford was saying in her dissent was to identify a form of the principle of subsidiarity, that Icann needed to grant the .xxx gTLD and let governments deal with it at the national level. If Icann had followed the rules it claimed to subscribe to, then the principle of subsidiarity would have come into play and Icann would not be accused of caving in to political pressure. The governments may not have liked it but at least it would have opened a real debate on internet public policy and served to explore more clearly the space of Icann and not-Icann. Some of us Icann outsiders see the .xxx decision as a lost opportunity to clarify or even set in motion a real process of devloping the broader internet governace issues. Instead Icann is the recipient of the worst of both spaces - not quite a technical regulator and now a public policy regulator without a mandate. Not independent - which is a critical element of a regulator,but one that shows itself susceptible to the will of governments, to put it kindly - 'captured' to put it in regulatory language.. In other words, why make a fuss about the ITU when Icann will do governments' will of its own volition. It would behove Icann to get involved in the debate on internet governance proactively, if only so we can get a sense of boundaries of what is Icann and what is not Icann and expand the work WGIG began and the IGF is supposed to continue. The IGF is a good vehicle to do this. Will Icann itself have the guts to propose it in the May consulation of the IGF in Geneva? There was an interesting piece in the Financial Times a few weeks ago by an investment analyst who noted a pattern in some internet companies from netscape to yahoo that when they became more interested in themselves as opposed to their users, their value in the market dropped. As Icann is a private corporation dealing in DNS and IP addresses, it should perhaps think of the analogy involved here and think about what it would take to become an independent regulator accountable to the global public.. Willie Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld -----Original Message----- From: "Lee McKnight" Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:15:49 To:,,"Alejandro Pisanty" Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Alejandro, I generally agree with both of you. Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet governance, not global governance in general. But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in our case. A technical matter. ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or should not be next are appropriate. Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d recommendations.) I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say 'start.' Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not yet created. 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Apr 17 03:32:50 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:32:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2E6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, On 4/16/07 3:59 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Wolfgang: > > I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to > explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where > others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be > created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and > transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a > tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a > box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with > something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. I agree with Wolfgang and Alejandro. Tackling IG through a meta-convention would be a very modernist response to a postmodern condition, like trying to depict in a single point perspective painting a reality that can only be visualized with a hologram. IG broadly defined is too heterogeneous and institutionally distributed for a singular negotiated framework, and any overarching principles, norms, etc. applicable across mechanisms would be too generic to be of much value-added. Conversely, focusing on IG narrowly defined around core resources would be simply become the oversight debate redux and lead into the same cul de sac. There's also the antecedent problem that key parties would be opposed to even discussing this for fear they would lose control of the dialogue. And even if their opposition to discussing it could be overcome, there's little likelihood of actually reaching a meaningful agreement. Even a ³soft² law regime agreement would be enormously difficult---the WSIS conflicts on steroids. Multi-issue multi-player multi-preference negotiations frequently is not a formula for consequential agreements. Plus, where would you do it, there's no appropriate forum for such a negotiation, much less an appropriate mechanism to monitor and promote compliance with commitments. Personally, I think this is a chimera and a distraction. Alejandro's right, given the lay of the land, it's better to address specific issues through functionally specific mechanisms. Where I think he and I might disagree is that I'd favor having some means of holistic monitoring/analysis that'd draw attention to the connections and possible conflicts between these so adjustments could be made etc. That was part of the original thinking behind the forum concept, at least for some of us, but if the forum can't play this role something else is needed. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 17 03:41:30 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:41:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? Message-ID: >>> nb at bollow.ch 4/14/2007 12:32 PM >>> >I don't think that it's proper to redicule any kind of decision-making >process before a better alternative has been demonstrated (i.e. an Norbert: Many better alternatives have been proposed for new TLD addition processes over the past 5 years. McKnight and I proposed a simple auction for commercial TLDs and lottery for noncommercial. Other academics have made similar proposals. The National Academy of Sciences report had several alternatives outlined. All would require substantally LESS resources than an arbiutrary GAC veto and the endless, reversible, totally politicized review processes currently being proposed by ICANN. Even within the ICANN process, we have proposed specific modifications to the proposal that would get ICANN and GAC out of the cenosrship business. So if you've been following the process at all, I can't see how your point has any validity. Further, I think one can say, a priori, that a proposal that says, "a committee of 100 governments, not guided by any treaty or law, can object to an application on any grounds they like," is by definition not a good process. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 17 03:46:29 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:46:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? Message-ID: >>> dan at musicunbound.com 4/14/2007 7:10 PM >>> >It may not be necessary that all nations must come to agreement >about these substantive policy matters in order for the Internet >to "work". Trying to force political consensus at the global level >when there is none in practice is ill-advised and potentially creates >worse problems than anything it may solve. Amen, Dan. It's oddly difficult for people who are deeply engaged in the ICANN processes to understand the difference between consensus in their own small decision-making process and a true global political consensus. And good luck to you working on the ICANN WG, thanks for your commitment and courage... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 17 03:48:45 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:48:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? Message-ID: Sorry, Parminder. I stand corrected. >>> "Parminder" 4/15/2007 1:29 AM >>> >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;.... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 17 04:12:12 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:12:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] "civil society doing someone else's dirty work" Message-ID: Alejandro, you could not have come up with a better description of the current ICANN regime...! more below >>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 4/15/2007 11:34 PM >>> >In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also >make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone >else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for >moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the >idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, >besides other objections that may become a separate >track when timely. In fact a Framework Convention (FC) is precisely the kind of "one step at a time" attempt to come up with solutions to specific problems that you praise, Alej. Obviously ICANN has a problem relating its technical coordination mandate with political, public policy concerns. An FC would take a step toward solving that problem by bringing governments into the process in a lawful, formal, democratically constrained way. In substantive policy terms, we at IGP have always viewed the FC as a way to LIMIT national govts power over Internet coordination as much as a way to insert it where it is needed. We cannot of course guarantee that such a rational outcome would occur, but that's the risk you always take with constitutional moments. And a good feature of formal sovereign negotiations is that if the results end up bad no sovereign has to sign on to them. (A far cry from the de facto global technical power ICANN holds) We may actually agree, you and I, on the need not to create "new beasts" willy nilly, although in my case it is more a deep awareness of the huge costs and long time periods required to create new institutions than any normative commitment to incrementalism. The "global government" charge against an FC doesn't scare me. ICANN already is a global governance form. Such a charge would no doubt be exploited by vested interests in the US and elsewhere who want to preserve the status quo -- that is, after all, the same line they took with WSIS (UN Take over of the internet) and it worked well for them, but now that GAC is looking and behaving more and more like the UN, people will soon see through that line, especially as it becomes clearer and clearer that the USG is the most active and aggressive govt and the one pushing to enlarge governmental power over ICANN outcomes. Hypocrisy tends to catch up with you over time... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Apr 17 04:18:09 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Senators propose labels & notification to ICANN of adult websites Message-ID: <371999.52041.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, I came across these stories over the weekend. According to the stories, a couple of US Democrat senators were proposing to legislate for a .xxx TLD in a separate initiative to the ICM Registry proposal. While the proposal has now been withdrawn, there is now another ludicrous proposal from these senators for the Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2007 that will force website owners, should it ever get passed and then survive the inevitable court challenges, to insert labels "in all Web pages that the government deems unsuitable for minors". The labels would be "devised by the U.S. Department of Commerce". Owners of websites with adult content would be required to inform ICANN of such when registering the domain name, along with the web site's Internet Protocol address and other information. Obviously this is problematic! Anyway, the news reports I've found about this are below, and I'll post any new stories I find, should there be any, on my website at http://technewsreview.com.au/ Cheers David US Senators propose labels for adult Web sites Operators of Web sites with racy content must label their sites and register in a national directory or be fined, according to a new U.S. Senate proposal titled the Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2007. The proposal includes the requirement for “embedding a new tag--such as --in all Web pages that the government deems unsuitable for minors.” Web sites with "harmful to minors" content on pages that are initially viewable to visitors must use the tag to be devised by the U.S. Department of Commerce or face civil fines. The federal government would be able to "shut down" noncompliant sites, but that portion is not actually in the bill. Another section of the Act would require the owner of any web site with adult content to say so when registering the domain with ICANN. The owner must also give ICANN the web site's Internet Protocol address and other information. Naturally the proposal is going to run into problems with the ACLU stating "The labeling part of it is going to be constitutionally problematic." http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6175549.html http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/04/12/senators-propose-labels-for-adult-web-sites/ us: Senators Want Porn Site Owners To Clean Up Home Pages, Label Content A new bill is latest in a long string of attempts by federal lawmakers to pass protections that would help protect minors from obscenity and pornography. ... The bill would require Web site owners to notify ICANN and provide information about the site if it contains adult content. It would also have the U.S. Department of Commerce ensure that adult sites shave secure log-ins, age identification requirements, clean home pages and the ability to be blocked by filtering technology. If the bill passes, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration would be able to fine non-compliant sites. http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199001010 us: Pryor abandons xxx domains for porn Sen. Mark Pryor, the sponsor of bills to prevent children from accessing pornography on the Internet, has abandoned an effort to require an .xxx domain name for sites with adult content. Pryor, D-Ark., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., took a new approach on a "Cyber Safety for Kids" bill they introduced on Wednesday, compared to an unsuccessful measure in 2006. This year's bill would require age verification before computer users can access pornographic sites. http://arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/04/12/WashingtonDCBureau/341701.html --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 17 04:29:25 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:29:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 4/17/2007 3:32 AM >>> >Tackling IG through a meta-convention >would be a very modernist response to a postmodern condition, >like trying to depict in a single point perspective painting a reality >that can only be visualized with a hologram. I wish I could convey how amusing you all sound, lost in your metaphors of "new" kaleidoscopic realities. In the meantime, the same old power holders, using the same old mechanisms and a few subtle new ones, are running the game. And some of us in civil society are soooooo easily co-opted by being invited onto consultative mechanisms like WGIG or ALAC that have no effect on the actual regime but somewhow make people feel important and thereby transform them into enthusiastic free workrs and sometimes apologists for the institutions that have duped them. >IG broadly defined is too heterogeneous and >institutionally distributed for a singular negotiated framework, and any No one said a FC is going to deal with any and every aspect of IG. The problem to be solved is the relationship between public policy issues and states. An FC can, and should, delegate or leave alone many things, thereby helping to resolve many of the legitimacy and competing claims for authorty. >Conversely, focusing on IG narrowly >defined around core resources would be simply become the oversight >debate redux and lead into the same cul de sac. The only cul de sac is the intransigence of the USG, and we are going to have a new administration most likely. >There's also the antecedent >problem that key parties would be opposed to even discussing this >for fear they would lose control of the dialogue. That is indeed a problem, but its a political problem and you don't solve it by conceding defeat off the bat. Political constraints are amenable to political agitation. >Multi-issue, multi-player multi-preference negotiations frequently is not >a formula for consequential agreements. This argyument has some validity, i.e. is a real source of concern, but can you say we have never developed an environmental framework....oops, I guess we did. Well, I guess that explains why the WTO was never able to negotiate a free trade agreement on telecomms and IT equipment...oops, I guess they did that, too. No, it is just a question of political will. > Plus, where would you do it, there's no >appropriate forum for such a negotiation, much less an appropriate mechanism >to monitor and promote compliance with commitments. An FC creates one. This is not a real argument. >Personally, I think this is a chimera and a distraction. That is my attitude toward the IGF, increasingly. Can you tell me why holding a conference and chatting with ourselves is such a brilliant solution, and what problem it is a solution to? >Where I think he and I might disagree is that I'd >favor having some means of holistic monitoring/analysis that'd draw >attention to the connections and possible conflicts between these so >adjustments could be made etc. But that's what the Forum was supposed to do. And if the political will is not there to do something real about these governance issues, then the Forum can't work any more than a FC. So you are led back to the proposition that we must advocate some form of governance institution-building that is REAL, not a co-optation mechanism or a way of sidelining and neutralizing actual debate over substance. > That was part of the original thinking >behind the forum concept, at least for some of us, but if the forum can't >play this role something else is needed. In other words, you admit that the oh so sophisticated "post modern" approach has failed, but we should try it again? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 17 04:31:40 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:31:40 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2F3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Lee for the entertaining comparison between IG/ICANN/IGF and the 50 years of European Unification. You know one problem in Europe is the role of the Commission (which would be ICANN Staff in your picture). The highest authority is with the Heads of State in the European Council (which would be the Board). But we know that in many cases - in particular for day to day operaitons - the de facto power is with the Commission (labelled as the "Brussels Burocracy"). To compare the IGF with the European Parliament I disagree. IGF has a much broader mandate than ICANN. This is a different level. It is like comparing the EU with the UN. It is in the interst of ICANN to keep its mandate narrow technically defined. My "parliament" for ICANN would be At-Large. You and me and others, who have been involved in the 2000 elections, have opposed for years the removing of voting ALM directors from the board and the creation of a burocratical beast composed of dubios ALS, RALOs and the powerless ALAC which can send one non-voting delegate into the Board. But as history of the last years has told us, there is no strong alternative movement. With other words, we have to live with the reality and to develop this reality. The first European parliament had no power. It was just "window dressing" to establish such a component in the whole system which was ruled and dominated by the European Council and the European Commission. The role of the Parliament grew slowly over the years. Unfortunately the European Constitution, which would have given more power to the Parliement, was rejected (one of the irony of history where people vote for some subjective (legitimitae) reasons against their own objective interests). However, the issue remains on the agenda. For ICANN and its future the challenge is how to go beyond the RALOs. Now we have four recognized RALOs. We have about 50 ALSs. The door for individuals is open (or lts say half open) in most of the RALOs. If the ALAC becomes more active, sending recommendations to the Board, organizing independent workshops and seminars to burning issues, positioning itself as the representatives of users and conusmers (consumer protection will become a big isue with the emerging secondory domain name maerket, domain name tasintg, the debacle with RegisterFly, WHOIS, iDNS and soon also RFID) the whole picture could look rather different in October 2009 when the JPA comes to an end. Next step could be the call to transform the ALAC into an At Large Membership Supporting Organisation (ALSO) with the right to send a minimum of two voting directors to the Board. One comment to the Convention. I recognize your arguments. Probably the dissent comes with the language. The terminology is legally defined. A convention under international law is a convention. Look into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). If you call it "Multistakeholder Framework Arrangement on Internet Governance" (MUFARIG) propably it looks different. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Gesendet: Mo 16.04.2007 23:15 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Alejandro Pisanty Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Alejandro, I generally agree with both of you. Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet governance, not global governance in general. But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in our case. A technical matter. ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or should not be next are appropriate. Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d recommendations.) I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say 'start.' Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not yet created. 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Apr 17 04:58:31 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:58:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46248C37.30304@Malcolm.id.au> Milton Mueller wrote: >> Personally, I think this is a chimera and a distraction. > > That is my attitude toward the IGF, increasingly. Can you tell me why > holding a conference and chatting with ourselves is such a brilliant > solution, and what problem it is a solution to? > >> Where I think he and I might disagree is that I'd >> favor having some means of holistic monitoring/analysis that'd draw >> attention to the connections and possible conflicts between these so >> adjustments could be made etc. > > But that's what the Forum was supposed to do. And if the political will > is not there to do something real about these governance issues, then > the Forum can't work any more than a FC. So you are led back to the > proposition that we must advocate some form of governance > institution-building that is REAL, not a co-optation mechanism or a way > of sidelining and neutralizing actual debate over substance. > >> That was part of the original thinking >> behind the forum concept, at least for some of us, but if the forum > can't >> play this role something else is needed. > > In other words, you admit that the oh so sophisticated "post modern" > approach has failed, but we should try it again? Let's not forget that the IGF has had only one meeting out of a minimum of five, and that although everyone agrees it is not yet in a position to fulfil its mandate, there has at least been clear acknowledgement from the top that "these are things which will evolve". Now, I could hardly be called an apologist for the IGF's failings, and I am in complete agreement with Milton that a simple Internet conference is not what is required, but surely our energies are better expended in reforming the IGF than in resigning ourselves to its failure and starting from scratch. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Apr 17 05:23:25 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:23:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MM, On 4/17/07 10:29 AM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > >>>> drake at hei.unige.ch 4/17/2007 3:32 AM >>> >> Tackling IG through a meta-convention >> would be a very modernist response to a postmodern condition, >> like trying to depict in a single point perspective painting a reality > >> that can only be visualized with a hologram. > > I wish I could convey how amusing you all sound, > lost in your metaphors of "new" kaleidoscopic realities. In the Always happy to be part of the legions of folks who amuse you. Tickling the lion is great fun, since one never knows what will ensue. > meantime, the same old power holders, using the same old mechanisms and > a few subtle new ones, are running the game. And some of us in civil > society are soooooo easily co-opted by being invited onto consultative > mechanisms like WGIG or ALAC that have no effect on the actual regime > but somewhow make people feel important and thereby transform them into > enthusiastic free workrs and sometimes apologists for the institutions > that have duped them. > >> IG broadly defined is too heterogeneous and >> institutionally distributed for a singular negotiated framework, and > any > > No one said a FC is going to deal with any and every aspect of IG. The > problem to be solved is the relationship between public policy issues > and states. An FC can, and should, delegate or leave alone many things, Oh, well that narrows it down. > thereby helping to resolve many of the legitimacy and competing claims > for authorty. > >> Conversely, focusing on IG narrowly >> defined around core resources would be simply become the oversight >> debate redux and lead into the same cul de sac. > > The only cul de sac is the intransigence of the USG, and we are going > to have a new administration most likely. > >> There's also the antecedent >> problem that key parties would be opposed to even discussing this >> for fear they would lose control of the dialogue. > > That is indeed a problem, but its a political problem and you don't > solve it by conceding defeat off the bat. Political constraints are > amenable to political agitation. A bit Sisyphean for those of us who are less agitated, and meanwhile there are may be other hills with smaller boulders worth pushing. >> Multi-issue, multi-player multi-preference negotiations frequently is > not >> a formula for consequential agreements. > > This argyument has some validity, i.e. is a real source of concern, but > can you say we have never developed an environmental framework....oops, > I guess we did. Well, I guess that explains why the WTO was never able > to negotiate a free trade agreement on telecomms and IT > equipment...oops, I guess they did that, too. No, it is just a question > of political will. Actually these mechanisms are not comparably multidimensional and the problems were specified in ways that were more tractable. >> Plus, where would you do it, there's no >> appropriate forum for such a negotiation, much less an appropriate > mechanism >> to monitor and promote compliance with commitments. > > An FC creates one. This is not a real argument. You must be joking. Legally and politically it'd have to be launched under some extant institutional auspices. Look at the IGF's problems. Which do you prefer, ITU or ECOSOC? >> Personally, I think this is a chimera and a distraction. > > That is my attitude toward the IGF, increasingly. Can you tell me why > holding a conference and chatting with ourselves is such a brilliant > solution, and what problem it is a solution to? No I cannot, which speaks precisely to how such any such processes end up after they get run through the wringer of power and divided interests. > >> Where I think he and I might disagree is that I'd >> favor having some means of holistic monitoring/analysis that'd draw >> attention to the connections and possible conflicts between these so >> adjustments could be made etc. > > But that's what the Forum was supposed to do. And if the political will > is not there to do something real about these governance issues, then > the Forum can't work any more than a FC. So you are led back to the Well, it depends on your definition of "work." The forum can still be useful to the extent that dialogue, collective learning, and networking are useful. Whether it can do more than that is obviously more than unclear. > proposition that we must advocate some form of governance > institution-building that is REAL, not a co-optation mechanism or a way > of sidelining and neutralizing actual debate over substance. I'm not sure why that follows. >> That was part of the original thinking >> behind the forum concept, at least for some of us, but if the forum > can't >> play this role something else is needed. > > In other words, you admit that the oh so sophisticated "post modern" > approach has failed, but we should try it again? The original concept wasn't tried a first time, but I'm talking about something more streamlined, monitoring/analysis per the caucus' original proposal. Cheers, BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Apr 17 08:53:43 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:53:43 -0400 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2F3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2F3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <005901c780ef$71eb8cf0$55c2a6d0$@com> Hi Wolfgang One small correction - the AtLarge has over 90 ALSes and several applicants to be voted on soon, so hopefully we will make the 100+ mark very soon. And you know I agree with your view of the potential of the ALAC in the future. But there's a lot of work to do. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:32 AM To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Thanks Lee for the entertaining comparison between IG/ICANN/IGF and the 50 years of European Unification. You know one problem in Europe is the role of the Commission (which would be ICANN Staff in your picture). The highest authority is with the Heads of State in the European Council (which would be the Board). But we know that in many cases - in particular for day to day operaitons - the de facto power is with the Commission (labelled as the "Brussels Burocracy"). To compare the IGF with the European Parliament I disagree. IGF has a much broader mandate than ICANN. This is a different level. It is like comparing the EU with the UN. It is in the interst of ICANN to keep its mandate narrow technically defined. My "parliament" for ICANN would be At-Large. You and me and others, who have been involved in the 2000 elections, have opposed for years the removing of voting ALM directors from the board and the creation of a burocratical beast composed of dubios ALS, RALOs and the powerless ALAC which can send one non-voting delegate into the Board. But as history of the last years has told us, there is no strong alternative movement. With other words, we have to live with the reality and to develop this reality. The first European parliament had no power. It was just "window dressing" to establish such a component in the whole system which was ruled and dominated by the European Council and the European Commission. The role of the Parliament grew slowly over the years. Unfortunately the European Constitution, which would have given more power to the Parliement, was rejected (one of the irony of history where people vote for some subjective (legitimitae) reasons against their own objective interests). However, the issue remains on the agenda. For ICANN and its future the challenge is how to go beyond the RALOs. Now we have four recognized RALOs. We have about 50 ALSs. The door for individuals is open (or lts say half open) in most of the RALOs. If the ALAC becomes more active, sending recommendations to the Board, organizing independent workshops and seminars to burning issues, positioning itself as the representatives of users and conusmers (consumer protection will become a big isue with the emerging secondory domain name maerket, domain name tasintg, the debacle with RegisterFly, WHOIS, iDNS and soon also RFID) the whole picture could look rather different in October 2009 when the JPA comes to an end. Next step could be the call to transform the ALAC into an At Large Membership Supporting Organisation (ALSO) with the right to send a minimum of two voting directors to the Board. One comment to the Convention. I recognize your arguments. Probably the dissent comes with the language. The terminology is legally defined. A convention under international law is a convention. Look into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). If you call it "Multistakeholder Framework Arrangement on Internet Governance" (MUFARIG) propably it looks different. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Gesendet: Mo 16.04.2007 23:15 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Alejandro Pisanty Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Alejandro, I generally agree with both of you. Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet governance, not global governance in general. But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in our case. A technical matter. ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or should not be next are appropriate. Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d recommendations.) I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say 'start.' Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not yet created. 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 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 llynch at civil-tongue.net Tue Apr 17 11:17:41 2007 From: llynch at civil-tongue.net (Lucy Lynch) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070417080611.S295@hiroshima.bogus.com> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > I return to the point that ICANN was not originally created as a political > body, and its institutional structure was not originally designed to be > tasked to resolve political issues. I still have much to learn about the > (apparently arcane) history of how the advisory penumbra surrounding ICANN > came into being, but my a priori guess would be that that process was > somewhat "ad hoc" itself. Not exactly the result of a coherent > constitutional convention, or anything -- not even an "informal" > deliberative forum systematically tasked to explore the possibilities such > as IGF. no need to guess: http://web.archive.org/web/19980526082418/http://www.iahc.org/ http://web.archive.org/web/19980415064417/www.gtld-mou.org/ and http://www.gtld-mou.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html Note that there were already a number of "Internet bodies" involved. see also: http://www.livinginternet.com/i/iw_mgmt.htm http://www.livinginternet.com/i/im_org.htm and, just for fun, go here: http://www.touchgraph.com/TGGoogleBrowser.html and type in your favorite I* (IETF/IAB/ISOC/IANA/IGF/ICANN/etc) and see what you get. - Lucy ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 17 12:51:59 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:51:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] On .cat, .berlin and categories of TLDs Message-ID: <954259bd0704170951j17ef0a13wd50a6cb8545d3dc7@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Following the exchange below between Wolfgang and Michael Leibrandt about .cat and .berlin, just a small but important point : as far as i understand, .cat is a linguistic TLD and not a geographic TLD. It stands for "catalan" and not "catalunya". Cultural and linguistic TLDs. If this TLD opens a category, it is probably the category of cultural and linguistic TLDs and not a GEO-TLD (whatever that may mean). But of course it was a smart way to avoid the potential dangers and resistances regarding a potential .catalunya. Everything was done by Amadeu and other proponents to anticipate the potential difficulties the application might encounter. In this respect it paved the way for a set of criteria that might be used in the future for other similar applications. One of the difficulties to address will be the case of cultural communities that have a specific historic language that is not very actively used today. Should the requirements applied to .cat registrants (to have some content in catalan) be applied as stringently to other languages less actively used ? Or could the "cultural" requirements be more flexible ? Relevant governments and public authorities. An aditional issue is the role of the respective governments concerned by the creation of such a type of cultural TLD. Interestingly, this is a good example of a situation where a government (or some governments) is (are) considered as stakeholder(s) and are consulted separately rather than the GAC as a whole. The recently adopted GAC principles for the introduction of new TLDs addresses this aspect, in particular for geographic and cultural denominations (Para 2.2). City TLDs. The .berlin application is obviously a template for a different category - irrespective of whether it is accepted or not - : in that case it could be called CityTLDs (or CityLDs ?). This is clearly a category that could be either discussed in general terms reagrding the opportunity of its creation or, to be more pragmatic, the .berlin application could be addressed for its own merits, keeping in mind that this would become a case study for the general category. In any case, there probably is a benefit to address the issue of the introduction of new TLDs, keeping in mind the concept of categories of TLDs. Best Bertrand On 4/15/07, Wolfgang Kleinwächter < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Michael Leibrand: > I'm not aware of any substantial .cat discussions in the GAC. > > Wolfgang: > It was probably not discussed in the GAC (unfortunately the GAC meets in > closed sessions), but as Amadeu told us during the ICANN Studienkreis > meeting in Brussels in October 2005 ICANN wanted to have a statement by the > Spanish government which was provided by the relevant ministry via the > Spanish ambassador in Washington to ICANN (and supported also by letters > from Andorra and the relevant local authority in France where Catalans are > living) . With such a letter ICANN had no reason to ask more questions or to > approach the GAC as a whole. I personally had a number of individual > discussions with GAC members in Luxembourg in July 2005, a couple of month > before the .cat contract was signed. The majority of the GAC members was > well aware that this case could become the starting point of a big wave with > a lot of political dynamite (.basque, .tibet, .tschetschnia .ossetia etc.) > but everybody told me "this is not my problem here". When the new gTLD > issues was raised in the open GAC meeting, there was silence. Then Michael > Niebel raised the .xxx case an the whole discussion on new gTLDs started to > become re-focused while .cat continued (fortunately) in the shadow of any > serious governmental discussion. > > My approach is that the existing formulations in the GAC gTLD principle > give enough space to handle individual applications on a case by case basis. > A GEO-TLD can always be linked to a public authority (or to a number of > public authorities if you have cities/regions/lakes/mountains with the same > name in different countries) so that you can bring the involved parties on > one table and look into the specific constellation. If the applicant can > demonstrate his technical and financial capability as well as a documented > interest of a substantial clocal community and if there is no serious > concern by an involved public authority, the GEO-TLD should be allocated > without any furhter discussion by the GAC or any other committee. Certainly > the local public authority has the right to formulate some conditions which > can be incorporated into or annxed to the ICANN-Registry contract. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] > Gesendet: Di 10.04.2007 16:12 > An: Carlos Afonso; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship > in Domain Names > > > > 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. Michael, Berlin > _______________________________________________________________ > > -- ____________________ 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 17 12:57:29 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:57:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: Bill and Jeremy: >>> Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au 4/17/2007 4:58 AM >>> >but surely our energies are better expended in >reforming the IGF than in resigning ourselves to its failure and >starting from scratch. True, of course I am not calling for starting from scratch. The IGF is a valuable forum for advocacy and a "bully pulpit" to use an American slang. I am not giving up on it and I hope my comments are not being interpreted that way. But the severe limits being placed on its agenda are a source of concern, especially when key actors in ICANN civil society (i.e., Vittorio) seem to be abandoning the opportunity to attempt to reform ICANN from an IGF-based platform. And to address Bill's comments: >> Can you tell me why >> holding a conference and chatting with ourselves is such a brilliant >> solution, and what problem it is a solution to? > >No I cannot, which speaks precisely to how such any such >processes end up after they get run through the wringer of >power and divided interests. Ok, so we see the situation in similar ways >The forum can still be useful to the extent that dialogue, >collective learning, and networking are useful. >Whether it can do more than that is obviously more than >unclear. Again, we are in fundamental agreement. My frustration comes from your attacks on a Framework Convention as a way of moving forward when no better alternatives are offered. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 17 13:16:26 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:46:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070417171614.A64795D77@smtp2.electricembers.net> Bill > The original concept wasn't tried a first time, but I'm talking about > something more streamlined, monitoring/analysis per the caucus' original > proposal. Would you then agree to the kind of analytical questions based agenda that I had proposed as IGC's position for May consultation on IGF? Time is short and we need to begin developing our very interesting (and I must say, mutually evolutionary) discussions into advocacy outputs in terms of the immediate context that we face... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:53 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > MM, > > On 4/17/07 10:29 AM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > > > > >>>> drake at hei.unige.ch 4/17/2007 3:32 AM >>> > >> Tackling IG through a meta-convention > >> would be a very modernist response to a postmodern condition, > >> like trying to depict in a single point perspective painting a reality > > > >> that can only be visualized with a hologram. > > > > I wish I could convey how amusing you all sound, > > lost in your metaphors of "new" kaleidoscopic realities. In the > > Always happy to be part of the legions of folks who amuse you. Tickling > the > lion is great fun, since one never knows what will ensue. > > > meantime, the same old power holders, using the same old mechanisms and > > a few subtle new ones, are running the game. And some of us in civil > > society are soooooo easily co-opted by being invited onto consultative > > mechanisms like WGIG or ALAC that have no effect on the actual regime > > but somewhow make people feel important and thereby transform them into > > enthusiastic free workrs and sometimes apologists for the institutions > > that have duped them. > > > >> IG broadly defined is too heterogeneous and > >> institutionally distributed for a singular negotiated framework, and > > any > > > > No one said a FC is going to deal with any and every aspect of IG. The > > problem to be solved is the relationship between public policy issues > > and states. An FC can, and should, delegate or leave alone many things, > > Oh, well that narrows it down. > > > thereby helping to resolve many of the legitimacy and competing claims > > for authorty. > > > >> Conversely, focusing on IG narrowly > >> defined around core resources would be simply become the oversight > >> debate redux and lead into the same cul de sac. > > > > The only cul de sac is the intransigence of the USG, and we are going > > to have a new administration most likely. > > > >> There's also the antecedent > >> problem that key parties would be opposed to even discussing this > >> for fear they would lose control of the dialogue. > > > > That is indeed a problem, but its a political problem and you don't > > solve it by conceding defeat off the bat. Political constraints are > > amenable to political agitation. > > A bit Sisyphean for those of us who are less agitated, and meanwhile there > are may be other hills with smaller boulders worth pushing. > > >> Multi-issue, multi-player multi-preference negotiations frequently is > > not > >> a formula for consequential agreements. > > > > This argyument has some validity, i.e. is a real source of concern, but > > can you say we have never developed an environmental framework....oops, > > I guess we did. Well, I guess that explains why the WTO was never able > > to negotiate a free trade agreement on telecomms and IT > > equipment...oops, I guess they did that, too. No, it is just a question > > of political will. > > Actually these mechanisms are not comparably multidimensional and the > problems were specified in ways that were more tractable. > > >> Plus, where would you do it, there's no > >> appropriate forum for such a negotiation, much less an appropriate > > mechanism > >> to monitor and promote compliance with commitments. > > > > An FC creates one. This is not a real argument. > > You must be joking. Legally and politically it'd have to be launched > under > some extant institutional auspices. Look at the IGF's problems. Which do > you prefer, ITU or ECOSOC? > > >> Personally, I think this is a chimera and a distraction. > > > > That is my attitude toward the IGF, increasingly. Can you tell me why > > holding a conference and chatting with ourselves is such a brilliant > > solution, and what problem it is a solution to? > > No I cannot, which speaks precisely to how such any such processes end up > after they get run through the wringer of power and divided interests. > > > >> Where I think he and I might disagree is that I'd > >> favor having some means of holistic monitoring/analysis that'd draw > >> attention to the connections and possible conflicts between these so > >> adjustments could be made etc. > > > > But that's what the Forum was supposed to do. And if the political will > > is not there to do something real about these governance issues, then > > the Forum can't work any more than a FC. So you are led back to the > > Well, it depends on your definition of "work." The forum can still be > useful > to the extent that dialogue, collective learning, and networking are > useful. > Whether it can do more than that is obviously more than unclear. > > > proposition that we must advocate some form of governance > > institution-building that is REAL, not a co-optation mechanism or a way > > of sidelining and neutralizing actual debate over substance. > > I'm not sure why that follows. > > >> That was part of the original thinking > >> behind the forum concept, at least for some of us, but if the forum > > can't > >> play this role something else is needed. > > > > In other words, you admit that the oh so sophisticated "post modern" > > approach has failed, but we should try it again? > > The original concept wasn't tried a first time, but I'm talking about > something more streamlined, monitoring/analysis per the caucus' original > proposal. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Apr 17 13:59:01 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:59:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 4/17/07 6:57 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > My frustration comes from your attacks on a Framework Convention as a > way of moving forward when no better alternatives are offered. Don't be frustrated on my account. BTW I wasn't attacking, I was just saying that I like others here am not persuaded as of yet and the hurdles seem significant. Maybe if you lay out what exactly you have in mind such concerns would be allayed somewhat. Thus far it's been proposed in a rather abstract manner that makes it look like form's not following function. On 4/17/07 7:16 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > Bill > >> The original concept wasn't tried a first time, but I'm talking about >> something more streamlined, monitoring/analysis per the caucus' original >> proposal. > > Would you then agree to the kind of analytical questions based agenda that I > had proposed as IGC's position for May consultation on IGF? By that do you mean this? On 4/13/07 12:53 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >(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 If so, we're not talking about the same thing. I was talking about multistakeholder or nongovernmental monitoring/analysis as a horizontal complement to a vertically segmented and distributed institutional architecture that arguably makes a meaningful FC difficult to do. I personally don't find the above formulations to be optimal. 1 is too broad, 2 sounds a bit like beating dead horses, and 3 is too narrow. But others probably feel differently... Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Tue Apr 17 14:02:45 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:02:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > True, of course I am not calling for starting from scratch. The IGF is > a valuable forum for advocacy and a "bully pulpit" to use an American > slang. I am not giving up on it and I hope my comments are not being > interpreted that way. But the severe limits being placed on its agenda > are a source of concern, especially when key actors in ICANN civil > society (i.e., Vittorio) seem to be abandoning the opportunity to > attempt to reform ICANN from an IGF-based platform. I must confess to be somehow lost in your reasoning. First you complain that the IGF is a forum for advocacy and for discussion only. Then you complain that ICANN reforms are not on the agenda of the IGF. And finally you complain about abandoning an "opportunity to attempt to reform ICANN from the IGF" which, if you accept your premise six lines before, does not exist. Earlier today, you complained that those from civil society who accept serving in positions at ICANN are being "soooooo easily co-opted" just to "feel important". In the meantime, you serve as the Chair of one of the two civil society structures of ICANN. So I'm not sure about what you are actually meaning, whether according to you it's good or bad for civil society to be engaged in ICANN, and what would be your practical suggestion for a politically feasible process to change ICANN and in what direction. As for ICANN reforms and the IGF, what I've said is that, given that any reforms of ICANN will have to be approved by the Board of ICANN, it might be more productive to participate in the process that ICANN has set up at its own meetings to discuss its strategic evolution, rather than to stand at the "bully pulpit" in Rio to rant about how ICANN needs to change. But these are just my two cents. -- 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 veni at veni.com Tue Apr 17 15:09:05 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:09:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> Vittorio, At 20:02 4/17/2007 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Milton Mueller ha scritto: >>True, of course I am not calling for starting from scratch. The IGF is >>a valuable forum for advocacy and a "bully pulpit" to use an American >>slang. I am not giving up on it and I hope my comments are not being >>interpreted that way. But the severe limits being placed on its agenda >>are a source of concern, especially when key actors in ICANN civil >>society (i.e., Vittorio) seem to be abandoning the opportunity to >>attempt to reform ICANN from an IGF-based platform. > >I must confess to be somehow lost in your reasoning. >First you complain that the IGF is a forum for advocacy and for >discussion only. >Then you complain that ICANN reforms are not on the agenda of the IGF. >And finally you complain about abandoning an "opportunity to attempt >to reform ICANN from the IGF" which, if you accept your premise six >lines before, does not exist. >Earlier today, you complained that those from civil society who >accept serving in positions at ICANN are being "soooooo easily >co-opted" just to "feel important". You've captured the moment quite correctly. It is only about complaints, and not that much about becoming part of the solution. You've counted only five complaints, just in a couple of e-mails. If you go into the mailing list history, you may find more. It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people who complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the people who constructively contribute. The WSIS/WGIG/IGF were never meant to be the venue where people would complain. One could go back into time quite easily, and see not only why they were formed, but also who was the driving force. The important topics today, for the civil society, and for the businesses, are not the one, which are on the US-centric agenda, is not what ICANN does, but (in random order), let's choose 3 of the "hot topics": - affordability of access - accessibility of Internet (both as accessibility for people with disabilities, and for people who don't have access at all) - content control In my part of the world, nobody cares about the dot com, or the dot net. Everyone cares about their national ccTLD. May be it's time that we focus on the real issues, not on the ones where people make politics. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 16:27:39 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] stakeholders vs. natural individuals In-Reply-To: <46232C96.4060001@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <8800.55480.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > Hmm, perhaps I have not articulated my point adequately. And perhaps the problem comes from the fact (at least as I read it) that from a critique of ICANN's practices you take on a broader critique of the concept itself, which might have broader effects that may not be relevant to your purpose. Which might be better served by delineating/defining more specifically your concept and/or context (taking into account the new context created by WSIS) and stick to that throughout. In other words, maybe your critique shouldn't be that of a concept, but that of the ICANN use of it. Otherwise, as I read you about stakeholder in the broader context (as in "multi-stakeholder") following are some additional thoughts. Yes, stake should not be (exclusively) translated into "property rights, financial and profit-generating assets." In the name of the end-to-end principle of the Internet, at least, the end user obviously has a stake in IG matters, too. I'm just not sure whether the origin of the current situation is nominal ("stakeholder" a wrong label?) or conceptual rather than political (internal governance of a corporation that has political attachment, etc.) So we can only agree if the purpose here is to warn against the ever growing tendency of the current main IG institution to trump the public and end-user's interests with the corporate and industry's. But beyond that, I am afraid it quickly might become an impractical ambition. Unless we want to use IG to tell governments around the world to make more use of deliberative democracy, and to be more accountable to and more representative of their individual citizens..., which, for someone who would like to see IG focused only on very technical matters far from public policy and politics, would be quite an ambition, one must admit. So far as the Westphalian modern state (nation-state) is the main/dominant political actor in national and international rulemaking, coercion and enforcement, national governments will still be around, claiming more or less legitimately to represent the people they rule. And as you suggest, businesses may also claim some level of accountability toward, and a different type of "representation" (than political) of, their shareholders. Note, the incorporated CSOs may also have the same claim of accountability and representativity of their membership and constituencies. So again, we agree that ICANN board members should be more sensible, in the decision they make, to the individual users (and broader public interest) and feel accountable to them as well (at least.) But IMO, that is a corporate governance issue, not a problem with the notion of "stakeholder" as understood in "multistakeholder". If the contrary, we will have to tell the governments to bring the individual citizens, and to businesses to bring the individual shareholders at the table (just as when CS comes together as a global stakeholder, they may include non-affiliated individuals.) Though that might be a wonderful thing, it didn't seem to me that that was what you/we are after (i.e. a global reform for a new political, economic and social order!) So maybe it's better to focus on the organizational arrangements (to be embedded in istitutional design) that would make a body like ICANN or its successor more responsive to the individuals' needs and broader public interest -- instead of the critique of a "concept" that is (now) used largely beyond ICANN and would require a more complex argumentation. Mawaki (who also romanticizes sometimes but preferably not while looking back at history, with no guarantee of success ;-)) --- Karl Auerbach wrote: > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > All this is a little bit too romantic... > > Hmm, perhaps I have not articulated my point adequately. > > I'm not looking for Athenian democracy, far from it. > > Rather I'm trying to prevent the opposite - the pre-ordained > choosing > (by whom?) of "stakeholders" that have built-in, fixed, > permanent seats > of power and authority. > > Unless there is a period re-evaluation of whether aggregations > actually > express the opinions of the people who form them, those > aggregations > become detached from any reality except themselves. > > There are not many national governments that overtly claim > that they are > constructed on the principle that for-profit aggregations run > the show; > most governments still retain the appearance of people > electing > representatives to the governments they live under. > > And even for-profit corporations give shareholders a vote for > directors, > to vote on important measures and, if enough shareholders > agree, to even > on occasion, to supersede the board of directors. > > So I am not really convinced that occasional recourse to > living, > breathing people is all that much of a romantic notion. > > And if it is such a notion, then I am proud to be a romantic. > > The larger question is why we have chosen to so quickly > abandon the idea > that people have no place in internet governance? > > As for the point of ICANN - You are right that it is more than > ICANN's > erasure of elections that has caused it to become a > combination in > restraint of trade and an impediment to internet innovation. > It is also > the fact that for some reason the many seated directors have > chosen to > treat their seats as honorific positions on an advisory panel > rather > than as the representatives of the public interest who have a > strong, > fiduciary obligation to that interest. How do we cure that? > The answer > is not nominating committee that pick the least of the least > prickley. > Rather it is elections that allow the public to throw the > incumbents out > on their bums and install people who understand that they are > the > plenary authorities on their body of governance. > > --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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Apr 17 20:05:29 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:05:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <019401c7814d$4adb7630$e0926290$@com> Vittorio Why not work in both forums? Work both within the ICANN process and the IGF? Must it be either/or? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Milton Mueller ha scritto: > True, of course I am not calling for starting from scratch. The IGF is > a valuable forum for advocacy and a "bully pulpit" to use an American > slang. I am not giving up on it and I hope my comments are not being > interpreted that way. But the severe limits being placed on its agenda > are a source of concern, especially when key actors in ICANN civil > society (i.e., Vittorio) seem to be abandoning the opportunity to > attempt to reform ICANN from an IGF-based platform. I must confess to be somehow lost in your reasoning. First you complain that the IGF is a forum for advocacy and for discussion only. Then you complain that ICANN reforms are not on the agenda of the IGF. And finally you complain about abandoning an "opportunity to attempt to reform ICANN from the IGF" which, if you accept your premise six lines before, does not exist. Earlier today, you complained that those from civil society who accept serving in positions at ICANN are being "soooooo easily co-opted" just to "feel important". In the meantime, you serve as the Chair of one of the two civil society structures of ICANN. So I'm not sure about what you are actually meaning, whether according to you it's good or bad for civil society to be engaged in ICANN, and what would be your practical suggestion for a politically feasible process to change ICANN and in what direction. As for ICANN reforms and the IGF, what I've said is that, given that any reforms of ICANN will have to be approved by the Board of ICANN, it might be more productive to participate in the process that ICANN has set up at its own meetings to discuss its strategic evolution, rather than to stand at the "bully pulpit" in Rio to rant about how ICANN needs to change. But these are just my two cents. -- 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Tue Apr 17 21:55:17 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:55:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <1547763571@web.de> Wolfgang, I guess it's not by accident that your language regarding the introduction of Geo-TLD differs significantly from the already adopted GAC gTLD principles. You suggest that a Geo-TLD should be introduced if the relevant public authority does not have "serious" problems with the specific proposal. But than you're back to the question: Who is going to decide if the objections coming from the relevant public authority are "serious" enough to stop the introduction of the TLD. Should a California based organization do this assessment? Or those parts of the local Internet community that want to cash in with the proposed business model? Or a local multistakeholder forum? What if there is no consensus in such a forum? Another aspect that worries me is the lack of distinction between the question of "should a specific Geo-TLD be introduced" and the somewhat different question of "who should operate a specific Geo-TLD". I could imagine a situation where a local community would like to see a Geo-TLD, but actually does not trust the one and only organisation that is applying for running that TLD. For example: Think of a scenario where a private company that intends to apply for a Geo-TLD related to your hometown starts offering domain names under that TLD for five digit USD prices long before even the application process of ICANN has started, not giving investors the full picture of the application process and its risk. Honestly, would you trust such a company and would you like to see it running that particulare Geo-TLD, even if you're generally in favour of introducing the new name space? Michael, Las Vegas _______________________________________________________________ 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 23:36:43 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <630372.86538.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Bill and Alejandro, First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on public policy) but not without accepting external inputs (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) Now about the other technical, management, practical functions of IG, I do think Alejandro is right to advocate the domain-specific approach of governance. The thing is without the rules and processes that will frame possible interventions from government authorities, that work performed by honest people (with all the users relying on them) can be hijacked at anytime under any pretence by those governments with coercive resources. The purpose of an international agreement, as I see it, is to avoid just that, by clarifying (and delineating) the function of the govts in IG, and by defining the rules of their possible intervention. Mawaki --- William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On 4/16/07 3:59 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: > > > Wolfgang: > > > > I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a > pioneer, trying to > > explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing > into directions where > > others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new > beast" has to be > > created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism > and open and > > transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework > Convention" (a > > tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like > Alejandro. It creates a > > box and the history tells us that some people will start to > fill the box with > > something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. > This is top down. > > I agree with Wolfgang and Alejandro. Tackling IG through a > meta-convention > would be a very modernist response to a postmodern condition, > like trying to > depict in a single point perspective painting a reality that > can only be > visualized with a hologram. IG broadly defined is too > heterogeneous and > institutionally distributed for a singular negotiated > framework, and any > overarching principles, norms, etc. applicable across > mechanisms would be > too generic to be of much value-added. Conversely, focusing > on IG narrowly > defined around core resources would be simply become the > oversight debate > redux and lead into the same cul de sac. There's also the > antecedent > problem that key parties would be opposed to even discussing > this for fear > they would lose control of the dialogue. And even if their > opposition to > discussing it could be overcome, there's little likelihood of > actually > reaching a meaningful agreement. Even a ³soft² law regime > agreement would > be enormously difficult---the WSIS conflicts on steroids. > Multi-issue > multi-player multi-preference negotiations frequently is not a > formula for > consequential agreements. Plus, where would you do it, > there's no > appropriate forum for such a negotiation, much less an > appropriate mechanism > to monitor and promote compliance with commitments. > Personally, I think > this is a chimera and a distraction. Alejandro's right, given > the lay of > the land, it's better to address specific issues through > functionally > specific mechanisms. Where I think he and I might disagree is > that I'd > favor having some means of holistic monitoring/analysis that'd > draw > attention to the connections and possible conflicts between > these so > adjustments could be made etc. That was part of the original > thinking > behind the forum concept, at least for some of us, but if the > forum can't > play this role something else is needed. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 18 01:28:52 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:28:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people who > complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the people who > constructively contribute. I really do hope that the way I read your words in English is not reflective of what you intended to express. The sentiment conveyed by those words in English can readily be constructed as casting aspersions upon all of the people, including myself, who worked so hard for so many years and met with nothing but ostracism, rejection, defamatory statements, and even unlawful acts. Even Sisyphus got tired of rolling that boulder up that mountain every day just to watch it roll back down every evening. --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 18 03:04:32 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:04:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <019401c7814d$4adb7630$e0926290$@com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <019401c7814d$4adb7630$e0926290$@com> Message-ID: <4625C300.3070808@bertola.eu> Jacqueline A. Morris ha scritto: > Vittorio > Why not work in both forums? Work both within the ICANN process and the IGF? > Must it be either/or? Incidentally, that's what I'm doing, but let me explain again what I said: > As for ICANN reforms and the IGF, what I've said is that, given that any > reforms of ICANN will have to be approved by the Board of ICANN, it > might be more productive to participate in the process that ICANN has > set up at its own meetings to discuss its strategic evolution, rather > than to stand at the "bully pulpit" in Rio to rant about how ICANN needs > to change. But these are just my two cents. I'm not saying "do this and don't do that", I'm just pointing out that IMHO one thing is likely to have effects and the other is unlikely to have effects (Bill called it "beating dead horses") - then, everyone is free to decide where to allocate time. Personally, I'd hope that the IGF can rather discuss the zillions of very important IG issues that don't have a home, but if people want to discuss about ICANN at the IGF, there's nothing wrong. However, I fear that a discussion on ICANN at the IGF would be so vague to mostly end up in people doing the diplomatical equivalent of shouting "the USG is bad!", "no, the USG is good!", "free markets suck!" etc. - rather than focusing on any practical idea to make ICANN better, which is what we actually need. -- 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 18 03:21:59 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:51:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20070418072150.A29A8E0447@smtp3.electricembers.net> Veni > The important topics today, for the civil society, and for the > businesses, are not the one, which are on the US-centric agenda, is > not what ICANN does, but (in random order), let's choose 3 of the "hot > topics": > > - affordability of access > - accessibility of Internet (both as accessibility for people with > disabilities, and for people who don't have access at all) > - content control. The issue is not just what to discuss, but (more, importantly) why, i.e. to what effect. IGF is not merely a deliberative space but (again, more importantly) a political one... Or at least somewhere in between the two. So the issue is not only 'affordability of access', but what exactly is it you think different actors (at the global level primarily, but also other levels, secondarily) can and should do about it - and how can we try to push them to do it. We need contributions and advocacy in that direction. Without that 'access' is an empty concept. I have seen too many people think very differently about it, and too many people speak about it glibly, even deceitfully, because they aren't interested in real political issues which impact access. 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: Veni Markovski [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Veni > Markovski > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:39 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola; > governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Vittorio, > > At 20:02 4/17/2007 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >Milton Mueller ha scritto: > >>True, of course I am not calling for starting from scratch. The IGF is > >>a valuable forum for advocacy and a "bully pulpit" to use an American > >>slang. I am not giving up on it and I hope my comments are not being > >>interpreted that way. But the severe limits being placed on its agenda > >>are a source of concern, especially when key actors in ICANN civil > >>society (i.e., Vittorio) seem to be abandoning the opportunity to > >>attempt to reform ICANN from an IGF-based platform. > > > >I must confess to be somehow lost in your reasoning. > >First you complain that the IGF is a forum for advocacy and for > >discussion only. > >Then you complain that ICANN reforms are not on the agenda of the IGF. > >And finally you complain about abandoning an "opportunity to attempt > >to reform ICANN from the IGF" which, if you accept your premise six > >lines before, does not exist. > >Earlier today, you complained that those from civil society who > >accept serving in positions at ICANN are being "soooooo easily > >co-opted" just to "feel important". > > You've captured the moment quite correctly. It is only about > complaints, and not that much about becoming part of the solution. > You've counted only five complaints, just in a couple of e-mails. If > you go into the mailing list history, you may find more. > > It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people > who complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the > people who constructively contribute. > The WSIS/WGIG/IGF were never meant to be the venue where people would > complain. One could go back into time quite easily, and see not only > why they were formed, but also who was the driving force. > The important topics today, for the civil society, and for the > businesses, are not the one, which are on the US-centric agenda, is > not what ICANN does, but (in random order), let's choose 3 of the "hot > topics": > > - affordability of access > - accessibility of Internet (both as accessibility for people with > disabilities, and for people who don't have access at all) > - content control > > In my part of the world, nobody cares about the dot com, or the dot > net. Everyone cares about their national ccTLD. May be it's time that > we focus on the real issues, not on the ones where people make politics. > > veni > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Apr 18 03:48:55 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:48:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <630372.86538.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Mawaki, On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it > sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" > of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than > postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my > understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis > to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, > the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy > issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so > far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such > authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it > shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could > as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where > governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on > public policy) but not without accepting external inputs > (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what John proposed in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's only written statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept paper, more of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further specification, it's natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended to entail, and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could be The Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you guys take the next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and around talking past each other. On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has clear legal bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC would relate to and further clarify the disparate bits of national and international law underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and trade, security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you actually mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, and that this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal bases there too but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the idea is to change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. And spell out what it might look like so people have something concrete to react to, rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Apr 18 04:19:45 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:19:45 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names References: <1547763571@web.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2FB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Best regards to Las Vegas! There is no conflict in my statements. My position is rather clear. I say yes to new TLDs, including GEO-TLDs (cities, regions, lakes, mountains etc.). I recognize Bertrands intervention that cities are probably a special case (like regions which are politically or culturally defined like Saxony, the Basque Country, Texas or Tibet). In such a case both the GAC ccTLD principles and the GAC gTLD principles offer a procedure. I would reject a concrete proposal where the affected local Internet community has fundamental reservations or concerns. Ig a citizen of Nigeria establish a company in Brazil and applies for .ossetia I had some problems. The applicant for a city or region TLD has to demonstrate the support of the LIC. But the LIC is more than the local authority. If the Lord Mayor of London is against .london but the local Internet community of London wants to have it, they have to come together to figure it out. In the case of .london, I would not support that a company based in Tuvalu would run the .london registry against the will of the public authority and the LIC of London. But if the London public authority accepts that a .london registry is run by a private corporation (according to UK law) this is fine to me. There is no need that ICANN has to look into the details of the local regulation. What ICANN needs is a clear statement, that the Local Community has no concerns and wants to have it. If the LIC is divided, more discussion is needed. But a simple NO by the Lord Mayor is no argument against the project. You have to ask the user and potential registrants whether they want to have it or not. Catalans wanted to have . cat. Asians wanted to have .asia. If Londoners (or Leipzigers) want to have .london or .leipzig, they should get it. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 03:55 An: LMcKnigh at syr.edu; Mueller at syr.edu; expression at ipjustice.org; goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Wolfgang, I guess it's not by accident that your language regarding the introduction of Geo-TLD differs significantly from the already adopted GAC gTLD principles. You suggest that a Geo-TLD should be introduced if the relevant public authority does not have "serious" problems with the specific proposal. But than you're back to the question: Who is going to decide if the objections coming from the relevant public authority are "serious" enough to stop the introduction of the TLD. Should a California based organization do this assessment? Or those parts of the local Internet community that want to cash in with the proposed business model? Or a local multistakeholder forum? What if there is no consensus in such a forum? Another aspect that worries me is the lack of distinction between the question of "should a specific Geo-TLD be introduced" and the somewhat different question of "who should operate a specific Geo-TLD". I could imagine a situation where a local community would like to see a Geo-TLD, but actually does not trust the one and only organisation that is applying for running that TLD. For example: Think of a scenario where a private company that intends to apply for a Geo-TLD related to your hometown starts offering domain names under that TLD for five digit USD prices long before even the application process of ICANN has started, not giving investors the full picture of the application process and its risk. Honestly, would you trust such a company and would you like to see it running that particulare Geo-TLD, even if you're generally in favour of introducing the new name space? Michael, Las Vegas _______________________________________________________________ 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 18 04:53:57 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:53:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> Message-ID: >Veni Markovski wrote: > >>It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people >>who complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the >>people who constructively contribute. > >I really do hope that the way I read your words in English is not >reflective of what you intended to express. The sentiment conveyed >by those words in English can readily be constructed as casting >aspersions upon all of the people, including myself, who worked so >hard for so many years and met with nothing but ostracism, >rejection, defamatory statements, and even unlawful acts. Isn't the reverse equally true. People who have worked hard for many years only to be met with insult, have their motives questioned, law suits, etc etc. Board members contribute around 17 hours week to ICANN. Many GNSO council members probably as much. ALAC and ccNSO perhaps a little less (a little less...more than a day/week!) When have we ever seen anyone say a positive thing about any of them. It's amazing that an organization based on the good will of volunteers continues to survive. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 18 05:24:01 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:54:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2FB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20070418092351.A65E4C9555@smtp1.electricembers.net> >I > would reject a concrete proposal where the affected local Internet > community has fundamental reservations or concerns. Ig a citizen of > Nigeria establish a company in Brazil and applies for .ossetia I had some > problems. The applicant for a city or region TLD has to demonstrate the > support of the LIC. But the LIC is more than the local authority. If the > Lord Mayor of London is against .london but the local Internet community > of London wants to have it, they have to come together to figure it out. > In the case of .london, I would not support that a company based in Tuvalu > would run the .london registry against the will of the public authority > and the LIC of London. But if the London public authority accepts that a > .london registry is run by a private corporation (according to UK law) > this is fine to me. There is no need that ICANN has to look into the > details of the local regulation. What ICANN needs is a clear statement, > that the Local Community has no concerns and wants to have it. If the LIC > is divided, more discussion is needed. .............. > > Best regards > > wolfgang 'Internet community' again. Wolfgang, will you describe to me what constitutes internet community... Even with knowing what is internet community it will be difficult to find out what 'it' thinks and wants, but without knowing what it is, I am really confounded. Much of the current IG system has its logical/ ideological basis in this particular term. Will greatly help to get a clear picture of it. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:50 PM > To: Michael Leibrandt; LMcKnigh at syr.edu; Mueller at syr.edu; > expression at ipjustice.org; goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in > Domain Names > > Best regards to Las Vegas! > > There is no conflict in my statements. My position is rather clear. I say > yes to new TLDs, including GEO-TLDs (cities, regions, lakes, mountains > etc.). I recognize Bertrands intervention that cities are probably a > special case (like regions which are politically or culturally defined > like Saxony, the Basque Country, Texas or Tibet). In such a case both the > GAC ccTLD principles and the GAC gTLD principles offer a procedure. I > would reject a concrete proposal where the affected local Internet > community has fundamental reservations or concerns. Ig a citizen of > Nigeria establish a company in Brazil and applies for .ossetia I had some > problems. The applicant for a city or region TLD has to demonstrate the > support of the LIC. But the LIC is more than the local authority. If the > Lord Mayor of London is against .london but the local Internet community > of London wants to have it, they have to come together to figure it out. > In the case of .london, I would not support that a company based in Tuvalu > would run the .london registry against the will of the public authority > and the LIC of London. But if the London public authority accepts that a > .london registry is run by a private corporation (according to UK law) > this is fine to me. There is no need that ICANN has to look into the > details of the local regulation. What ICANN needs is a clear statement, > that the Local Community has no concerns and wants to have it. If the LIC > is divided, more discussion is needed. But a simple NO by the Lord Mayor > is no argument against the project. You have to ask the user and potential > registrants whether they want to have it or not. Catalans wanted to have . > cat. Asians wanted to have .asia. If Londoners (or Leipzigers) want to > have .london or .leipzig, they should get it. > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 03:55 > An: LMcKnigh at syr.edu; Mueller at syr.edu; expression at ipjustice.org; > goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang > Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in > Domain Names > > > > Wolfgang, > > I guess it's not by accident that your language regarding the introduction > of Geo-TLD differs significantly from the already adopted GAC gTLD > principles. You suggest that a Geo-TLD should be introduced if the > relevant public authority does not have "serious" problems with the > specific proposal. But than you're back to the question: Who is going to > decide if the objections coming from the relevant public authority are > "serious" enough to stop the introduction of the TLD. Should a California > based organization do this assessment? Or those parts of the local > Internet community that want to cash in with the proposed business model? > Or a local multistakeholder forum? What if there is no consensus in such a > forum? > > Another aspect that worries me is the lack of distinction between the > question of "should a specific Geo-TLD be introduced" and the somewhat > different question of "who should operate a specific Geo-TLD". I could > imagine a situation where a local community would like to see a Geo-TLD, > but actually does not trust the one and only organisation that is applying > for running that TLD. For example: Think of a scenario where a private > company that intends to apply for a Geo-TLD related to your hometown > starts offering domain names under that TLD for five digit USD prices long > before even the application process of ICANN has started, not giving > investors the full picture of the application process and its risk. > Honestly, would you trust such a company and would you like to see it > running that particulare Geo-TLD, even if you're generally in favour of > introducing the new name space? > > Michael, Las Vegas > _______________________________________________________________ > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Apr 18 05:27:33 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:27:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] New TLDs Message-ID: <954259bd0704180227o22a58530h1a0b2c1d1b727011@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Sorry to intervene again in a discussion between two distinguished germans :-) Just a few additional elements, following my previous post : 1) Michael wrote : "Another aspect that worries me is the lack of distinction between the question of "should a specific Geo-TLD be introduced" and the somewhat different question of "who should operate a specific Geo-TLD". This is precisely the reason for the distinction introduced in the GAC's gTLD principles between the three dimensions : - Introduction : whether a given string should be introduced at all - Delegation : who should have the responsibility of managing the registry - Operation : day to day rules of management and relations with the registrars and registrants The three questions are not completely separate but still have to be addressed each on its own merits. 2) The various hypothetical but illustrative cases that Wolfgang is giving show the obvious complexity of the introduction of Geo TLDs and cultural TLDs - not to mention any other type of string. In addition, the criteria for those strings will be different from those that should be applicable to other types. The .xxx "telenovela" with its many episodes was enough to dissipate the illusion of a of a possible single "sponsored TLD" category. This demonstrates that TLDs cannot be treated with the same freedom as (second-level) domain names, just allowing any submission on a first come-first serve basis. In fact, significatively, they have never been treated as such. And there is no political consensus in favor of such an unrestricted rule - even if defending that position is perfectly legitimate, respectable and even useful. 3) The administrative burden is potentially enormous for ICANN staff and Board if each application is evaluated independently. Some sort of evolutive guidelines or clear methodology is necessary. By the way, as the unrestricted introduction of TLDs is unlikely to take place, those who desire a broad range of new TLDs should precisely be the ones most in favor of some common rules that could streamline the process. 4) Definition of the "relevant governments or public authorities", nature of the candidate registry (non-profit or not), level of support in the community, potential opposition from other communities ..... These are only some of the questions to address. The least one can say it that it amounts to a multi-dimensional criteria choice where, as mathematics teach us, it is difficult to find optimal solutions. This will ultimately be a question of balance of interests and of transparency in the decision-making. And of establishing "shared principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures" if this expression rings a bell for former WSIS participants ... This is why the GAC Principles for new gTLDs say in the last paragraph : "The evaluation procedures and criteria for introduction, delegation and operation of new TLDs should be developed and implemented with the participation of all stakeholders." 5) As a consequence, now that the GAC has issued its Principles for gTLDs, as soon as the gNSO achieves its own preliminary work, time will be ripe for a collective and truly multi-stakeholer effort to identify those "evaluation procedures and criteria". An open session during a future ICANN meeting could be the prelude to an open working group on that important issue. But most of all, given the present disparity of visions on how to move forward on new gTLDs as well as the tensions and bitterness produced by the .xxx process, such a collective effort is, I believe, an absolute prerequisite before any call for the introduction of new gTLDs is drafted by the ICANN staff. Best Bertrand On 4/18/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Best regards to Las Vegas! > > There is no conflict in my statements. My position is rather clear. I say > yes to new TLDs, including GEO-TLDs (cities, regions, lakes, mountains > etc.). I recognize Bertrands intervention that cities are probably a special > case (like regions which are politically or culturally defined like Saxony, > the Basque Country, Texas or Tibet). In such a case both the GAC ccTLD > principles and the GAC gTLD principles offer a procedure. I would reject a > concrete proposal where the affected local Internet community has > fundamental reservations or concerns. Ig a citizen of Nigeria establish a > company in Brazil and applies for .ossetia I had some problems. The > applicant for a city or region TLD has to demonstrate the support of the > LIC. But the LIC is more than the local authority. If the Lord Mayor of > London is against .london but the local Internet community of London wants > to have it, they have to come together to figure it out. In the case of > .london, I would not support that a company based in Tuvalu would run the > .london registry against the will of the public authority and the LIC of > London. But if the London public authority accepts that a .london registry > is run by a private corporation (according to UK law) this is fine to me. > There is no need that ICANN has to look into the details of the local > regulation. What ICANN needs is a clear statement, that the Local Community > has no concerns and wants to have it. If the LIC is divided, more discussion > is needed. But a simple NO by the Lord Mayor is no argument against the > project. You have to ask the user and potential registrants whether they > want to have it or not. Catalans wanted to have . cat. Asians wanted to have > .asia. If Londoners (or Leipzigers) want to have .london or .leipzig, they > should get it. > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 03:55 > An: LMcKnigh at syr.edu; Mueller at syr.edu; expression at ipjustice.org; > goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang > Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in > Domain Names > > > > Wolfgang, > > I guess it's not by accident that your language regarding the introduction > of Geo-TLD differs significantly from the already adopted GAC gTLD > principles. You suggest that a Geo-TLD should be introduced if the relevant > public authority does not have "serious" problems with the specific > proposal. But than you're back to the question: Who is going to decide if > the objections coming from the relevant public authority are "serious" > enough to stop the introduction of the TLD. Should a California based > organization do this assessment? Or those parts of the local Internet > community that want to cash in with the proposed business model? Or a local > multistakeholder forum? What if there is no consensus in such a forum? > > Another aspect that worries me is the lack of distinction between the > question of "should a specific Geo-TLD be introduced" and the somewhat > different question of "who should operate a specific Geo-TLD". I could > imagine a situation where a local community would like to see a Geo-TLD, but > actually does not trust the one and only organisation that is applying for > running that TLD. For example: Think of a scenario where a private company > that intends to apply for a Geo-TLD related to your hometown starts offering > domain names under that TLD for five digit USD prices long before even the > application process of ICANN has started, not giving investors the full > picture of the application process and its risk. Honestly, would you trust > such a company and would you like to see it running that particulare > Geo-TLD, even if you're generally in favour of introducing the new name > space? > > Michael, Las Vegas > _______________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- ____________________ 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 Wed Apr 18 05:59:29 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:59:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <019401c7814d$4adb7630$e0926290$@com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <019401c7814d$4adb7630$e0926290$@com> Message-ID: <954259bd0704180259m60c26fefo728bbe286e940519@mail.gmail.com> Jacqueline has taken words out of my mouth... Of course it's not either / or. The Internationalization of ICANN in 2010 is an issue that must be discussed within ICANN because it has many consequences for its internal functionning and procedures. But it is also natural to discuss it within the IGF because this new Forum has the mandate (72i) to "Promote [] the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes". In that respect, ICANN in its future evolution, has a similar challenge than all other relevant organizations : inventing a truly multi-stakeholder Internet governance. Bertrand On 4/18/07, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > > Vittorio > Why not work in both forums? Work both within the ICANN process and the > IGF? > Must it be either/or? > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:03 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > > True, of course I am not calling for starting from scratch. The IGF is > > a valuable forum for advocacy and a "bully pulpit" to use an American > > slang. I am not giving up on it and I hope my comments are not being > > interpreted that way. But the severe limits being placed on its agenda > > are a source of concern, especially when key actors in ICANN civil > > society (i.e., Vittorio) seem to be abandoning the opportunity to > > attempt to reform ICANN from an IGF-based platform. > > I must confess to be somehow lost in your reasoning. > First you complain that the IGF is a forum for advocacy and for > discussion only. > Then you complain that ICANN reforms are not on the agenda of the IGF. > And finally you complain about abandoning an "opportunity to attempt to > reform ICANN from the IGF" which, if you accept your premise six lines > before, does not exist. > Earlier today, you complained that those from civil society who accept > serving in positions at ICANN are being "soooooo easily co-opted" just > to "feel important". > In the meantime, you serve as the Chair of one of the two civil society > structures of ICANN. > So I'm not sure about what you are actually meaning, whether according > to you it's good or bad for civil society to be engaged in ICANN, and > what would be your practical suggestion for a politically feasible > process to change ICANN and in what direction. > > As for ICANN reforms and the IGF, what I've said is that, given that any > reforms of ICANN will have to be approved by the Board of ICANN, it > might be more productive to participate in the process that ICANN has > set up at its own meetings to discuss its strategic evolution, rather > than to stand at the "bully pulpit" in Rio to rant about how ICANN needs > to change. But these are just my two cents. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > -- ____________________ 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 18 08:16:57 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:16:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: >>> Vittorio Bertola 4/17/2007 2:02 PM >>> >I must confess to be somehow lost in your reasoning. 1. >First you complain that the IGF is a forum for advocacy >and for discussion only. 2. >Then you complain that ICANN reforms are not on the agenda >of the IGF. 3. >And finally you complain about abandoning an "opportunity >to attempt to reform ICANN from the IGF" which, if you accept >your premise six lines before, does not exist. I do not see any inconsistency here. I have numbered the allegedly inconsistent assertions. 1) Yes, IGF is just a forum for advocacy and is nonbinding. This is a fact, how could I say anything else? But one of the main reasons for creating it was to provide a place for holistic overview of IG arrangements, which of course includes ICANN, ergo 2). As for 3), while of course the IGF cannot "tell ICANN what to do" or force it to reform, I consider it essential that civil society dialogues about ICANN reform NOT be restricted to ICANN-created, and ICANN-controlled, venues. We know that such venues will not be free and independent. Independent sources of outside pressure have to be used. Of course, I would feel the same way about any other institution -- do you think all dialogue about World Bank reform or WIPO reform should only take place within WB or WIPO, respectively? So, there is no inconsistency at all. But I can understand given the asynchronous, rushed, often imprecise nature of these communications, why you may have come to that concnlusion. Now for this: >Earlier today, you complained that those from civil society who >accept serving in positions at ICANN are being "soooooo easily >co-opted" just to "feel important". In the meantime, you serve >as the Chair of one of the two civil society structures of ICANN. No one from ICANN asked me or encouraged me to chair the NCUC. Indeed, ICANN management has no contorl whatsoever over who chairs NCUC. On the contrary. NCUC was for many years undermined and its legitimacy assaulted by ICANN higher-ups, PRECISELY BECAUSE it was an independent, critical force within ICANN. So there is no co-optation. And NCUC does not make me feel important, it makes me feel tired, most of the time. >So I'm not sure about what you are actually meaning, >whether according to you it's good or bad for civil society >to be engaged in ICANN, and what would be your practical > suggestion for a politically feasible process to change >ICANN and in what direction. I think it is very good and very important for civil society to be engaged in ICANN, and have done as much as anybody to support that goal for the past 8 years. As you know, some of us have been trying to get a civil society umbrella arrangement that brings together ALAC and NCUC. Those two elements of ICANN's structure should be seen as irrelevant organizatrional structures, not as the basis of CS identity. Unfortunately most people in ALAC have taken a more parochial perspective. >As for ICANN reforms and the IGF, what I've said is that, >given that any reforms of ICANN will have to be approved >by the Board of ICANN, it might be more productive to >participate in the process that ICANN has set up at its own >meetings to discuss its strategic evolution It is not mutually exclusive. One can and probably should do both. But one should not rely on the PResident's strategy committee alone, because that is a hand-picked committee of the President (who, by the way, excluded civil society almost entirely in his selections). One must communicate with the PResident's strategy committee, but one must also have enough political realism to understand that ICANN's management and its ruling political coalition is going to propose to reform icann only in ways that serve their own interests. We need to bring pressure to bear from other directions: governments, business, civil society, media, etc. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 18 08:31:24 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:31:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: New TLDs Message-ID: >>> "Bertrand de La Chapelle" 4/18/2007 5:27 AM >>> >This demonstrates that TLDs cannot be treated with >the same freedom as (second-level) domain names, >just allowing any submission on a first come-first serve basis. What, Bertrand, "demonstates" that? Was there a logical proof in your message that I missed, or some kind of technical impossibility shown? I would refrain from casting out your policy opinions as "demonstrations," please. One fact which completely overturns your proposed conclusion is that there are many, many people, including governments and tradmeark holders, who believe that second-level names (e.g., country names) should be subject to the same kind of prior claims as you proposed for top-level domains. In other words, the same political forces that prefer not to have TLDs registered freely also militate for not having SLDs registered freely. So in fact your discussion, if it proves anything at all, shows once again that there is _no relevant difference_ between the second and top level. The only difference is the accident of history that NSI in 1995-6 was too busy/understaffed to do anything but use first come, first served to register SLDs in .com, .net and .org (95% of all domains at the time) and there was no process in place for registering TLDs. Freedom happens by accident, always. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Apr 18 09:15:26 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:15:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill, An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF consultations on 23 May. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki, > > On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > >> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) > > Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what John > proposed > in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's only > written > statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept > paper, more > of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further > specification, it's > natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended to > entail, > and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could be The > Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you guys > take the > next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and around > talking past each other. > > On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has clear > legal > bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC would > relate to > and further clarify the disparate bits of national and > international law > underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce > and trade, > security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you > actually > mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, > and that > this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal bases > there too > but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the idea > is to > change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the > governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. > And spell > out what it might look like so people have something concrete to > react to, > rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Apr 18 09:26:08 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:26:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46261C70.6070003@hei.unige.ch> Hi John, Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and indicate whether this would be intended to address just the governance of core resources, or IG more generally? Cheers, Bill John Mathiason wrote: > Bill, > > An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There are now > enough ideas out there to try to put together a more complete analysis > of what a Framework Convention on Internet Governance might look like. > In addition to the Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the > WHO Tobacco convention (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which > is a framework convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is > bad) and norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of > the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting precedents > on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the groves of > academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, but we (IGP) > will plan to have it ready before the next IGF consultations on 23 May. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Mawaki, >> >> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >> >>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >> >> >> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what John >> proposed >> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's only >> written >> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >> paper, more >> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >> specification, it's >> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended to >> entail, >> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could be The >> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you guys >> take the >> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and around >> talking past each other. >> >> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has clear legal >> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC would >> relate to >> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and international law >> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and >> trade, >> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >> actually >> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, and >> that >> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal bases >> there too >> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the idea is to >> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. And >> spell >> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >> react to, >> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Wed Apr 18 09:39:36 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:39:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <46261C70.6070003@hei.unige.ch> References: <46261C70.6070003@hei.unige.ch> Message-ID: <4B3DC627-66BC-4EC6-BCD1-4970AB5DC646@maxwell.syr.edu> Bill, Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > Hi John, > > Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. > In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and > indicate whether this would be intended to address just the > governance of core resources, or IG more generally? > > Cheers, > > Bill > > John Mathiason wrote: >> Bill, >> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >> consultations on 23 May. >> Best, >> John >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Mawaki, >>> >>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>> >>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>> >>> >>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>> John proposed >>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>> only written >>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>> paper, more >>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>> specification, it's >>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>> to entail, >>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>> be The >>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>> guys take the >>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>> around >>> talking past each other. >>> >>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>> clear legal >>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>> would relate to >>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>> international law >>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>> and trade, >>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>> actually >>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>> and that >>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>> bases there too >>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>> idea is to >>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>> And spell >>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>> react to, >>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 18 09:44:17 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:44:17 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf References: <46261C70.6070003@hei.unige.ch> <4B3DC627-66BC-4EC6-BCD1-4970AB5DC646@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> John, can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented arrangement? Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How these non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more important. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Bill, Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > Hi John, > > Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. > In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and > indicate whether this would be intended to address just the > governance of core resources, or IG more generally? > > Cheers, > > Bill > > John Mathiason wrote: >> Bill, >> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >> consultations on 23 May. >> Best, >> John >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Mawaki, >>> >>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>> >>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>> >>> >>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>> John proposed >>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>> only written >>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>> paper, more >>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>> specification, it's >>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>> to entail, >>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>> be The >>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>> guys take the >>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>> around >>> talking past each other. >>> >>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>> clear legal >>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>> would relate to >>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>> international law >>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>> and trade, >>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>> actually >>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>> and that >>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>> bases there too >>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>> idea is to >>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>> And spell >>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>> react to, >>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Wed Apr 18 09:38:30 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:38:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070418135203.14E3A334AE8@mxr.isoc.bg> At 22:28 4/17/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Veni Markovski wrote: > >>It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people >>who complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the >>people who constructively contribute. > >I really do hope that the way I read your words in English is not >reflective of what you intended to express. The sentiment conveyed >by those words in English can readily be constructed as casting >aspersions upon all of the people, including myself, who worked so >hard for so many years and met with nothing but ostracism, >rejection, defamatory statements, and even unlawful acts. > >Even Sisyphus got tired of rolling that boulder up that mountain >every day just to watch it roll back down every evening. Karl, I certainly do not want to say that you, or people like you, should be met with unlawful acts. I just want to start a new page, as the old pages we are all reading here, do not contribute to the problems we all face. There's SO much history among the people on this list, that it is - in certain cases - counter-productive. Instead of finding solutions, we see new problems being developed. That's why I want something new. And that's why the old history in this situation is not good. Each of us has contributed to ICANN, to the global Internet, to the Internet in their own countries (well, may be not all of us, but still, many). But he problems we face today have not many things in common with the history. I am trying to be part of the solution, and would expect everyone to be like that. If someone is constantly being part of the problem, or part of the landscape, I believe I have deserved the right to note that this is not helping. 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 veni at veni.com Wed Apr 18 09:44:51 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:44:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070418135204.CBADB334AE8@mxr.isoc.bg> At 17:53 4/18/2007 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >>Veni Markovski wrote: >> >>>It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people >>>who complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the >>>people who constructively contribute. >> >>I really do hope that the way I read your words in English is not >>reflective of what you intended to express. The sentiment conveyed >>by those words in English can readily be constructed as casting >>aspersions upon all of the people, including myself, who worked so >>hard for so many years and met with nothing but ostracism, >>rejection, defamatory statements, and even unlawful acts. > > >Isn't the reverse equally true. People who have worked hard for many >years only to be met with insult, have their motives questioned, law >suits, etc etc. > >Board members contribute around 17 hours week to ICANN. Many GNSO >council members probably as much. ALAC and ccNSO perhaps a little >less (a little less...more than a day/week!) When have we ever seen >anyone say a positive thing about any of them. > >It's amazing that an organization based on the good will of >volunteers continues to survive. It's not amazing, Adam. That's life. Regardless of what people complain about, life takes place, while they are complaining. I still ask each of the people who complain here: what have you done in your own country with regards to the Internet governance - IP address allocation and Domain Name System. And I quickly add: I've done my homework in Bulgaria, let's see what you've done. Because it seems some of the people complaining are good in theory, but have never implemented that theory to real conditions. It's one thing to say what you want to do, it's different to be able to do it, and it's even more different to actually do it. 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 veni at veni.com Wed Apr 18 09:41:51 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:41:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070418072153.738B7334F27@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <20070418072153.738B7334F27@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070418135203.E8CB3334C74@mxr.isoc.bg> >The issue is not just what to discuss, but (more, importantly) why, i.e. to >what effect. > >IGF is not merely a deliberative space but (again, more importantly) a >political one... Or at least somewhere in between the two. The IGF is what we make of it. We = all of us, governments, businesses, civil society, users. It can easily become another UN-agency, if we let it happen. >levels, secondarily) can and should do about it - and how can we try to push >them to do it. We need contributions and advocacy in that direction. > >Without that 'access' is an empty concept. I have seen too many people think >very differently about it, and too many people speak about it glibly, even >deceitfully, because they aren't interested in real political issues which >impact access. Well, access for people in developing world is not an empty concept; it's something they face daily. Or, rather, they face the lack of it. So, to say it in other words - for some of the members of our list the most important topic is IP/DNS. For the huuuuuuge majority of users, they don't care about it. They care how to pay less for their phone dial-up access. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 18 10:10:48 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:10:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <4B3DC627-66BC-4EC6-BCD1-4970AB5DC646@maxwell.syr.edu> References: <46261C70.6070003@hei.unige.ch> <4B3DC627-66BC-4EC6-BCD1-4970AB5DC646@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: What is there to learn from the Aarhus Convention -- ask because it was the subject of at least part of a workshop in Athens . Ignoring the environment specific stuff, some text from the report of the Athens workshop: 3.2. The existing parallel between the guiding principles of Internet Governance and the principles employed by environmental sustainability policy instruments like the Aarhus Convention, needs to be further explored and exploited. Common features and lessons learned include: * the principle of subsidiarity in decision making which is inherent for sustainable development policies is particularly relevant for Internet Governance and ICT policies; * multi-stakeholder involvement -- already implemented by the Aarhus Convention; * broad public participation in an international fora -- already implemented by the Aarhus Convention; * Creating a regulatory framework that obliges governments and the business to maintain electronically environmental databases and proactively share information with the public by means of telecommunications networks, as already implemented by the Aarhus Convention and its protocol on Pollution Release and Transfer Registers. * Self regulation mechanisms like electronic public consultations and a formal compliance mechanism have already been tried and implemented by the Aarhus Convention. and 4. Inventory of events and actors related to the issue under discussion The workshop focused on the development and use of policy and institutional mechanisms which employ Internet and ICT instruments to strengthen the capacity of civil society for participation in decision-making. A case example of an international policy instrument was presented at the workshop -- the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. The convention, referred to as the Aarhus Convention, sets institutional and policy examples which bridge the gap between environmental sustainability and information society. ICTs featured little in Millennium Development Goals' (MDGs) review by the Millennium Project, and barely in UNDP's Human Development Report. The impact of ICTs for sustainable development also received scant attention during WSIS. Coordination between these two major international policy processes needs improvement. Helpful? I get the feeling that continuation of themes from Athens may be a selling point. But may be wrong. Adam >Bill, > >Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance >would have to cover all of the major policy >areas that need some agreement in order to >ensure the orderly development of the Internet >and clearly would have to go beyond core >resources, but the core resources would have to >be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an >FC would be subject to negotiation but, to >anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should >deal with issues where existing regimes overlap >or conflict. > >Best, > >John >On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > >>Hi John, >> >>Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion.   >>In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and >>Mawaki out here and indicate whether this would >>be intended to address just the governance of >>core resources, or IG more generally? >> >>Cheers, >> >>Bill >> >>John Mathiason wrote: >>>Bill, >>>An interesting challenge, which deserves to be >>>taken up. There are now enough ideas out >>>there to try to put together a more complete >>>analysis of what a Framework Convention on >>>Internet Governance might look like. In >>>addition to the Climate Change Convention >>>(UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco >>>convention (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ >>>framework/en/) which is a framework convention >>>in that it specifies principles (tobacco is >>>bad) and norms (public policy should address >>>demand) but leaves many of the details to >>>further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>>precedents on which to draw. It being the >>>end-of- semester in the groves of academia, >>>the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >>>but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before >>>the next IGF consultations on 23 May. >>>Best, >>>John >>>> >>____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wendy at seltzer.com Wed Apr 18 10:22:18 2007 From: wendy at seltzer.com (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:22:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070418135203.14E3A334AE8@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> <20070418135203.14E3A334AE8@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4626299A.1040706@seltzer.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > At 22:28 4/17/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> Veni Markovski wrote: >> >>> It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people >>> who complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the >>> people who constructively contribute. >> >> I really do hope that the way I read your words in English is not >> reflective of what you intended to express. The sentiment conveyed by >> those words in English can readily be constructed as casting >> aspersions upon all of the people, including myself, who worked so >> hard for so many years and met with nothing but ostracism, rejection, >> defamatory statements, and even unlawful acts. >> >> Even Sisyphus got tired of rolling that boulder up that mountain every >> day just to watch it roll back down every evening. > > Karl, > I certainly do not want to say that you, or people like you, should be > met with unlawful acts. I just want to start a new page, as the old > pages we are all reading here, do not contribute to the problems we all > face. > There's SO much history among the people on this list, that it is - in > certain cases - counter-productive. Instead of finding solutions, we see > new problems being developed. That's why I want something new. And > that's why the old history in this situation is not good. Each of us has > contributed to ICANN, to the global Internet, to the Internet in their > own countries (well, may be not all of us, but still, many). But he > problems we face today have not many things in common with the history. > I am trying to be part of the solution, and would expect everyone to be > like that. If someone is constantly being part of the problem, or part > of the landscape, I believe I have deserved the right to note that this > is not helping. Neither is disparaging the contributions of those who spend their time trying to improve ICANN structures by criticizing them. Are you saying that only the long-timers who still have positive things to say about the organization are worth listening to? Based on my experiences, I'd be most inclined to discount those comments that don't recognize and try to account for the current model's failings. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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 jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Wed Apr 18 10:32:34 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:32:34 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <46261C70.6070003@hei.unige.ch> <4B3DC627-66BC-4EC6-BCD1-4970AB5DC646@maxwell.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, I'll deal with this in some detail in the paper (thanks for raising the issues). Here is the short answer: until the world somehow repeals the Treaty of Westphalia (this is a metaphor, of course) all international conventions are formally negotiated by States, signed and ratified by them, and then implemented by them. Having said that, in almost all recent negotiations non-State actors have played a significant role in shaping the content of the agreements. (A good recent example is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, where disability NGOs were extremely influential.) A state can sign a convention and in so doing accept, morally, the obligations contained therein, but it is only legally bound if it ratifies (or accedes to) the convention. One reason the Framework Convention has been used as a means is that it does not require binding agreements on many of the details that would be compulsory for States party and this makes signature and ratification easier for States that can only ratify a convention when their national laws already conform to the obligations of the Convention. One thought: any Convention on the Internet that is non-universal probably won't be effective. That is why it should be a UN Convention. Other comments on issues that our paper should address, such as those raised by Wolfgang (and Adam in his e-mail on the Aarhus Convention) are urgently solicited. Regards, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > John, > > can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign > the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented > arrangement? > > Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? > Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How non- > governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How these > non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such > a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > > Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even > more important. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > Bill, > > Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover > all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to > ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have > to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be > dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to > negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should > deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> John Mathiason wrote: >>> Bill, >>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >>> consultations on 23 May. >>> Best, >>> John >>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>> >>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>> >>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>> John proposed >>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>>> only written >>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>>> paper, more >>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>>> specification, it's >>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>> to entail, >>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>>> be The >>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>>> guys take the >>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>>> around >>>> talking past each other. >>>> >>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>> clear legal >>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>>> would relate to >>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>>> international law >>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>>> and trade, >>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>>> actually >>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>> and that >>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>>> bases there too >>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>>> idea is to >>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>>> And spell >>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>>> react to, >>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Wed Apr 18 10:33:07 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> Message-ID: I think it's time we stopped paying attention to the people who just complain about other people failing to do what they are told. On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Veni Markovski wrote: > >> It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people who >> complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the people who >> constructively contribute. > > I really do hope that the way I read your words in English is not reflective > of what you intended to express. The sentiment conveyed by those words in > English can readily be constructed as casting aspersions upon all of the > people, including myself, who worked so hard for so many years and met with > nothing but ostracism, rejection, defamatory statements, and even unlawful > acts. > > Even Sisyphus got tired of rolling that boulder up that mountain every day > just to watch it roll back down every evening. > > --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 > -- 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 veni at veni.com Wed Apr 18 10:42:54 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:42:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <4626299A.1040706@seltzer.com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> <20070418135203.14E3A334AE8@mxr.isoc.bg> <4626299A.1040706@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <20070418144703.1889B334CF7@mxr.isoc.bg> At 10:22 4/18/2007 -0400, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >Neither is disparaging the contributions of those who spend their time >trying to improve ICANN structures by criticizing them. > >Are you saying that only the long-timers who still have positive things >to say about the organization are worth listening to? Based on my >experiences, I'd be most inclined to discount those comments that don't >recognize and try to account for the current model's failings. Wendy, when I was saying "I've deserved", I didn't mean the time I've spent on the Board (of which Adam quite successfully noted that it took 50 % of my time, and only I know what problems it caused me; I am not complaining, I am stating facts). What I meant was that - unlike many of the critics - I've managed to do something in Bulgaria, with regards to building the legal framework, dealing with IP/DNS. So far, I've seen only people who say that ICANN needs improvement. Well, I believe that in many cases people need improvements, too. And one of them is to send constructive criticism, and not just criticism for its own. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Apr 18 11:26:54 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:26:54 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: Bill, Wolfgang, As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this list, sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, but I admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though and John and I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something put together by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw stones at. For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet Framework Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam have cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the other hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote participation given the Internet crowd. Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed only by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and around that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and commitments may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state actors, ie business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, APWG, etc etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the GAC is putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its own activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. So it's not like the framework precludes the need for various groups to do what they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the degree there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, and the agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any recommendations emanating from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or lack thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would also merit another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can coorganize that. Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and many other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP also looks forward to contributing to the degree we are able. 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 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>> John, can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented arrangement? Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How these non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more important. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Bill, Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > Hi John, > > Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. > In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and > indicate whether this would be intended to address just the > governance of core resources, or IG more generally? > > Cheers, > > Bill > > John Mathiason wrote: >> Bill, >> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >> consultations on 23 May. >> Best, >> John >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Mawaki, >>> >>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>> >>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>> >>> >>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>> John proposed >>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>> only written >>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>> paper, more >>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>> specification, it's >>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>> to entail, >>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>> be The >>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>> guys take the >>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>> around >>> talking past each other. >>> >>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>> clear legal >>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>> would relate to >>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>> international law >>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>> and trade, >>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>> actually >>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>> and that >>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>> bases there too >>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>> idea is to >>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>> And spell >>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>> react to, >>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Apr 18 12:16:49 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:16:49 -0400 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: Wolfgang, Jacqueline, Your points are well taken. Hey my analogy almost works right? Yes I am aware that 'convention' has a specific meaning in international law, different from say a Las Vegas convention. What I'm speaking of is somewhere in between, since yes things are still a bit wild and raucous here on the global net, and old rules and definitions and ways of doing things apply to the extent we choose to permit them to. Um, maybe that's why we could use a convention? So I am imagining the Internet Framework Convention as a more open process, one NOT initated by states but rather by us, whoever we are. If states never join the party, well then it doesn't count under international law. But it could still have some effects in time. Way too soon to say. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jam at jacquelinemorris.com 4/17/2007 8:53 AM >>> Hi Wolfgang One small correction - the AtLarge has over 90 ALSes and several applicants to be voted on soon, so hopefully we will make the 100+ mark very soon. And you know I agree with your view of the potential of the ALAC in the future. But there's a lot of work to do. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:32 AM To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Thanks Lee for the entertaining comparison between IG/ICANN/IGF and the 50 years of European Unification. You know one problem in Europe is the role of the Commission (which would be ICANN Staff in your picture). The highest authority is with the Heads of State in the European Council (which would be the Board). But we know that in many cases - in particular for day to day operaitons - the de facto power is with the Commission (labelled as the "Brussels Burocracy"). To compare the IGF with the European Parliament I disagree. IGF has a much broader mandate than ICANN. This is a different level. It is like comparing the EU with the UN. It is in the interst of ICANN to keep its mandate narrow technically defined. My "parliament" for ICANN would be At-Large. You and me and others, who have been involved in the 2000 elections, have opposed for years the removing of voting ALM directors from the board and the creation of a burocratical beast composed of dubios ALS, RALOs and the powerless ALAC which can send one non-voting delegate into the Board. But as history of the last years has told us, there is no strong alternative movement. With other words, we have to live with the reality and to develop this reality. The first European parliament had no power. It was just "window dressing" to establish such a component in the whole system which was ruled and dominated by the European Council and the European Commission. The role of the Parliament grew slowly over the years. Unfortunately the European Constitution, which would have given more power to the Parliement, was rejected (one of the irony of history where people vote for some subjective (legitimitae) reasons against their own objective interests). However, the issue remains on the agenda. For ICANN and its future the challenge is how to go beyond the RALOs. Now we have four recognized RALOs. We have about 50 ALSs. The door for individuals is open (or lts say half open) in most of the RALOs. If the ALAC becomes more active, sending recommendations to the Board, organizing independent workshops and seminars to burning issues, positioning itself as the representatives of users and conusmers (consumer protection will become a big isue with the emerging secondory domain name maerket, domain name tasintg, the debacle with RegisterFly, WHOIS, iDNS and soon also RFID) the whole picture could look rather different in October 2009 when the JPA comes to an end. Next step could be the call to transform the ALAC into an At Large Membership Supporting Organisation (ALSO) with the right to send a minimum of two voting directors to the Board. One comment to the Convention. I recognize your arguments. Probably the dissent comes with the language. The terminology is legally defined. A convention under international law is a convention. Look into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). If you call it "Multistakeholder Framework Arrangement on Internet Governance" (MUFARIG) propably it looks different. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Gesendet: Mo 16.04.2007 23:15 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Alejandro Pisanty Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Alejandro, I generally agree with both of you. Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet governance, not global governance in general. But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in our case. A technical matter. ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or should not be next are appropriate. Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d recommendations.) I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say 'start.' Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not yet created. 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 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 karl at cavebear.com Wed Apr 18 13:36:59 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:36:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4626573B.80009@cavebear.com> Adam Peake wrote: > Board members contribute around 17 hours week to ICANN. I spent over 60 hours a week on ICANN board matters. I would wonder how anybody could even comprehend the issues with a mere 17 hours a week. One of the things we need to recognize in internet governance is that it is to govern the internet, not to exercise legislative, judicial, and police power prerogatives over other matters, such as trademarks. --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 veni at veni.com Wed Apr 18 14:34:14 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:34:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <4626573B.80009@cavebear.com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> <4626573B.80009@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070418183429.190E9334FAC@mxr.isoc.bg> At 10:36 4/18/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Adam Peake wrote: > >>Board members contribute around 17 hours week to ICANN. > >I spent over 60 hours a week on ICANN board matters. I would wonder >how anybody could even comprehend the issues with a mere 17 hours a week. "mere"? 17 hours is more than two full-time working days. I spent 20 hours = half of my working week. What you do today is your choice, so you can do 60 hours, because you want, and you can. What the Board members do is obligation and duty, and not a choice. And for that work, they get the blame that they do not listen "to the community", with sentences that are completely insulting in my culture. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Apr 18 14:56:27 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:56:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Lee, There are about twenty different conversations now running under the heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could please separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches etc. that'd be helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had to go find them in the list archive. On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > Bill, Wolfgang, > > As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this list, > sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. You're not alone > I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the > framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, but I > admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though and John and > I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something put together > by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw stones at. Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we talking about a Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, rather than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a Recommendation, Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, or something else? I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, 'because the UN has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have one here too,' which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer. Normally one would think form should follow function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we should agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure out what it's for, which seems odd. > For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet > framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet Framework Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me why this isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem definition => bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of each => the selection of a solution? > Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam have > cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the other Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They didn't invent something new when the telephone came along, they grafted language onto telegraph arrangements. The international standardization and diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence. Ditto datacommunications. Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide within much less across global policy domains. > hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote > participation given the Internet crowd. > > Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed only > by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and around > that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and commitments > may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state actors, ie > business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, APWG, etc How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN (meaning ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? > etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the GAC is > putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its own > activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. So it's > not like the framework precludes the need for various groups to do what > they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help > institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the degree > there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. Sure > And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's > nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, and the > agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any recommendations emanating > from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or lack > thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would also merit > another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can coorganize > that. Sure, sure > Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and many > other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP also looks > forward to contributing to the degree we are able. Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just puzzled by the reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of the solution. Thanks, Bill > >>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>> > John, > > can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign the > "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented > arrangement? > > Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? > Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How > non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How these > non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such a > convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > > Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more > important. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > Bill, > > Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover > all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to > ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have > to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be > dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to > negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should > deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> John Mathiason wrote: >>> Bill, >>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >>> consultations on 23 May. >>> Best, >>> John >>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>> >>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>> >>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>> John proposed >>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>>> only written >>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>>> paper, more >>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>>> specification, it's >>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>> to entail, >>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>>> be The >>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>>> guys take the >>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>>> around >>>> talking past each other. >>>> >>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>> clear legal >>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>>> would relate to >>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>>> international law >>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>>> and trade, >>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>>> actually >>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>> and that >>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>>> bases there too >>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>>> idea is to >>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>>> And spell >>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>>> react to, >>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Apr 18 15:07:33 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:07:33 +0200 Subject: SV: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: <46261C70.6070003@hei.unige.ch> <4B3DC627-66BC-4EC6-BCD1-4970AB5DC646@maxwell.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F017C7CB4@ensms02.iris.se> Dear John, This is also my understanding! I wonder, after having read so many different opinions and also some irony and personal attacks to different experiences, that I think this is more of a need for a learning process about the UN system and how to relate to the global influence outside the UN body, both from NGO's and the private sector! Yours 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 kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] Skickat: den 18 april 2007 16:33 Till: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Kopia: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William Ämne: Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, I'll deal with this in some detail in the paper (thanks for raising the issues). Here is the short answer: until the world somehow repeals the Treaty of Westphalia (this is a metaphor, of course) all international conventions are formally negotiated by States, signed and ratified by them, and then implemented by them. Having said that, in almost all recent negotiations non-State actors have played a significant role in shaping the content of the agreements. (A good recent example is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, where disability NGOs were extremely influential.) A state can sign a convention and in so doing accept, morally, the obligations contained therein, but it is only legally bound if it ratifies (or accedes to) the convention. One reason the Framework Convention has been used as a means is that it does not require binding agreements on many of the details that would be compulsory for States party and this makes signature and ratification easier for States that can only ratify a convention when their national laws already conform to the obligations of the Convention. One thought: any Convention on the Internet that is non-universal probably won't be effective. That is why it should be a UN Convention. Other comments on issues that our paper should address, such as those raised by Wolfgang (and Adam in his e-mail on the Aarhus Convention) are urgently solicited. Regards, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > John, > > can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign the > "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented > arrangement? > > Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? > Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How non- > governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How these > non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such a > convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > > Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more > important. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > Bill, > > Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover > all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to > ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have > to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be > dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to > negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should > deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> John Mathiason wrote: >>> Bill, >>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There are >>> now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more complete >>> analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet Governance might >>> look like. In addition to the Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC), >>> we now have the WHO Tobacco convention (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ >>> framework/en/) which is a framework convention in that it specifies >>> principles (tobacco is bad) and norms (public policy should address >>> demand) but leaves many of the details to further negotiation. Both >>> provide interesting precedents on which to draw. It being the >>> end-of- semester in the groves of academia, the revised paper may >>> take a couple of weeks, but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready >>> before the next IGF consultations on 23 May. >>> Best, >>> John >>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>> >>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>> >>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, the >>>>> legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy issues >>>>> pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so far, there >>>>> is no assumption on the nature or form of such authority, except >>>>> that most of us seems to agree that it shouldn't be another >>>>> intergovernmental kind of org. That could as well be a >>>>> concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where governments >>>>> may get to make final decisions (again, only on public policy) but >>>>> not without accepting external inputs (technical community, >>>>> academia, CS, etc.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what John >>>> proposed in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is >>>> IGP's only written statement on the matter. And that was just a >>>> four page concept paper, more of a teaser than an elaborated >>>> proposal. Absent further specification, it's natural that people >>>> will differently imagine what it is intended to entail, and >>>> differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could be The >>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you guys >>>> take the next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go >>>> around and around talking past each other. >>>> >>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has clear >>>> legal bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>>> would relate to and further clarify the disparate bits of national >>>> and international law underlying the shared rule systems pertaining >>>> to IPR, e-commerce and trade, security, consumer protection, and so >>>> on. I'm guessing that you actually mean IG as popularly defined >>>> pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, and that this is why you found >>>> my comment confusing. There are legal bases there too but to the >>>> extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the idea is to >>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>>> And spell >>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>>> react to, rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Apr 18 16:04:26 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:04:26 +0200 Subject: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F017C7CBA@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Lee, In international laws, it does not exist something in between! International conventions signed by States can however, be very much influenced by the civil society. The recent adopted convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, there the convention now open for ratification has been drafted to 80% by the civil society (Disable persons organisations (DPO's). Why could not this be done concerning this topic? Yours 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 kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Skickat: den 18 april 2007 18:17 Till: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; 'Alejandro Pisanty' Ämne: RE: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Jacqueline, Your points are well taken. Hey my analogy almost works right? Yes I am aware that 'convention' has a specific meaning in international law, different from say a Las Vegas convention. What I'm speaking of is somewhere in between, since yes things are still a bit wild and raucous here on the global net, and old rules and definitions and ways of doing things apply to the extent we choose to permit them to. Um, maybe that's why we could use a convention? So I am imagining the Internet Framework Convention as a more open process, one NOT initated by states but rather by us, whoever we are. If states never join the party, well then it doesn't count under international law. But it could still have some effects in time. Way too soon to say. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jam at jacquelinemorris.com 4/17/2007 8:53 AM >>> Hi Wolfgang One small correction - the AtLarge has over 90 ALSes and several applicants to be voted on soon, so hopefully we will make the 100+ mark very soon. And you know I agree with your view of the potential of the ALAC in the future. But there's a lot of work to do. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:32 AM To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Thanks Lee for the entertaining comparison between IG/ICANN/IGF and the 50 years of European Unification. You know one problem in Europe is the role of the Commission (which would be ICANN Staff in your picture). The highest authority is with the Heads of State in the European Council (which would be the Board). But we know that in many cases - in particular for day to day operaitons - the de facto power is with the Commission (labelled as the "Brussels Burocracy"). To compare the IGF with the European Parliament I disagree. IGF has a much broader mandate than ICANN. This is a different level. It is like comparing the EU with the UN. It is in the interst of ICANN to keep its mandate narrow technically defined. My "parliament" for ICANN would be At-Large. You and me and others, who have been involved in the 2000 elections, have opposed for years the removing of voting ALM directors from the board and the creation of a burocratical beast composed of dubios ALS, RALOs and the powerless ALAC which can send one non-voting delegate into the Board. But as history of the last years has told us, there is no strong alternative movement. With other words, we have to live with the reality and to develop this reality. The first European parliament had no power. It was just "window dressing" to establish such a component in the whole system which was ruled and dominated by the European Council and the European Commission. The role of the Parliament grew slowly over the years. Unfortunately the European Constitution, which would have given more power to the Parliement, was rejected (one of the irony of history where people vote for some subjective (legitimitae) reasons against their own objective interests). However, the issue remains on the agenda. For ICANN and its future the challenge is how to go beyond the RALOs. Now we have four recognized RALOs. We have about 50 ALSs. The door for individuals is open (or lts say half open) in most of the RALOs. If the ALAC becomes more active, sending recommendations to the Board, organizing independent workshops and seminars to burning issues, positioning itself as the representatives of users and conusmers (consumer protection will become a big isue with the emerging secondory domain name maerket, domain name tasintg, the debacle with RegisterFly, WHOIS, iDNS and soon also RFID) the whole picture could look rather different in October 2009 when the JPA comes to an end. Next step could be the call to transform the ALAC into an At Large Membership Supporting Organisation (ALSO) with the right to send a minimum of two voting directors to the Board. One comment to the Convention. I recognize your arguments. Probably the dissent comes with the language. The terminology is legally defined. A convention under international law is a convention. Look into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). If you call it "Multistakeholder Framework Arrangement on Internet Governance" (MUFARIG) propably it looks different. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Gesendet: Mo 16.04.2007 23:15 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Alejandro Pisanty Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Alejandro, I generally agree with both of you. Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet governance, not global governance in general. But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in our case. A technical matter. ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or should not be next are appropriate. Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d recommendations.) I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say 'start.' Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not yet created. 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 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 jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Wed Apr 18 16:20:58 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:20:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7BD6C843-14C7-420C-9E72-B07DDBD67086@maxwell.syr.edu> Bill, I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is worth the convention it is written in." We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: > Hi Lee, > > There are about twenty different conversations now running under the > heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could please > separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches etc. > that'd be > helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had to go find > them in the > list archive. > > On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > >> Bill, Wolfgang, >> >> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this list, >> sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. > > You're not alone > >> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the >> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, >> but I >> admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though and >> John and >> I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something put >> together >> by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw stones at. > > Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we > talking about a > Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, > rather > than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a > Recommendation, > Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, or > something > else? I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, > 'because the UN > has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have one > here too,' > which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer. Normally one would > think form > should follow function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we > should agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll > figure > out what it's for, which seems odd. > >> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet >> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet Framework > > Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me > why this > isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem > definition => > bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of each => the > selection of a solution? > >> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam have >> cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the >> other > > Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They > didn't > invent something new when the telephone came along, they grafted > language > onto telegraph arrangements. The international standardization and > diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence. Ditto > datacommunications. > Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide within > much > less across global policy domains. > >> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote >> participation given the Internet crowd. >> >> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed >> only >> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and around >> that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and commitments >> may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state actors, ie >> business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, APWG, etc > > How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN > (meaning > ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? > >> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the >> GAC is >> putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its own >> activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. So >> it's >> not like the framework precludes the need for various groups to do >> what >> they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help >> institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the degree >> there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. > > Sure > >> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's >> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, >> and the >> agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any recommendations >> emanating >> from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or lack >> thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would also merit >> another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can coorganize >> that. > > Sure, sure > >> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and >> many >> other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP also looks >> forward to contributing to the degree we are able. > > Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just > puzzled by the > reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of the > solution. > > Thanks, > > Bill > >> >>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>>> >> John, >> >> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign the >> "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented >> arrangement? >> >> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? >> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How >> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How >> these >> non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such a >> convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? >> >> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more >> important. >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] >> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William >> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >> >> >> >> Bill, >> >> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover >> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to >> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have >> to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be >> dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to >> negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should >> deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. >> >> Best, >> >> John >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> John Mathiason wrote: >>>> Bill, >>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >>>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >>>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >>>> consultations on 23 May. >>>> Best, >>>> John >>>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>>> >>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>>> John proposed >>>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>>>> only written >>>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>>>> paper, more >>>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>>>> specification, it's >>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>>> to entail, >>>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>>>> be The >>>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>>>> guys take the >>>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>>>> around >>>>> talking past each other. >>>>> >>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>>> clear legal >>>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>>>> would relate to >>>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>>>> international law >>>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>>>> and trade, >>>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>>>> actually >>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>>> and that >>>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>>>> bases there too >>>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>>>> idea is to >>>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>>>> And spell >>>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>>>> react to, >>>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 18 16:31:43 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:31:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Framework convention Message-ID: Bill et al, ok ; ) my replies to your comments on my comments are below; some text deleted to make thread easier to follow > I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the > framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, but I > admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though and John and > I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something put together > by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw stones at. Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we talking about a Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, rather than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a Recommendation, Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, or something else? I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, 'because the UN has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have one here too,' which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer. Normally one would think form should follow function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we should agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure out what it's for, which seems odd. Lee: The convention could spawn any number of guideines mou's whatever, I don;t see them as mutually exclusive. Just thte fact that you didn;t propose one instrument but instead listed a whole variety suggests a broader umbrella apprach like the convention could be the right next step. You are talking about a Convention with a capital C, for now I'm just talking about a self-declared internet framework convention, without that formal shape or sanction. Yet. To begin sorting out what if anything is needed in the way of formal declarations, treaties, resolutions, institutions, etc. And sure industry, civil society groups or states shouldn;t wait for the broad discussion if they have specific problems and ideas on specific fixes, a la APWG. Or ICANN for that matter. > For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet > framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet Framework Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me why this isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem definition => bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of each => the selection of a solution? Lee: Because this is not (yet) a geographically or institutionally bounded set of problems and issues, with a precise and internationally agreed consensus on the legitimate set of problem definition(s) for international, national, community, private sector and civil society action. Yes WGIG & WSIS did their part in beginning to catalog and describe the landscape, but we are quite a ways from considering the work done, and yeah there are always a raft of new Internet problems. Unless you consider the wsis declaration the final word and then I do wonder which end is up if we're still talking about this in 2007 - gee I thought this was all worked out in Tunisia in 2005? Oops, never mind ; ) Also, it's not like at the start of the discussions which led to the negotiations for the climate change convention they knew exactly how the not -yet existing kyoto protocol would be implemented and how it would operate. Except in the US : (. They just knew their was a problem. So yes we should look to other areas, and how they have been successful or not in dealing with their issues, and match solutions to problems. > Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam have > cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the other Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They didn't invent something new when the telephone came along, they grafted language onto telegraph arrangements. The international standardization and diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence. Ditto datacommunications. Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide within much less across global policy domains. Lee: And now you want me to promise we WILL reinvent the wheel? I'm trying to sneak a multistakeholder from the start process onto the international stage and you're blowing my cover. Still, I don't recall invoking specific UN institutions nor speculating on when and how they might participate. Again, too soon to say. (John probably differs on that, we'll see if we can settle our differences in time to have something to say as igp by next month.) And as for precedents from past conventions, remember I am the guy saying we don;t have to do this just like the Conventions of the past, nor play by the rules of customary international law, alone, so I believe we really are in agreement here. > hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote > participation given the Internet crowd. > > Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed only > by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and around > that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and commitments > may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state actors, ie > business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, APWG, etc How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN (meaning ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? My reply: You think an Internet Framework Convention could even begin discussions without non-state actors at the table? I am saying the opposite, the conversation has begun, and the states aren't even in the virtual room. The UN did make the room reservation for Parminder in Athens I guess, but beyond that this doesn;t seem to be a un-driven discussion just yes does it? A future agreement however crafted will need to have room and roles for non-state actors, or yeah it is a waste of time. How can non-state actors change the convention? Probably the question becomes a more precise 'in the area of X how do Y actors (can I call them stakeholders please?) participate, and who decides what changes may be needed in time. That sounds like a key point to address before more formal negotiations can begin. The fact that ECOSOC doesn;t allow their participation in UN processes may or may not be relevant, depending on the specific X in question, and the decisions made running up to an eventaul formal convention. > etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the GAC is > putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its own > activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. So it's > not like the framework precludes the need for various groups to do what > they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help > institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the degree > there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. Sure > And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's > nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, and the > agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any recommendations emanating > from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or lack > thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would also merit > another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can coorganize > that. Sure, sure > Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and many > other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP also looks > forward to contributing to the degree we are able. Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just puzzled by the reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of the solution. Lee's last reply: I don;t recall John or Parminder or I or Wolfgang or anyone else claiming a convention could be THE solution, rather we are talking about a painfully long and slow process. I can;t say I'm looking forward to it. Many on this list have been or are currently participating in long, slow, painful Internet governance processes, and I sympathize for those objecting just at the thought of starting another. If someone has a better/faster idea by all means go right ahead. Thanks, Me: no prob Lee Bill > >>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>> > John, > > can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign the > "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented > arrangement? > > Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? > Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How > non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How these > non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such a > convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > > Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more > important. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > Bill, > > Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover > all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to > ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have > to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be > dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to > negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should > deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> John Mathiason wrote: >>> Bill, >>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >>> consultations on 23 May. >>> Best, >>> John >>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>> >>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>> >>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>> John proposed >>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>>> only written >>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>>> paper, more >>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>>> specification, it's >>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>> to entail, >>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>>> be The >>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>>> guys take the >>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>>> around >>>> talking past each other. >>>> >>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>> clear legal >>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>>> would relate to >>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>>> international law >>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>>> and trade, >>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>>> actually >>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>> and that >>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>>> bases there too >>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>>> idea is to >>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>>> And spell >>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>>> react to, >>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Wed Apr 18 16:44:54 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee, I have one... domain-specific solutions, one by one, with the most coordination possible among actors that is compatible with achieving results in each domain. Once you have a few solutions a pattern will have to emerge, that may tell whether or not a more-comprehensive solution is in the horizon, and, following function, what form it would take. None of this has to be exclusively ad-hoc; a connection with reality and a pragmatic-heuristic approach to solving problems is not in conflict with agreeing on principles and acting based on them. Discuss spam, anyone? or what other problem do the members of this list think they can apply their skills to? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:31:43 -0400 > From: Lee McKnight > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Framework convention > > Bill et al, > > ok ; ) my replies to your comments on my comments are below; some text > deleted to make thread easier to follow > >> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the >> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, but > I >> admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though and John > and >> I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something put > together >> by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw stones at. > > Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we talking > about a > Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, > rather > than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a > Recommendation, > Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, or > something > else? I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, 'because > the UN > has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have one here > too,' > which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer. Normally one would think > form > should follow function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we > should agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll > figure > out what it's for, which seems odd. > > Lee: The convention could spawn any number of guideines mou's whatever, > I don;t see them as mutually exclusive. Just thte fact that you didn;t > propose one instrument but instead listed a whole variety suggests a > broader umbrella apprach like the convention could be the right next > step. You are talking about a Convention with a capital C, for now I'm > just talking about a self-declared internet framework convention, > without that formal shape or sanction. Yet. To begin sorting out what > if anything is needed in the way of formal declarations, treaties, > resolutions, institutions, etc. And sure industry, civil society groups > or states shouldn;t wait for the broad discussion if they have specific > problems and ideas on specific fixes, a la APWG. Or ICANN for that > matter. > >> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet >> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet > Framework > > Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me why > this > isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem definition > => > bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of each => the > selection of a solution? > > Lee: Because this is not (yet) a geographically or institutionally > bounded set of problems and issues, with a precise and internationally > agreed consensus on the legitimate set of problem definition(s) for > international, national, community, private sector and civil society > action. Yes WGIG & WSIS did their part in beginning to catalog and > describe the landscape, but we are quite a ways from considering the > work done, and yeah there are always a raft of new Internet problems. > Unless you consider the wsis declaration the final word and then I do > wonder which end is up if we're still talking about this in 2007 - gee I > thought this was all worked out in Tunisia in 2005? Oops, never mind ; > ) > > Also, it's not like at the start of the discussions which led to the > negotiations for the climate change convention they knew exactly how the > not -yet existing kyoto protocol would be implemented and how it would > operate. Except in the US : (. They just knew their was a problem. So > yes we should look to other areas, and how they have been successful or > not in dealing with their issues, and match solutions to problems. > >> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam > have >> cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the > other > > Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They > didn't > invent something new when the telephone came along, they grafted > language > onto telegraph arrangements. The international standardization and > diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence. Ditto > datacommunications. > Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide within > much > less across global policy domains. > > Lee: And now you want me to promise we WILL reinvent the wheel? I'm > trying to sneak a multistakeholder from the start process onto the > international stage and you're blowing my cover. Still, I don't recall > invoking specific UN institutions nor speculating on when and how they > might participate. Again, too soon to say. (John probably differs on > that, we'll see if we can settle our differences in time to have > something to say as igp by next month.) > > And as for precedents from past conventions, remember I am the guy > saying we don;t have to do this just like the Conventions of the past, > nor play by the rules of customary international law, alone, so I > believe we really are in agreement here. > >> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote >> participation given the Internet crowd. >> >> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed > only >> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and > around >> that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and > commitments >> may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state actors, ie >> business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, APWG, etc > > How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN > (meaning > ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? > > My reply: You think an Internet Framework Convention could even begin > discussions without non-state actors at the table? I am saying the > opposite, the conversation has begun, and the states aren't even in the > virtual room. The UN did make the room reservation for Parminder in > Athens I guess, but beyond that this doesn;t seem to be a un-driven > discussion just yes does it? > > A future agreement however crafted will need to have room and roles for > non-state actors, or yeah it is a waste of time. > > How can non-state actors change the convention? Probably the question > becomes a more precise 'in the area of X how do Y actors (can I call > them stakeholders please?) participate, and who decides what changes may > be needed in time. That sounds like a key point to address before more > formal negotiations can begin. The fact that ECOSOC doesn;t allow their > participation in UN processes may or may not be relevant, depending on > the specific X in question, and the decisions made running up to an > eventaul formal convention. > >> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the GAC > is >> putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its own >> activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. So > it's >> not like the framework precludes the need for various groups to do > what >> they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help >> institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the degree >> there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. > > Sure > >> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's >> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, and > the >> agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any recommendations > emanating >> from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or lack >> thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would also merit >> another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can coorganize >> that. > > Sure, sure > >> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and > many >> other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP also > looks >> forward to contributing to the degree we are able. > > Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just puzzled > by the > reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of the > solution. > > Lee's last reply: I don;t recall John or Parminder or I or Wolfgang or > anyone else claiming a convention could be THE solution, rather we are > talking about a painfully long and slow process. I can;t say I'm looking > forward to it. Many on this list have been or are currently > participating in long, slow, painful Internet governance processes, and > I sympathize for those objecting just at the thought of starting > another. If someone has a better/faster idea by all means go right > ahead. > > Thanks, > > Me: no prob > > Lee > > Bill > >> >>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>>> >> John, >> >> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign > the >> "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented >> arrangement? >> >> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? >> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How >> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How > these >> non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such > a >> convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? >> >> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more >> important. >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] >> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William >> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >> >> >> >> Bill, >> >> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover >> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to >> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would > have >> to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be >> dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to >> negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should >> deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. >> >> Best, >> >> John >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> John Mathiason wrote: >>>> Bill, >>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >>>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >>>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >>>> consultations on 23 May. >>>> Best, >>>> John >>>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>>> >>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>>> John proposed >>>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>>>> only written >>>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>>>> paper, more >>>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>>>> specification, it's >>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>>> to entail, >>>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>>>> be The >>>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>>>> guys take the >>>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>>>> around >>>>> talking past each other. >>>>> >>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>>> clear legal >>>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>>>> would relate to >>>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>>>> international law >>>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>>>> and trade, >>>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>>>> actually >>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>>> and that >>>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>>>> bases there too >>>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>>>> idea is to >>>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on > the >>>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>>>> And spell >>>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>>>> react to, >>>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 18 16:43:27 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:43:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] framework connvetnion Message-ID: Dear Kicki, What exists today and what exists tomorrow under international law is indeeed what we are talking about. I guess one could say more precisely that what began eg as a movement of civil society against land mines may in time lead to a formal Convention under international law. But since the Internet is is till largely a party of business and society, and only secondarily nation-states, and their traditional mechanisms for regulating international behavior, I remain unconvinced we must bow and scrape to the un or anyone else before talking amongst ourselves. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Kicki Nordström 4/18/2007 4:04:26 PM >>> Dear Lee, In international laws, it does not exist something in between! International conventions signed by States can however, be very much influenced by the civil society. The recent adopted convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, there the convention now open for ratification has been drafted to 80% by the civil society (Disable persons organisations (DPO's). Why could not this be done concerning this topic? Yours 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 kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Skickat: den 18 april 2007 18:17 Till: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; 'Alejandro Pisanty' Ämne: RE: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Jacqueline, Your points are well taken. Hey my analogy almost works right? Yes I am aware that 'convention' has a specific meaning in international law, different from say a Las Vegas convention. What I'm speaking of is somewhere in between, since yes things are still a bit wild and raucous here on the global net, and old rules and definitions and ways of doing things apply to the extent we choose to permit them to. Um, maybe that's why we could use a convention? So I am imagining the Internet Framework Convention as a more open process, one NOT initated by states but rather by us, whoever we are. If states never join the party, well then it doesn't count under international law. But it could still have some effects in time. Way too soon to say. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jam at jacquelinemorris.com 4/17/2007 8:53 AM >>> Hi Wolfgang One small correction - the AtLarge has over 90 ALSes and several applicants to be voted on soon, so hopefully we will make the 100+ mark very soon. And you know I agree with your view of the potential of the ALAC in the future. But there's a lot of work to do. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:32 AM To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Thanks Lee for the entertaining comparison between IG/ICANN/IGF and the 50 years of European Unification. You know one problem in Europe is the role of the Commission (which would be ICANN Staff in your picture). The highest authority is with the Heads of State in the European Council (which would be the Board). But we know that in many cases - in particular for day to day operaitons - the de facto power is with the Commission (labelled as the "Brussels Burocracy"). To compare the IGF with the European Parliament I disagree. IGF has a much broader mandate than ICANN. This is a different level. It is like comparing the EU with the UN. It is in the interst of ICANN to keep its mandate narrow technically defined. My "parliament" for ICANN would be At-Large. You and me and others, who have been involved in the 2000 elections, have opposed for years the removing of voting ALM directors from the board and the creation of a burocratical beast composed of dubios ALS, RALOs and the powerless ALAC which can send one non-voting delegate into the Board. But as history of the last years has told us, there is no strong alternative movement. With other words, we have to live with the reality and to develop this reality. The first European parliament had no power. It was just "window dressing" to establish such a component in the whole system which was ruled and dominated by the European Council and the European Commission. The role of the Parliament grew slowly over the years. Unfortunately the European Constitution, which would have given more power to the Parliement, was rejected (one of the irony of history where people vote for some subjective (legitimitae) reasons against their own objective interests). However, the issue remains on the agenda. For ICANN and its future the challenge is how to go beyond the RALOs. Now we have four recognized RALOs. We have about 50 ALSs. The door for individuals is open (or lts say half open) in most of the RALOs. If the ALAC becomes more active, sending recommendations to the Board, organizing independent workshops and seminars to burning issues, positioning itself as the representatives of users and conusmers (consumer protection will become a big isue with the emerging secondory domain name maerket, domain name tasintg, the debacle with RegisterFly, WHOIS, iDNS and soon also RFID) the whole picture could look rather different in October 2009 when the JPA comes to an end. Next step could be the call to transform the ALAC into an At Large Membership Supporting Organisation (ALSO) with the right to send a minimum of two voting directors to the Board. One comment to the Convention. I recognize your arguments. Probably the dissent comes with the language. The terminology is legally defined. A convention under international law is a convention. Look into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). If you call it "Multistakeholder Framework Arrangement on Internet Governance" (MUFARIG) propably it looks different. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Gesendet: Mo 16.04.2007 23:15 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Alejandro Pisanty Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Alejandro, I generally agree with both of you. Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet governance, not global governance in general. But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in our case. A technical matter. ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or should not be next are appropriate. Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d recommendations.) I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say 'start.' Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not yet created. 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Apr 18 17:40:10 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:40:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <7BD6C843-14C7-420C-9E72-B07DDBD67086@maxwell.syr.edu> References: , <7BD6C843-14C7-420C-9E72-B07DDBD67086@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4626AC5A.27255.D8EDFB3@anriette.apc.org> Keep in mind what has been achieved with the UN Economic Commission for Europe's Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. It secure rights to participation and access information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention I.o.w. the modalities for participation of non- state actors in the 'implementation' of a framework convention (or any other multi- lateral agreement) could theoretically be determined by a linked convention established specifically for that purpose. And, it can address some of the concerns that has been raised. Anriette > Bill, > > I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your > comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are > on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we > clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with > the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. > > Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a > multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on > the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, > resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are > probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be > said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is > worth the convention it is written in." > > We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi Lee, > > > > There are about twenty different conversations now running under the > > heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could > > please separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches > > etc. that'd be helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had > > to go find them in the list archive. > > > > On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > > > >> Bill, Wolfgang, > >> > >> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this > >> list, sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. > > > > You're not alone > > > >> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the > >> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, > >> but I admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though > >> and John and I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get > >> something put together by the time John suggests, for the rest of > >> you to throw stones at. > > > > Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we > > talking about a > > Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, > > rather than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a > > Recommendation, Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal > > agreement, or something else? I can't help wondering if the basic > > rationale isn't, 'because the UN has done conventions in other, > > unrelated fields, let's have one here too,' which to me wouldn't be > > a compelling answer. Normally one would think form should follow > > function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we should > > agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure > > out what it's for, which seems odd. > > > >> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet > >> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet > >> Framework > > > > Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me > > why this isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem > > definition => bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons > > of each => the selection of a solution? > > > >> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam > >> have cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on > >> the other > > > > Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They > > didn't invent something new when the telephone came along, they > > grafted language onto telegraph arrangements. The international > > standardization and diffusion of telephony was slowed in > > consequence. Ditto datacommunications. Institutionally embedded > > history's not always the best guide within much less across global > > policy domains. > > > >> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote > >> participation given the Internet crowd. > >> > >> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed > >> > >> only > >> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and > >> around that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and > >> commitments may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state > >> actors, ie business, civil society, and individuals. Without > >> ICANN, APWG, etc > > > > How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN > > (meaning ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? > > > >> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the > >> GAC is putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its > >> own activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. > >> So it's not like the framework precludes the need for various > >> groups to do what they are doing, as well as they can. It may > >> however help institutionalize other Internet governance processes, > >> to the degree there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. > > > > Sure > > > >> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's > >> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, > >> and the agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any > >> recommendations emanating from the discussion, will determine its > >> ultimate utility, or lack thereof. A discussion on the framework > >> convention would also merit another workshop I'd think. Maybe > >> Parminder and John can coorganize that. > > > > Sure, sure > > > >> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and > >> many other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP > >> also looks forward to contributing to the degree we are able. > > > > Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just > > puzzled by the reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent > > invocations of the solution. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > >> > >>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM > >>>>> > >> John, > >> > >> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign > >> the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented > >> arrangement? > >> > >> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? > >> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How > >> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How > >> these non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would > >> join such a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > >> > >> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even > >> more important. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> wolfgang > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > >> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > >> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > >> > >> > >> > >> Bill, > >> > >> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover > >> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to > >> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would > >> have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have > >> to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be > >> subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to > >> apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or > >> conflict. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> John > >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > >> > >>> Hi John, > >>> > >>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. > >>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and > >>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the > >>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> John Mathiason wrote: > >>>> Bill, > >>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There > >>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more > >>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet > >>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change > >>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention > >>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework > >>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and > >>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of > >>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting > >>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in > >>>> the groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of > >>>> weeks, but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next > >>>> IGF consultations on 23 May. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, > >>>> William Drake wrote: > >>>>> Hi Mawaki, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it > >>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" > >>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than > >>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my > >>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal > >>>>>> basis to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in > >>>>>> sum, the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public > >>>>>> policy issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. > >>>>>> And so far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of > >>>>>> such authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it > >>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could > >>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure > >>>>>> where governments may get to make final decisions (again, only > >>>>>> on public policy) but not without accepting external inputs > >>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what > >>>>> John proposed in his paper three years ago, which to my > >>>>> knowledge is IGP's only written statement on the matter. And > >>>>> that was just a four page concept paper, more of a teaser than > >>>>> an elaborated proposal. Absent further specification, it's > >>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended > >>>>> to entail, and differently react to the recurrent suggestion > >>>>> that it could be The Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday > >>>>> to Milton that you guys take the next step and spell it out. > >>>>> Otherwise we'll just go around and around talking past each > >>>>> other. > >>>>> > >>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has > >>>>> clear legal bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious > >>>>> how a FC would relate to and further clarify the disparate bits > >>>>> of national and international law underlying the shared rule > >>>>> systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and trade, security, > >>>>> consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you actually > >>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, > >>>>> and that this is why you found my comment confusing. There are > >>>>> legal bases there too but to the extent they're unclear or > >>>>> problematic I guess the idea is to change them. Fine, but then > >>>>> maybe you should call it an FC on the governance of core > >>>>> resources to avoid further misunderstanding. And spell out what > >>>>> it might look like so people have something concrete to react > >>>>> to, rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> Bill > >>>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute for International Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: > 4/17/2007 5:20 PM > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Apr 18 17:35:41 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:35:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] possible DC workshop in Rio In-Reply-To: <20070418092351.A65E4C9555@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070418092351.A65E4C9555@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46268F2D.8090004@rits.org.br> Dear people, Rits (Information Network for the Third Sector, a Brazilian NGO based in Rio and affiliated with the APC) is evaluating possibilities regarding a pre-IGF civil society meeting in November. Given the meeting already programmed immediately before IGF, we would have a slot on November 11. The current schedule of meetings near IGF in Rio is: November 02 - 09 -- APC Council Meeting November 10 -- Low-cost Connectivity Workshop (led by APC) November 11 -- GIGANet November 12 - 15 -- IGF We have talked to Markus (IGF) and Wolfgang (GIGANet), as well as local organizers. We could have the meeting in the IGF venue itself if available, and the proposal for the civil society meeting is basically as follows: Date and time: November 11, from 14:00 to 20:00 (GIGAnet starts early morning and will join us around 15:00). Objective: presentation of proposals by each of the dynamic coalitions, so that civil society participants know about each coalition's views of the issues and proposals regarding the IGF debates. This is an attempt to share views to enhance quality of civil society participation in the debates. Format: We have listed eight coalitions, and we have six hours. The proposal is that each coalition presents its proposals in 15 minutes and 15-20 minutes are left for discussions and clarifications. The current coalitions listed are: The StopSpamAlliance Dynamic Coalition on Privacy IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (IGF DOCS) IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights A2K at IGF Dynamic Coalition Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet (FOEonline) The Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition IGF Dynamic Coalition on Access and Connectivity for Remote, Rural and Dispersed Communities The format would allow for including one or two additional coalitions. The questions are: 1. Is this agreeable to organized civil society which has been participating in the IG debates? 2. Are the objective and format acceptable? 3. Any additional suggestions? On the basis of your urgent input we will try and pursue the issue further with the local organizers. As I do not subscribe to all coalitions' mailing lists, I request the ones who receive this and have not seen it show up in their coalition's mailing list in the next 1-2 days, to please forward this message to the corresponding list. fraternal regards --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 karl at cavebear.com Wed Apr 18 20:49:02 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:49:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070418183429.190E9334FAC@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> <4626573B.80009@cavebear.com> <20070418183429.190E9334FAC@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4626BC7E.20207@cavebear.com> Veni Markovski wrote: >>> Board members contribute around 17 hours week to ICANN. >> I spent over 60 hours a week on ICANN board matters. I would wonder >> how anybody could even comprehend the issues with a mere 17 hours a week. > "mere"? 17 hours is more than two full-time working days. I spent 20 > hours = half of my working week. > What you do today is your choice, so you can do 60 hours, because you > want, and you can. You are highlighting one of the major flaws of proposals for internet governance - self-weakened boards of directors that fail to adequately oversee and guide a full-time staff. A person who is a member of a board of directors is a person who has a fiduciary obligation to make informed, independent decisions. That holds true even for "no" or "abstain". The "informed" part means that a director is obligated to become fully aware of the matter at hand. And no human can simply listen and become informed: ambiguities and misunderstandings are natural and can be cured only through active questions and answers. Many directors instead behave like silent sphinxes that let such ambiguities and misunderstandings remain ever unresolved. The "independent" part means that the director has do do his/her own information gathering - the law gives a director only very limited options upon whom he/she may rely. You might want to ask your legal advisor about this because the list of people on whom a director may relay is quite short. In other words, those folks who can not spend the requisite time are derelict in their obligation and should immediately resign in favor of someone who will do the job. I have long advocated that directors of bodies of internet governance receive a relatively trivial compensation for the time they must expend to do their job adequately - I've suggested $50,000(US) per year. Accepting that fee might eliminate certain limits on liability for "volunteer" directors - a director needs to consult his/her own (not the corporation's) attorney for advice on such a decision. In many public-benefit bodies, ICANN among them, directors view their positions as some sort of part-time honorific advisory role rather than the vesting of very serious fiduciary duties. And real body of internet governance should consider how to deal with the kind of staff takeover that occurs when weak boards provide weak, often after-the-fact, oversight and guidence. And for that work, they get the blame that they do not > listen "to the community", with sentences that are completely insulting > in my culture. You are one of the few directors of ICANN who has tried to engage with the community of internet users. Taken as a whole, I have seen only a few directors of ICANN who have, in fact, interacted with the community of internet users to the degree that they actually made informed, independent decisions. Those directors who have failed to adequately take the time to comprehend issues and the sense of the internet community should not feel insulted. Rather they should feel ashamed. --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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Apr 18 21:23:22 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:23:22 +0800 Subject: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F017C7CBA@ensms02.iris.se> References: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F017C7CBA@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <4626C48A.4000807@Malcolm.id.au> Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Lee, > > In international laws, it does not exist something in between! > > International conventions signed by States can however, be very much influenced by the civil society. The recent adopted convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, there the convention now open for ratification has been drafted to 80% by the civil society (Disable persons organisations (DPO's). Why could not this be done concerning this topic? In fact WGIG anticipated that as well as making recommendations to other organisations, the IGF “may also invite — or recommend that the United Nations invites — member states to discuss a certain issue in an official capacity, or via a vote in the United Nations General Assembly.” Likewise, there is no reason why a workshop or Dynamic Coalition of the IGF could not write a first draft of the Framework Convention and submit it to the plenary body for consideration, in other fora no doubt, by states. -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Apr 18 21:47:09 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: <163529.36426.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Jeremy, I'd consider this a failure or fault of IGF. Relying on states to be able to best represent people with disabilities would be very hit and miss. Bodies advocating the rights of people with disabilities, either international or national, would be far better, even if the state were to consult with a relevant NGO. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kicki Nordström Sent: Thursday, 19 April, 2007 11:23:22 AM Subject: Re: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Lee, > > In international laws, it does not exist something in between! > > International conventions signed by States can however, be very much influenced by the civil society. The recent adopted convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, there the convention now open for ratification has been drafted to 80% by the civil society (Disable persons organisations (DPO's). Why could not this be done concerning this topic? In fact WGIG anticipated that as well as making recommendations to other organisations, the IGF “may also invite — or recommend that the United Nations invites — member states to discuss a certain issue in an official capacity, or via a vote in the United Nations General Assembly.” Likewise, there is no reason why a workshop or Dynamic Coalition of the IGF could not write a first draft of the Framework Convention and submit it to the plenary body for consideration, in other fora no doubt, by states. -- 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 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Apr 18 22:19:13 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:19:13 +0800 Subject: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <163529.36426.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <163529.36426.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4626D1A1.8000403@Malcolm.id.au> David Goldstein wrote: >> In fact WGIG anticipated that as well as making recommendations to other >> organisations, the IGF “may also invite — or recommend that the United >> Nations invites — member states to discuss a certain issue in an >> official capacity, or via a vote in the United Nations General >> Assembly.” Likewise, there is no reason why a workshop or Dynamic >> Coalition of the IGF could not write a first draft of the Framework >> Convention and submit it to the plenary body for consideration, in other >> fora no doubt, by states. > > I'd consider this a failure or fault of IGF. Relying on states to be able to best represent people with disabilities would be very hit and miss. Bodies advocating the rights of people with disabilities, either international or national, would be far better, even if the state were to consult with a relevant NGO. Well I agree, but we have to take baby steps here. Ideally, and perhaps eventually, the output of the IGF could take the force of an independent body of transnational law, something like the lex mercatoria, that would exist parallel to (and yet not be trumped by) the existing international system. But how we get there from here is to first develop recommendations in a multi-stakeholder process that nobody can reasonably dissent from, and for those to gain normative force through adoption into the international system's existing governance institutions. Eventually that last step could become redundant, and for the IGF to make a recommendation could then be enough. -- 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 veni at veni.com Wed Apr 18 22:22:29 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:22:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <4626BC7E.20207@cavebear.com> References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> <4626573B.80009@cavebear.com> <20070418183429.190E9334FAC@mxr.isoc.bg> <4626BC7E.20207@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070419022447.E54DC335061@mxr.isoc.bg> At 17:49 4/18/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>"mere"? 17 hours is more than two full-time working days. I spent >>20 hours = half of my working week. >>What you do today is your choice, so you can do 60 hours, because >>you want, and you can. > >You are highlighting one of the major flaws of proposals for >internet governance - self-weakened boards of directors that fail to >adequately oversee and guide a full-time staff. I don't see this as a flaw; it's another example of history at ICANN, since the time the Board was way too bigger than the staff. This, hopefully, will change with time. That's why the first directors (you included) have spent 60 hours a week, and people have complained about losses thay have suffered because of time allocated for pro bono work. I agree with you that listening is not the only way of achieving information, but you forget reading is more important, esp. for non-native English speakers. And reading takes a lot of time, too. I don't believe directors in general have failed their duty to the organization. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Thu Apr 19 01:38:16 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:38:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] SV: framework connvetnion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F017C7CD1@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Lee, I am sorry to say that the Land Mine treaty is not about Human Rights, and this is maybe which create the confusion! Yours 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 kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Skickat: den 18 april 2007 22:43 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kicki Nordström Ämne: framework connvetnion Dear Kicki, What exists today and what exists tomorrow under international law is indeeed what we are talking about. I guess one could say more precisely that what began eg as a movement of civil society against land mines may in time lead to a formal Convention under international law. But since the Internet is is till largely a party of business and society, and only secondarily nation-states, and their traditional mechanisms for regulating international behavior, I remain unconvinced we must bow and scrape to the un or anyone else before talking amongst ourselves. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Kicki Nordström 4/18/2007 4:04:26 PM >>> >>> Dear Lee, In international laws, it does not exist something in between! International conventions signed by States can however, be very much influenced by the civil society. The recent adopted convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, there the convention now open for ratification has been drafted to 80% by the civil society (Disable persons organisations (DPO's). Why could not this be done concerning this topic? Yours 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 kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Skickat: den 18 april 2007 18:17 Till: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; 'Alejandro Pisanty' Ämne: RE: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Jacqueline, Your points are well taken. Hey my analogy almost works right? Yes I am aware that 'convention' has a specific meaning in international law, different from say a Las Vegas convention. What I'm speaking of is somewhere in between, since yes things are still a bit wild and raucous here on the global net, and old rules and definitions and ways of doing things apply to the extent we choose to permit them to. Um, maybe that's why we could use a convention? So I am imagining the Internet Framework Convention as a more open process, one NOT initated by states but rather by us, whoever we are. If states never join the party, well then it doesn't count under international law. But it could still have some effects in time. Way too soon to say. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jam at jacquelinemorris.com 4/17/2007 8:53 AM >>> Hi Wolfgang One small correction - the AtLarge has over 90 ALSes and several applicants to be voted on soon, so hopefully we will make the 100+ mark very soon. And you know I agree with your view of the potential of the ALAC in the future. But there's a lot of work to do. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:32 AM To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Thanks Lee for the entertaining comparison between IG/ICANN/IGF and the 50 years of European Unification. You know one problem in Europe is the role of the Commission (which would be ICANN Staff in your picture). The highest authority is with the Heads of State in the European Council (which would be the Board). But we know that in many cases - in particular for day to day operaitons - the de facto power is with the Commission (labelled as the "Brussels Burocracy"). To compare the IGF with the European Parliament I disagree. IGF has a much broader mandate than ICANN. This is a different level. It is like comparing the EU with the UN. It is in the interst of ICANN to keep its mandate narrow technically defined. My "parliament" for ICANN would be At-Large. You and me and others, who have been involved in the 2000 elections, have opposed for years the removing of voting ALM directors from the board and the creation of a burocratical beast composed of dubios ALS, RALOs and the powerless ALAC which can send one non-voting delegate into the Board. But as history of the last years has told us, there is no strong alternative movement. With other words, we have to live with the reality and to develop this reality. The first European parliament had no power. It was just "window dressing" to establish such a component in the whole system which was ruled and dominated by the European Council and the European Commission. The role of the Parliament grew slowly over the years. Unfortunately the European Constitution, which would have given more power to the Parliement, was rejected (one of the irony of history where people vote for some subjective (legitimitae) reasons against their own objective interests). However, the issue remains on the agenda. For ICANN and its future the challenge is how to go beyond the RALOs. Now we have four recognized RALOs. We have about 50 ALSs. The door for individuals is open (or lts say half open) in most of the RALOs. If the ALAC becomes more active, sending recommendations to the Board, organizing independent workshops and seminars to burning issues, positioning itself as the representatives of users and conusmers (consumer protection will become a big isue with the emerging secondory domain name maerket, domain name tasintg, the debacle with RegisterFly, WHOIS, iDNS and soon also RFID) the whole picture could look rather different in October 2009 when the JPA comes to an end. Next step could be the call to transform the ALAC into an At Large Membership Supporting Organisation (ALSO) with the right to send a minimum of two voting directors to the Board. One comment to the Convention. I recognize your arguments. Probably the dissent comes with the language. The terminology is legally defined. A convention under international law is a convention. Look into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). If you call it "Multistakeholder Framework Arrangement on Internet Governance" (MUFARIG) propably it looks different. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Gesendet: Mo 16.04.2007 23:15 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Alejandro Pisanty Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Wolfgang, Alejandro, I generally agree with both of you. Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be needed. In time. And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet governance, not global governance in general. But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in our case. A technical matter. ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without the political oversight. Which led to the natural reaction of WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general. IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the design of its makers little to no power. Odds on it gaining hard power are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old. So, too soon to say. But expressing opinions on what it should or should not be next are appropriate. Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion. (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d recommendations.) I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list discussion wouldn;t count as part of it. In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I. Not very state-centric so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say 'start.' Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going, with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not yet created. 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 4/16/2007 9:59 AM >>> Alejandro: What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing institution. So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up other organizations properly. In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate track when timely. Wolfgang: I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases. Regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Apr 19 02:56:03 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:56:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <7BD6C843-14C7-420C-9E72-B07DDBD67086@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, John, right, a Convention is a treaty. But a great many treaties are not called Conventions, hence the separate mention. The International Telecommunication Regulations, for example, which are due to be reviewed and possibly revised at a big diplomatic conference in 2012, to take into account the Internet and related developments (e.g. NGN). Remind me again of the time frame on the FC concept? ;-) Lee, thanks for the detailed reply, which was helpful. Look forward to seeing what you folks come up with. Cheers, Bill On 4/18/07 10:20 PM, "John Mathiason" wrote: > Bill, > > I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your > comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are > on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we > clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with > the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. > > Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a > multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on > the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, > resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are > probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be > said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is > worth the convention it is written in." > > We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Lee, >> >> There are about twenty different conversations now running under the >> heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could please >> separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches etc. >> that'd be >> helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had to go find >> them in the >> list archive. >> >> On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: >> >>> Bill, Wolfgang, >>> >>> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this list, >>> sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. >> >> You're not alone >> >>> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the >>> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, >>> but I >>> admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though and >>> John and >>> I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something put >>> together >>> by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw stones at. >> >> Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we >> talking about a >> Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, >> rather >> than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a >> Recommendation, >> Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, or >> something >> else? I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, >> 'because the UN >> has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have one >> here too,' >> which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer. Normally one would >> think form >> should follow function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we >> should agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll >> figure >> out what it's for, which seems odd. >> >>> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet >>> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet Framework >> >> Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me >> why this >> isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem >> definition => >> bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of each => the >> selection of a solution? >> >>> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam have >>> cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the >>> other >> >> Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They >> didn't >> invent something new when the telephone came along, they grafted >> language >> onto telegraph arrangements. The international standardization and >> diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence. Ditto >> datacommunications. >> Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide within >> much >> less across global policy domains. >> >>> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote >>> participation given the Internet crowd. >>> >>> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed >>> only >>> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and around >>> that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and commitments >>> may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state actors, ie >>> business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, APWG, etc >> >> How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN >> (meaning >> ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? >> >>> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the >>> GAC is >>> putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its own >>> activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. So >>> it's >>> not like the framework precludes the need for various groups to do >>> what >>> they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help >>> institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the degree >>> there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. >> >> Sure >> >>> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's >>> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, >>> and the >>> agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any recommendations >>> emanating >>> from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or lack >>> thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would also merit >>> another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can coorganize >>> that. >> >> Sure, sure >> >>> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and >>> many >>> other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP also looks >>> forward to contributing to the degree we are able. >> >> Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just >> puzzled by the >> reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of the >> solution. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> >>> >>>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>>>> >>> John, >>> >>> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign the >>> "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented >>> arrangement? >>> >>> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? >>> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How >>> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How >>> these >>> non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such a >>> convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? >>> >>> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more >>> important. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] >>> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 >>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover >>> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to >>> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have >>> to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be >>> dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to >>> negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should >>> deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> John >>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: >>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> >>>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >>>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >>>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >>>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> John Mathiason wrote: >>>>> Bill, >>>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the >>>>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks, >>>>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >>>>> consultations on 23 May. >>>>> Best, >>>>> John >>>>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>>>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis >>>>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where >>>>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>>>> John proposed >>>>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>>>>> only written >>>>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>>>>> paper, more >>>>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>>>>> specification, it's >>>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>>>> to entail, >>>>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>>>>> be The >>>>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>>>>> guys take the >>>>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>>>>> around >>>>>> talking past each other. >>>>>> >>>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>>>> clear legal >>>>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>>>>> would relate to >>>>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>>>>> international law >>>>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>>>>> and trade, >>>>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>>>>> actually >>>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>>>> and that >>>>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>>>>> bases there too >>>>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>>>>> idea is to >>>>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the >>>>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>>>>> And spell >>>>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>>>>> react to, >>>>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill >>>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >> Director, Project on the Information >> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >> Graduate Institute for International Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 > *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Apr 19 03:29:23 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:29:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf References: <46250BC5.3030307@bertola.eu> <46251b56.6b363b17.529d.ffffa8b2@mx.google.com> <4625AC94.4080303@cavebear.com> <4626573B.80009@cavebear.com> <20070418183429.190E9334FAC@mxr.isoc.bg> <4626BC7E.20207@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D304@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Good points Karl. I missed this ideas in the presidents strategy commission report. If ICANN prepares for a post JPA time (2009++) it has to face this issue. We see this in the NomCom where a lot of excellent candidates who do not have the free time available do not apply. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Gesendet: Do 19.04.2007 02:49 An: Veni Markovski Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Veni Markovski wrote: >>> Board members contribute around 17 hours week to ICANN. >> I spent over 60 hours a week on ICANN board matters. I would wonder >> how anybody could even comprehend the issues with a mere 17 hours a week. > "mere"? 17 hours is more than two full-time working days. I spent 20 > hours = half of my working week. > What you do today is your choice, so you can do 60 hours, because you > want, and you can. You are highlighting one of the major flaws of proposals for internet governance - self-weakened boards of directors that fail to adequately oversee and guide a full-time staff. A person who is a member of a board of directors is a person who has a fiduciary obligation to make informed, independent decisions. That holds true even for "no" or "abstain". The "informed" part means that a director is obligated to become fully aware of the matter at hand. And no human can simply listen and become informed: ambiguities and misunderstandings are natural and can be cured only through active questions and answers. Many directors instead behave like silent sphinxes that let such ambiguities and misunderstandings remain ever unresolved. The "independent" part means that the director has do do his/her own information gathering - the law gives a director only very limited options upon whom he/she may rely. You might want to ask your legal advisor about this because the list of people on whom a director may relay is quite short. In other words, those folks who can not spend the requisite time are derelict in their obligation and should immediately resign in favor of someone who will do the job. I have long advocated that directors of bodies of internet governance receive a relatively trivial compensation for the time they must expend to do their job adequately - I've suggested $50,000(US) per year. Accepting that fee might eliminate certain limits on liability for "volunteer" directors - a director needs to consult his/her own (not the corporation's) attorney for advice on such a decision. In many public-benefit bodies, ICANN among them, directors view their positions as some sort of part-time honorific advisory role rather than the vesting of very serious fiduciary duties. And real body of internet governance should consider how to deal with the kind of staff takeover that occurs when weak boards provide weak, often after-the-fact, oversight and guidence. And for that work, they get the blame that they do not > listen "to the community", with sentences that are completely insulting > in my culture. You are one of the few directors of ICANN who has tried to engage with the community of internet users. Taken as a whole, I have seen only a few directors of ICANN who have, in fact, interacted with the community of internet users to the degree that they actually made informed, independent decisions. Those directors who have failed to adequately take the time to comprehend issues and the sense of the internet community should not feel insulted. Rather they should feel ashamed. --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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Apr 19 03:56:47 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:56:47 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention References: <7BD6C843-14C7-420C-9E72-B07DDBD67086@maxwell.syr.edu> <4626AC5A.27255.D8EDFB3@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D306@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list, the debate on the FC is stimulating. However we are circling around the hot potatoe and this is to challenge the eixsting systems and mechanisms as we know them from the last 200 years. Looking forward the main challenge is no to recycle existing insturment but to invent something which is new. We are playing with known instruments and institutions (which come - as Jon has remembered us - from the Westphalian System and are part of the body of international law as its has been developed from Hugo Grotius via the League of Nations to the Charter of the United Nations and the Vienne Convention on the Law of Treaties). The basic question in the biderless cyberspace is do we continue on the basis of the existing system - adding new elements to it - or do we are facing a fundamental system change? In the old (hierarchical) system governments always hat the last word: States, with clear defined territorial borders and represented via its governments, were the only subject of International law (together with intergovernmental organisations which got also the capability to sign legal contracts as far as they got the mandate to do so from their member states). The whole system is based on the recognition of the principle of national sovereignty, or, as it is said in the UN Charter "sovereign equality". This has worked for the 19th and 20th century (with a lot of wars among sovereign states). The question is, will the 21st century, where the Internet has underminded the traditional understanding of clear defined territorial borders, see a more network based system where governments are only one actor among others and where we have different "political territories" of rights and responsibilities? One of the challenges is to figure out how the relationship (in legal and political terms) among the stakeholders can be organized (and formalized), probably on a case by case basis. In a paper for WGIG (Internet Co-Governance) I proposed a model, where you have basically a trilateral mechanism for each of the IG issues (as listed in the WGIG report), but for each issues the triangel would be different. Governmental leadership would be needed in the fight against cybercrime, but also here the involvment of private sector and civil society is needed. On the other hand, the management of the DNS should by led by the private sector (but also here a certain involvment of governments and civil society is needed). In WGIG we listed 18 relevant IG issues, which would mean 18 different governance models, based on multistakeholderism, that is of a specific triangular relationship. With other words, we would have 18 different triangels. I have called this IG model the "Tower of Triangels". But again, when we accept, that we are moving towards a system change, then we have to go beyond refering to existing (legal and political) instruments and have to invent something which is new. BTW, the majority of todays war are not among sovereign states. Al Kaida is not a sovereign nationstate, it is a network :-((((. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 23:40 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason Betreff: Re: [governance] Framework convention Keep in mind what has been achieved with the UN Economic Commission for Europe's Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. It secure rights to participation and access information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention I.o.w. the modalities for participation of non- state actors in the 'implementation' of a framework convention (or any other multi- lateral agreement) could theoretically be determined by a linked convention established specifically for that purpose. And, it can address some of the concerns that has been raised. Anriette > Bill, > > I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your > comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are > on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we > clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with > the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. > > Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a > multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on > the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, > resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are > probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be > said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is > worth the convention it is written in." > > We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi Lee, > > > > There are about twenty different conversations now running under the > > heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could > > please separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches > > etc. that'd be helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had > > to go find them in the list archive. > > > > On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > > > >> Bill, Wolfgang, > >> > >> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this > >> list, sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. > > > > You're not alone > > > >> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the > >> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, > >> but I admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though > >> and John and I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get > >> something put together by the time John suggests, for the rest of > >> you to throw stones at. > > > > Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we > > talking about a > > Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, > > rather than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a > > Recommendation, Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal > > agreement, or something else? I can't help wondering if the basic > > rationale isn't, 'because the UN has done conventions in other, > > unrelated fields, let's have one here too,' which to me wouldn't be > > a compelling answer. Normally one would think form should follow > > function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we should > > agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure > > out what it's for, which seems odd. > > > >> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet > >> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet > >> Framework > > > > Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me > > why this isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem > > definition => bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons > > of each => the selection of a solution? > > > >> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam > >> have cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on > >> the other > > > > Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They > > didn't invent something new when the telephone came along, they > > grafted language onto telegraph arrangements. The international > > standardization and diffusion of telephony was slowed in > > consequence. Ditto datacommunications. Institutionally embedded > > history's not always the best guide within much less across global > > policy domains. > > > >> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote > >> participation given the Internet crowd. > >> > >> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed > >> > >> only > >> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and > >> around that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and > >> commitments may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state > >> actors, ie business, civil society, and individuals. Without > >> ICANN, APWG, etc > > > > How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN > > (meaning ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? > > > >> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the > >> GAC is putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its > >> own activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. > >> So it's not like the framework precludes the need for various > >> groups to do what they are doing, as well as they can. It may > >> however help institutionalize other Internet governance processes, > >> to the degree there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. > > > > Sure > > > >> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's > >> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, > >> and the agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any > >> recommendations emanating from the discussion, will determine its > >> ultimate utility, or lack thereof. A discussion on the framework > >> convention would also merit another workshop I'd think. Maybe > >> Parminder and John can coorganize that. > > > > Sure, sure > > > >> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and > >> many other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP > >> also looks forward to contributing to the degree we are able. > > > > Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just > > puzzled by the reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent > > invocations of the solution. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > >> > >>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM > >>>>> > >> John, > >> > >> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign > >> the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented > >> arrangement? > >> > >> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? > >> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How > >> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How > >> these non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would > >> join such a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > >> > >> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even > >> more important. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> wolfgang > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > >> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > >> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > >> > >> > >> > >> Bill, > >> > >> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover > >> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to > >> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would > >> have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have > >> to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be > >> subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to > >> apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or > >> conflict. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> John > >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > >> > >>> Hi John, > >>> > >>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. > >>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and > >>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the > >>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> John Mathiason wrote: > >>>> Bill, > >>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There > >>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more > >>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet > >>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change > >>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention > >>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework > >>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and > >>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of > >>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting > >>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in > >>>> the groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of > >>>> weeks, but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next > >>>> IGF consultations on 23 May. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, > >>>> William Drake wrote: > >>>>> Hi Mawaki, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it > >>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" > >>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than > >>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my > >>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal > >>>>>> basis to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in > >>>>>> sum, the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public > >>>>>> policy issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. > >>>>>> And so far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of > >>>>>> such authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it > >>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could > >>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure > >>>>>> where governments may get to make final decisions (again, only > >>>>>> on public policy) but not without accepting external inputs > >>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what > >>>>> John proposed in his paper three years ago, which to my > >>>>> knowledge is IGP's only written statement on the matter. And > >>>>> that was just a four page concept paper, more of a teaser than > >>>>> an elaborated proposal. Absent further specification, it's > >>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended > >>>>> to entail, and differently react to the recurrent suggestion > >>>>> that it could be The Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday > >>>>> to Milton that you guys take the next step and spell it out. > >>>>> Otherwise we'll just go around and around talking past each > >>>>> other. > >>>>> > >>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has > >>>>> clear legal bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious > >>>>> how a FC would relate to and further clarify the disparate bits > >>>>> of national and international law underlying the shared rule > >>>>> systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and trade, security, > >>>>> consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you actually > >>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, > >>>>> and that this is why you found my comment confusing. There are > >>>>> legal bases there too but to the extent they're unclear or > >>>>> problematic I guess the idea is to change them. Fine, but then > >>>>> maybe you should call it an FC on the governance of core > >>>>> resources to avoid further misunderstanding. And spell out what > >>>>> it might look like so people have something concrete to react > >>>>> to, rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> Bill > >>>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute for International Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: > 4/17/2007 5:20 PM > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Apr 19 05:16:20 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:16:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D306@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <005a01c78263$6ebbe7d0$7fabf10a@IAN> I think Wolfgang has the heart of a good model here. Maybe a task for Rio is to develop this and present it. Step one - define the issues that need some form of Internet governance- is the current list of 18 issues useful or do we need to extend or refine? Step two - for each issue define * lead stakeholder * other major stakeholders ( I think we need to look at UN organizations as well as the three major stakeholder groups) Step three - what does that tell us about which issues might be able to be handled by a common organizational structure (eg do spam and phishing have nearly identical stakeholder structures or are they sufficiently different to suggest different governance models for these two related issues (similarly privacy and copyright etc etc) >From this we can make assumptions about models and gap analysis of existing organisations. An interesting exercise! PS and as an aside - I appreciate that the avenue for Al Quaeda input is clearly civil society. I think their Internet governance interests perhaps are mainly around issues such as censorship and freedom of expression. (another issue grouping that needs its own structure perhaps). The middle east is becoming a perfect example of a problem that cannot be solved by governments alone without the involvement in a solution of non-government players (aka civil society) and business interests. All three groupings have interested intertwined in the current quagmire and attempts to arrive at solutions without involving all three are clearly unworkable. We could rapidly develop a list of a number of current issues where resolution is dependent on interaction of major groupings outside government - in my immediate areas of interest climate change and internet governance are clear examples where any one group not working in co-operation with the other two major groupings isn’t going to make much headway. 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: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: 19 April 2007 17:57 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention Dear list, One of the challenges is to figure out how the relationship (in legal and political terms) among the stakeholders can be organized (and formalized), probably on a case by case basis. In a paper for WGIG (Internet Co-Governance) I proposed a model, where you have basically a trilateral mechanism for each of the IG issues (as listed in the WGIG report), but for each issues the triangel would be different. Governmental leadership would be needed in the fight against cybercrime, but also here the involvment of private sector and civil society is needed. On the other hand, the management of the DNS should by led by the private sector (but also here a certain involvment of governments and civil society is needed). In WGIG we listed 18 relevant IG issues, which would mean 18 different governance models, based on multistakeholderism, that is of a specific triangular relationship. With other words, we would have 18 different triangels. I have called this IG model the "Tower of Triangels". But again, when we accept, that we are moving towards a system change, then we have to go beyond refering to existing (legal and political) instruments and have to invent something which is new. BTW, the majority of todays war are not among sovereign states. Al Kaida is not a sovereign nationstate, it is a network :-((((. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 23:40 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason Betreff: Re: [governance] Framework convention Keep in mind what has been achieved with the UN Economic Commission for Europe's Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. It secure rights to participation and access information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention I.o.w. the modalities for participation of non- state actors in the 'implementation' of a framework convention (or any other multi- lateral agreement) could theoretically be determined by a linked convention established specifically for that purpose. And, it can address some of the concerns that has been raised. Anriette > Bill, > > I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your > comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are > on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we > clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with > the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. > > Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a > multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on > the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, > resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are > probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be > said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is > worth the convention it is written in." > > We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. > > Best, > > John > On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi Lee, > > > > There are about twenty different conversations now running under the > > heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could > > please separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches > > etc. that'd be helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had > > to go find them in the list archive. > > > > On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > > > >> Bill, Wolfgang, > >> > >> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this > >> list, sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. > > > > You're not alone > > > >> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the > >> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, > >> but I admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though > >> and John and I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get > >> something put together by the time John suggests, for the rest of > >> you to throw stones at. > > > > Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we > > talking about a > > Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, > > rather than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a > > Recommendation, Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal > > agreement, or something else? I can't help wondering if the basic > > rationale isn't, 'because the UN has done conventions in other, > > unrelated fields, let's have one here too,' which to me wouldn't be > > a compelling answer. Normally one would think form should follow > > function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we should > > agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure > > out what it's for, which seems odd. > > > >> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet > >> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet > >> Framework > > > > Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me > > why this isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem > > definition => bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons > > of each => the selection of a solution? > > > >> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam > >> have cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on > >> the other > > > > Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They > > didn't invent something new when the telephone came along, they > > grafted language onto telegraph arrangements. The international > > standardization and diffusion of telephony was slowed in > > consequence. Ditto datacommunications. Institutionally embedded > > history's not always the best guide within much less across global > > policy domains. > > > >> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote > >> participation given the Internet crowd. > >> > >> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed > >> > >> only > >> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and > >> around that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and > >> commitments may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state > >> actors, ie business, civil society, and individuals. Without > >> ICANN, APWG, etc > > > > How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN > > (meaning ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? > > > >> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the > >> GAC is putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its > >> own activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. > >> So it's not like the framework precludes the need for various > >> groups to do what they are doing, as well as they can. It may > >> however help institutionalize other Internet governance processes, > >> to the degree there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. > > > > Sure > > > >> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's > >> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, > >> and the agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any > >> recommendations emanating from the discussion, will determine its > >> ultimate utility, or lack thereof. A discussion on the framework > >> convention would also merit another workshop I'd think. Maybe > >> Parminder and John can coorganize that. > > > > Sure, sure > > > >> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and > >> many other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP > >> also looks forward to contributing to the degree we are able. > > > > Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just > > puzzled by the reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent > > invocations of the solution. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > >> > >>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM > >>>>> > >> John, > >> > >> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign > >> the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented > >> arrangement? > >> > >> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? > >> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How > >> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How > >> these non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would > >> join such a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > >> > >> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even > >> more important. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> wolfgang > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > >> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > >> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > >> > >> > >> > >> Bill, > >> > >> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover > >> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to > >> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would > >> have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have > >> to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be > >> subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to > >> apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or > >> conflict. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> John > >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > >> > >>> Hi John, > >>> > >>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. > >>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and > >>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the > >>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> John Mathiason wrote: > >>>> Bill, > >>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There > >>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more > >>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet > >>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change > >>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention > >>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework > >>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and > >>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of > >>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting > >>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in > >>>> the groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of > >>>> weeks, but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next > >>>> IGF consultations on 23 May. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, > >>>> William Drake wrote: > >>>>> Hi Mawaki, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it > >>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" > >>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than > >>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my > >>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal > >>>>>> basis to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in > >>>>>> sum, the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public > >>>>>> policy issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. > >>>>>> And so far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of > >>>>>> such authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it > >>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could > >>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure > >>>>>> where governments may get to make final decisions (again, only > >>>>>> on public policy) but not without accepting external inputs > >>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what > >>>>> John proposed in his paper three years ago, which to my > >>>>> knowledge is IGP's only written statement on the matter. And > >>>>> that was just a four page concept paper, more of a teaser than > >>>>> an elaborated proposal. Absent further specification, it's > >>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended > >>>>> to entail, and differently react to the recurrent suggestion > >>>>> that it could be The Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday > >>>>> to Milton that you guys take the next step and spell it out. > >>>>> Otherwise we'll just go around and around talking past each > >>>>> other. > >>>>> > >>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has > >>>>> clear legal bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious > >>>>> how a FC would relate to and further clarify the disparate bits > >>>>> of national and international law underlying the shared rule > >>>>> systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and trade, security, > >>>>> consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you actually > >>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, > >>>>> and that this is why you found my comment confusing. There are > >>>>> legal bases there too but to the extent they're unclear or > >>>>> problematic I guess the idea is to change them. Fine, but then > >>>>> maybe you should call it an FC on the governance of core > >>>>> resources to avoid further misunderstanding. And spell out what > >>>>> it might look like so people have something concrete to react > >>>>> to, rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> Bill > >>>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute for International Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: > 4/17/2007 5:20 PM > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 16:22 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 16:22 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Thu Apr 19 06:49:03 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:49:03 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <163529.36426.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <163529.36426.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F017C7E4E@ensms02.iris.se> Dear friends, State draft the convention (with support by persons with disabilities), as States do not have the insight and knowledge. The ratifying countries have to change the national law in accordance with the convention, before ratifying. After that, PWD can challenge the State for not living up to the convention they have ratified, or the national law! Yours 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 kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Skickat: den 19 april 2007 03:47 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Jeremy, I'd consider this a failure or fault of IGF. Relying on states to be able to best represent people with disabilities would be very hit and miss. Bodies advocating the rights of people with disabilities, either international or national, would be far better, even if the state were to consult with a relevant NGO. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kicki Nordström Sent: Thursday, 19 April, 2007 11:23:22 AM Subject: Re: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Lee, > > In international laws, it does not exist something in between! > > International conventions signed by States can however, be very much influenced by the civil society. The recent adopted convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, there the convention now open for ratification has been drafted to 80% by the civil society (Disable persons organisations (DPO's). Why could not this be done concerning this topic? In fact WGIG anticipated that as well as making recommendations to other organisations, the IGF "may also invite - or recommend that the United Nations invites - member states to discuss a certain issue in an official capacity, or via a vote in the United Nations General Assembly." Likewise, there is no reason why a workshop or Dynamic Coalition of the IGF could not write a first draft of the Framework Convention and submit it to the plenary body for consideration, in other fora no doubt, by states. -- 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 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Thu Apr 19 07:35:15 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:35:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26D706C5-B413-43E3-8093-314D24FF4020@maxwell.syr.edu> Bill, I am enjoying the discussion and have noted Wolfgang and Ian Peter's comments, as well as Lee's. The gist of many of the comments is that Internet governance should not be limited by existing forms of reaching international agreements and that new models should be sought. I sense that you have a similar concern. I think that under the heading "multistakeholderism" this is something that many in civil society would like to see. Very visionary in the longer-term, but not very realistic in the short term, since it would really require an abolition of the Westphalian model. The likely way in which the role of non-State actors will be played out in the shorter- term will be in the negotiation process and in holding States accountable once they have agreed. Kicki Nordstrom has pointed out rather eloquently (and she knows the process well from the Disability Convention negotiations) that civil society and other non-State actors are very influential in negotiations, particularly where the issue is one in which responsibilities are shared by State and non- State actors. She also notes the Landmine Convention (which is actually not a UN Convention) that was adopted by States under great pressure by NGOs. Your point on the ITU Regulations raises a different question. This is whether the Internet should be governed through one of the technical conventions. If the right one could be found, this would be a solution and clearly the ITU would not object to making the 2012 revision the focus. Here the problem is that as currently being debated, the issues of Internet governance extend well beyond ITU's remit and that focussing international agreement on the ITU would either take too narrow a position (e.g issues of content and freedom of expression would be left out) or the ITU would be given a dramatically enlarged mandate. I agree that many of the non-universal conventions (like the Council of Europe's Cybercrime Convention or the ECE's Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) contain interesting agreements. But, since the Internet is universal, a non-universal convention will not be binding. I would look at these as examples of what can be agreed, but not as models. The existence of both technical conventions and non-universal conventions is probably another incentive to negotiate a universal umbrella agreement that provides a holistic framework into which they can be placed. As to how long a Framework Convention would take (the time horizon), there is clearly no hard and fast rule. The Climate Change Convention, if you take as its genesis the World Climate Programme, took about 10 years. The Disability Convention, in contrast, took about five. It depends on the urgency of the problems being addressed, the concern of the stakeholders and the perceived benefits of agreeing on something to preserve order. All of the inputs into the discussion, I must say, are well- considered and when we draft the revised paper, will be addressed. Best, John On Apr 19, 2007, at 2:56, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > John, right, a Convention is a treaty. But a great many treaties > are not > called Conventions, hence the separate mention. The International > Telecommunication Regulations, for example, which are due to be > reviewed and > possibly revised at a big diplomatic conference in 2012, to take into > account the Internet and related developments (e.g. NGN). Remind > me again > of the time frame on the FC concept? ;-) > > Lee, thanks for the detailed reply, which was helpful. Look > forward to > seeing what you folks come up with. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > On 4/18/07 10:20 PM, "John Mathiason" > wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your >> comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are >> on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we >> clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with >> the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. >> >> Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a >> multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on >> the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, >> resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are >> probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be >> said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is >> worth the convention it is written in." >> >> We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. >> >> Best, >> >> John >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi Lee, >>> >>> There are about twenty different conversations now running under the >>> heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could >>> please >>> separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches etc. >>> that'd be >>> helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had to go find >>> them in the >>> list archive. >>> >>> On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: >>> >>>> Bill, Wolfgang, >>>> >>>> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this >>>> list, >>>> sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. >>> >>> You're not alone >>> >>>> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the >>>> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, >>>> but I >>>> admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though and >>>> John and >>>> I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something put >>>> together >>>> by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw stones at. >>> >>> Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we >>> talking about a >>> Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, >>> rather >>> than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a >>> Recommendation, >>> Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, or >>> something >>> else? I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, >>> 'because the UN >>> has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have one >>> here too,' >>> which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer. Normally one would >>> think form >>> should follow function, but it seems like you guys are saying >>> first we >>> should agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll >>> figure >>> out what it's for, which seems odd. >>> >>>> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet >>>> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet >>>> Framework >>> >>> Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me >>> why this >>> isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem >>> definition => >>> bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of each => the >>> selection of a solution? >>> >>>> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam >>>> have >>>> cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the >>>> other >>> >>> Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They >>> didn't >>> invent something new when the telephone came along, they grafted >>> language >>> onto telegraph arrangements. The international standardization and >>> diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence. Ditto >>> datacommunications. >>> Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide within >>> much >>> less across global policy domains. >>> >>>> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote >>>> participation given the Internet crowd. >>>> >>>> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed >>>> only >>>> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and >>>> around >>>> that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and >>>> commitments >>>> may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state actors, ie >>>> business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, APWG, >>>> etc >>> >>> How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN >>> (meaning >>> ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? >>> >>>> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the >>>> GAC is >>>> putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its own >>>> activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. So >>>> it's >>>> not like the framework precludes the need for various groups to do >>>> what >>>> they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help >>>> institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the degree >>>> there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. >>> >>> Sure >>> >>>> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's >>>> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, >>>> and the >>>> agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any recommendations >>>> emanating >>>> from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or lack >>>> thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would also >>>> merit >>>> another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can >>>> coorganize >>>> that. >>> >>> Sure, sure >>> >>>> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and >>>> many >>>> other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP also >>>> looks >>>> forward to contributing to the degree we are able. >>> >>> Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just >>> puzzled by the >>> reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of the >>> solution. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> >>>>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>>>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would >>>> sign the >>>> "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented >>>> arrangement? >>>> >>>> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? >>>> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How >>>> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How >>>> these >>>> non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join >>>> such a >>>> convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? >>>> >>>> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even >>>> more >>>> important. >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> wolfgang >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] >>>> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 >>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William >>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover >>>> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to >>>> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would >>>> have >>>> to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have >>>> to be >>>> dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to >>>> negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should >>>> deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> John >>>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >>>>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >>>>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >>>>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> John Mathiason wrote: >>>>>> Bill, >>>>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>>>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>>>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>>>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>>>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>>>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>>>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>>>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>>>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>>>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in >>>>>> the >>>>>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of >>>>>> weeks, >>>>>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF >>>>>> consultations on 23 May. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> John >>>>>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal >>>>>>>> basis >>>>>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum, >>>>>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy >>>>>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so >>>>>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such >>>>>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on >>>>>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>>>>> John proposed >>>>>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's >>>>>>> only written >>>>>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept >>>>>>> paper, more >>>>>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further >>>>>>> specification, it's >>>>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>>>>> to entail, >>>>>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could >>>>>>> be The >>>>>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you >>>>>>> guys take the >>>>>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and >>>>>>> around >>>>>>> talking past each other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>>>>> clear legal >>>>>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC >>>>>>> would relate to >>>>>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and >>>>>>> international law >>>>>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce >>>>>>> and trade, >>>>>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you >>>>>>> actually >>>>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>>>>> and that >>>>>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal >>>>>>> bases there too >>>>>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the >>>>>>> idea is to >>>>>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC >>>>>>> on the >>>>>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding. >>>>>>> And spell >>>>>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to >>>>>>> react to, >>>>>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >>> Director, Project on the Information >>> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >>> Graduate Institute for International Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 >> > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Apr 19 08:20:57 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <36015.49442.qm@web58713.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hi there, I’m running behind, but before I stop running altogether, I just wanted to clarify here some aspects of Bill's earlier questions. First, I was not part of the IGP team that produced the paper on the FC and my views are personal, though I read the paper and my understanding of what that FC might be has been helped by repeated clarifications provided here by some members of the IGP team such as Milton. That being said, your assumption or hunch that the embodiment of the outcome of an FC (or let me switch to m.a., multilateral agreement, as a more generic term) is a reasonable, even logic, one. That is because I envision that body as replacing the GAC and what the GAC was intended (or is now inclined) to do within ICANN. So, as far as ICANN purports to deal only with the core resources of the Internet, that tentative conclusion you drew is indeed sensible. But I have to admit that in the process of negotiating an agreement, those functions of the current GAC, and of the future internet global public policy body (p.p.b.), may be subject to redefinition. People don't seem to realize that as it stands, the GAC is a private club, a component of another private entity. Here is an example to illustrate what I'm talking about. In the wake of the vote taken by the GNSO council about the definition of the purpose of the WHOIS database in April 2006, the GAC delegate from Australia sent a letter arguing against the result of the vote on bases that clearly contradicted the law and regulations regarding individuals' privacy as in effect in her country. NCUC sent a letter via the GNSO to point that out and ask the delegate for an explanation; a response never came. In my view, that was not an incident, but a structural consequence of what the GAC is. This wouldn't easily happen in the UN where they have a clear international legal basis, and clear mission and mandate from their governments, etc. (even if many governments contravene the law in domestic affairs, they wouldn't go up to making unlawful statements outside; in any case, that's certainly not the kind of behavior we would want to advocate.) So do we realize that with a GAC like this, we are worse off than the UN that many of us enjoy criticizing?!! The difference is, they are governed by a legal framework in the UN, but not in the ICANN/GAC. Therefore, I see an m.a. as instrumental to define the rules, process and procedures in order to cure such failings. And here, as John and Kicki mentioned, we have a great example with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the antecedent of the WSIS itself, to make sure CS weigh in and has an imprint on the discussions/negotiations outcome. Now, when talking previously about the FC I wrote that it should provide us with: > a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where > governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on > public policy) but not without accepting external inputs > (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) I envisioned something I’d like to illustrate with the following features (please note, this is just tossing ideas around as food for thought.): 1. it will NOT be a universal international organization with about 200 member states. 2. an administrative procedure directive/resolution, etc. must clearly lay down the roles and responsibilities of the structure, its scope (public policy matters where it is beneficial for us to have a global decision, the principles and conditions for subsidiarity, etc.), the mechanisms for appeal and for final decision making. no member has a veto. [subject to international legal advice, this may entirely be part of the convention itself, or elaborated later on based on the basic principles laid down by the convention.] 3. it may include 1 to 3 seats (but same number) for governments geographically distributed (according to established regional division so that countries that have some habit of working together or identifying their interests/problems as close to one another's, etc. may feel represented and work together.) 4. the government seats may rotate from countries within the same cluster/region with a term duration to be specified. The eligible governments must first volunteer to occupy a seat on the internet p.p.b. 5. relevant international organizations (un, itu, wipo, unesco, wto? etc.) and the chair of the future icann board of directors may each have a seat. 6. other members may include Internet/IT-related legal, academic and technical experts and other personalities of relevance from what you may call the internet community or the CS. the number of these seats is fixed and constrained by the size of the structure which must be kept as concentrated as possible. vacancies will be publicly advertised, and the p.p.b. will receive nominations (made by anyone, including individuals and governments) and candidacies/self-nominations. candidates will be invited to provide the same types of materials that will be reviewed by the body, and finalists invited for interviews/hearings. final decisions and appointments are made by the structure’s government body as a whole, or by the chair, for a limited term (to be specified.) Geographic distribution may be desirable, but not a requirement; the overarching criterion must be based on how much resourceful the candidates will be for the work of the p.p.b. 7. in case there is a serious issue from some governments to be seated with non-governmental actors in making decisions, the aforementioned non-governmental actors may form a separate sort of technical advisory committee (t.a.c.) that will be fully part of the structure (multi-level.) 8. the t.a.c. (in case created) can produce at its own discretion papers, materials, etc. that the government body will have to consider while examining related issues. contributions can be requested from outside. 9. any individual or organization can seize the governmental body on any internet public policy issues. the government body can examine the issues before them if they deem to be competent, or refer the issues to existing bodies that are deemed (more) competent to address them. Alternatively, advice can be sought from existing governance, Internet, and international organizations, as well as from existing national (e.g., the US’s FCC, the South African ICASA, the Singaporean, etc.) or regional (e.g., WATRO from West Africa, etc.) regulators. 10. the future icann bodies such as the current gnso council may continue de develop narrow focus policies relevant to the organization business. these policies may be adopted/voted by the future icann board in order to give it the imprint of the organization before, if relevant (if determination is made that public policy, industry regulation, etc. issues are involved) those policies must then be reviewed and approved/validated by the p.p.b. before they enter into effect. Ok guys, not that I want to run away from you throwing the stones, but I have to inform you that I need to get back to my end-of-semester assignments, lest I shall endure the wrath of my teachers and mentor. Can’t resolve to be castigated on both ends. Cheers, Mawaki --- William Drake wrote: > Hi Lee, > > There are about twenty different conversations now running > under the > heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we > could please > separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches > etc. that'd be > helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had to go > find them in the > list archive. > > On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > > > Bill, Wolfgang, > > > > As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with > this list, > > sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. > > You're not alone > > > I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views > on the > > framework convention also a couple years back for an OII > meeting, but I > > admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though > and John and > > I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something > put together > > by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw > stones at. > > Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we > talking about a > Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional > form, rather > than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a > Recommendation, > Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, or > something > else? I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, > 'because the UN > has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have > one here too,' > which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer. Normally one > would think form > should follow function, but it seems like you guys are saying > first we > should agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly > we'll figure > out what it's for, which seems odd. > > > For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an > Internet > > framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet > Framework > > Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please > tell me why this > isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem > definition => > bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of each > => the > selection of a solution? > > > Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & > Adam have > > cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on > the other > > Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. > They didn't > invent something new when the telephone came along, they > grafted language > onto telegraph arrangements. The international > standardization and > diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence. Ditto > datacommunications. > Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide > within much > less across global policy domains. > > > hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating > remote > > participation given the Internet crowd. > > > > Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks > signed only > > by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under > and around > > that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and > commitments > > may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state > actors, ie > > business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, > APWG, etc > > How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the > UN (meaning > ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? > > > etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand > notes, the GAC is > > putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its > own > > activities, that is certainly to be preferred to > alternatives. So it's > > not like the framework precludes the need for various groups > to do what > > they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help > > institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the > degree > > there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. > > Sure > > > And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, > there's > > nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who > participates, and the > > agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any > recommendations emanating > > from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or > lack > > thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would > also merit > > another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can > coorganize > > that. > > Sure, sure > > > Neither of which is to take anything away from work on > access and many > > other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP > also looks > > forward to contributing to the degree we are able. > > Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just > puzzled by the > reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of > the solution. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > > >>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 > 9:44 AM > >>>> > > John, > > > > can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would > sign the > > "Framework Convention" or however you title such a > documented > > arrangement? > > > > Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty > Convention? > > Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How > > non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? > How these > > non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would > join such a > > convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > > > > Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are > even more > > important. > > > > Best wishes > > > > wolfgang > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > > Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have > to cover > > all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in > order to > > ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly > would have > > to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would > have to be > > dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be > subject to > > negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, > should > > deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict. > > > > Best, > > > > John > > On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > > > >> Hi John, > >> > >> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the > discussion. > >> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out > here and > >> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the > >> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> John Mathiason wrote: > >>> Bill, > >>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. > There > >>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a > more > >>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on > Internet > >>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate > Change > >>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco > convention > >>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a > framework > >>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is > bad) and > >>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves > many of > >>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide > interesting > >>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- > semester in the > >>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple > of weeks, > >>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next > IGF > >>> consultations on 23 May. > >>> Best, > >>> John > >>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: > >>>> Hi Mawaki, > >>>> > >>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message > below; it > >>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international > agrement" > >>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern > than > >>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things > IG. To my > >>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a > legal basis > >>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in > sum, > >>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public > policy > >>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. > And so > >>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of > such > >>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it > >>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That > could > >>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level > structure where > >>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only > on > >>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs > >>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than > what > >>>> John proposed > >>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is > IGP's > >>>> only written > >>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page > concept > >>>> paper, more > >>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further > >>>> specification, it's > >>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is > intended > >>>> to entail, > >>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it > could > >>>> be The > >>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton > that you > >>>> guys take the > >>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go > around and > >>>> around > >>>> talking past each other. > >>>> > >>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already > has > >>>> clear legal > >>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a > FC > >>>> would relate to > >>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and > >>>> international law > >>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, > e-commerce > >>>> and trade, > >>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing > that you > >>>> actually > >>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core > resources, > >>>> and that > >>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are > legal > >>>> bases there too > >>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess > the > >>>> idea is to > >>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an > FC on the > >>>> governance of core resources to avoid further > misunderstanding. > >>>> And spell > >>>> out what it might look like so people have something > concrete to > >>>> react to, > >>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Apr 19 08:47:43 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <36015.49442.qm@web58713.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <168466.60308.qm@web58713.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Sorry, I meant below: 3. it may include 1 to 3 seats (but same number) geographically distributed *per region* for governments... --- Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi there, > > I’m running behind, but before I stop running altogether, I > just > wanted to clarify here some aspects of Bill's earlier > questions. > First, I was not part of the IGP team that produced the paper > on > the FC and my views are personal, though I read the paper and > my > understanding of what that FC might be has been helped by > repeated clarifications provided here by some members of the > IGP > team such as Milton. > > That being said, your assumption or hunch that the embodiment > of > the outcome of an FC (or let me switch to m.a., multilateral > agreement, as a more generic term) is a reasonable, even > logic, > one. That is because I envision that body as replacing the GAC > and what the GAC was intended (or is now inclined) to do > within > ICANN. So, as far as ICANN purports to deal only with the core > resources of the Internet, that tentative conclusion you drew > is > indeed sensible. But I have to admit that in the process of > negotiating an agreement, those functions of the current GAC, > and of the future internet global public policy body (p.p.b.), > may be subject to redefinition. > > People don't seem to realize that as it stands, the GAC is a > private club, a component of another private entity. Here is > an > example to illustrate what I'm talking about. In the wake of > the > vote taken by the GNSO council about the definition of the > purpose of the WHOIS database in April 2006, the GAC delegate > from Australia sent a letter arguing against the result of the > vote on bases that clearly contradicted the law and > regulations > regarding individuals' privacy as in effect in her country. > NCUC > sent a letter via the GNSO to point that out and ask the > delegate for an explanation; a response never came. In my > view, > that was not an incident, but a structural consequence of what > the GAC is. This wouldn't easily happen in the UN where they > have a clear international legal basis, and clear mission and > mandate from their governments, etc. (even if many governments > contravene the law in domestic affairs, they wouldn't go up to > making unlawful statements outside; in any case, that's > certainly not the kind of behavior we would want to advocate.) > So do we realize that with a GAC like this, we are worse off > than the UN that many of us enjoy criticizing?!! The > difference > is, they are governed by a legal framework in the UN, but not > in > the ICANN/GAC. > > Therefore, I see an m.a. as instrumental to define the rules, > process and procedures in order to cure such failings. And > here, > as John and Kicki mentioned, we have a great example with the > Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the > antecedent of the WSIS itself, to make sure CS weigh in and > has > an imprint on the discussions/negotiations outcome. > > Now, when talking previously about the FC I wrote that it > should > provide us with: > > > a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where > > governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on > > public policy) but not without accepting external inputs > > (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) > > I envisioned something I’d like to illustrate with the > following > features (please note, this is just tossing ideas around as > food for thought.): > > 1. it will NOT be a universal international organization with > about 200 member states. > > 2. an administrative procedure directive/resolution, etc. must > clearly lay down the roles and responsibilities of the > structure, its scope (public policy matters where it is > beneficial for us to have a global decision, the principles > and > conditions for subsidiarity, etc.), the mechanisms for appeal > and for final decision making. no member has a veto. [subject > to > international legal advice, this may entirely be part of the > convention itself, or elaborated later on based on the basic > principles laid down by the convention.] > > 3. it may include 1 to 3 seats (but same number) for > governments > geographically distributed (according to established regional > division so that countries that have some habit of working > together or identifying their interests/problems as close to > one > another's, etc. may feel represented and work together.) > > 4. the government seats may rotate from countries within the > same cluster/region with a term duration to be specified. The > eligible governments must first volunteer to occupy a seat on > the internet p.p.b. > > 5. relevant international organizations (un, itu, wipo, > unesco, > wto? etc.) and the chair of the future icann board of > directors > may each have a seat. > > 6. other members may include Internet/IT-related legal, > academic > and technical experts and other personalities of relevance > from > what you may call the internet community or the CS. the number > of these seats is fixed and constrained by the size of the > structure which must be kept as concentrated as possible. > vacancies will be publicly advertised, and the p.p.b. will > receive nominations (made by anyone, including individuals and > governments) and candidacies/self-nominations. candidates will > be invited to provide the same types of materials that will be > reviewed by the body, and finalists invited for > interviews/hearings. final decisions and appointments are made > by the structure’s government body as a whole, or by the > chair, > for a limited term (to be specified.) Geographic distribution > may be desirable, but not a requirement; the overarching > criterion must be based on how much resourceful the candidates > will be for the work of the p.p.b. > > 7. in case there is a serious issue from some governments to > be > seated with non-governmental actors in making decisions, the > aforementioned non-governmental actors may form a separate > sort > of technical advisory committee (t.a.c.) that will be fully > part > of the structure (multi-level.) > > 8. the t.a.c. (in case created) can produce at its own > discretion papers, materials, etc. that the government body > will > have to consider while examining related issues. contributions > can be requested from outside. > > 9. any individual or organization can seize the governmental > body on any internet public policy issues. the government body > can examine the issues before them if they deem to be > competent, > or refer the issues to existing bodies that are deemed (more) > competent to address them. Alternatively, advice can be sought > from existing governance, Internet, and international > organizations, as well as from existing national (e.g., the > US’s > FCC, the South African ICASA, the Singaporean, etc.) or > regional > (e.g., WATRO from West Africa, etc.) regulators. > > 10. the future icann bodies such as the current gnso council > may > continue de develop narrow focus policies relevant to the > organization business. these policies may be adopted/voted by > the future icann board in order to give it the imprint of the > organization before, if relevant (if determination is made > that > public policy, industry regulation, etc. issues are involved) > those policies must then be reviewed and approved/validated by > the p.p.b. before they enter into effect. > > Ok guys, not that I want to run away from you throwing the > stones, but I have to inform you that I need to get back to my > end-of-semester assignments, lest I shall endure the wrath of > my > teachers and mentor. Can’t resolve to be castigated on both > ends. > Cheers, > > Mawaki > > > --- William Drake wrote: > > > Hi Lee, > > > > There are about twenty different conversations now running > > under the > > heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we > > could please > > separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches > > etc. that'd be > > helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had to go > > find them in the > > list archive. > > > > On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > > > > > Bill, Wolfgang, > > > > > > As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with > > this list, > > > sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. > > > > You're not alone > > > > > I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views > > on the > > > framework convention also a couple years back for an OII > > meeting, but I > > > admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out > though > > and John and > > > I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something > > put together > > > by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw > > stones at. > > > > Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we > > talking about a > > Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional > > form, rather > > than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a > > Recommendation, > > Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, > or > > something > > else? I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, > > 'because the UN > > has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have > > one here too,' > > which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer. Normally one > > would think form > > should follow function, but it seems like you guys are > saying > > first we > > should agree there needs to be a Convention and then > secondly > > we'll figure > > out what it's for, which seems odd. > > > > > For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an > > Internet > > > framework convention are yet to be defined, and an > Internet > > Framework > > > > Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please > > tell me why this > > isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem > > definition => > > bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of > each > > => the > > selection of a solution? > > > > > Convention could be more or less like the precedents John > & > > Adam have > > > cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, > on > > the other > > > > Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a > century. > > They didn't > > invent something new when the telephone came along, they > > grafted language > > onto telegraph arrangements. The international > > standardization and > > diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence. Ditto > > datacommunications. > > Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide > > within much > > less across global policy domains. > > > > > hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating > > remote > > > participation given the Internet crowd. > > > > > > Yeah in the end there might be the framework of > frameworks > > signed only > > > by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under > > and around > > > that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and > > commitments > > > may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state > > actors, ie > > > business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, > > APWG, etc > > > > How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under > the > > UN (meaning > > ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? > > > > > etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand > > notes, the GAC is > > > putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its > > own > > > activities, that is certainly to be preferred to > > alternatives. So it's > > > not like the framework precludes the need for various > groups > > to do what > > > they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help > > > institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to > the > > degree > > > there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. > > > > Sure > > > > > And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, > > there's > > > nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who > > participates, and the > > > agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any > > recommendations emanating > > > from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, > or > > lack > > > thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would > > also merit > > > another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can > > coorganize > > > that. > > > > Sure, sure > > > > > Neither of which is to take anything away from work on > > access and many > > > other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP > > also looks > > > forward to contributing to the degree we are able. > > > > Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm > just > > puzzled by the > > reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of > > the solution. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > >>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > 4/18/2007 > > 9:44 AM > > >>>> > > > John, > > > > > > can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who > would > > sign the > > > "Framework Convention" or however you title such a > > documented > > > arrangement? > > > > > > Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty > > Convention? > > > Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How > > > non-governmental actors would be included into > negotiations? > > How these > > > non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would > > join such a > > > convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? > > > > > > Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are > > even more > > > important. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > wolfgang > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] > > > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 > > > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William > > > Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have > > to cover > > > all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in > > order to > > > ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly > > would have > > > to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would > > have to be > > > dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be > > subject to > > > negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to > apply, > > should > > > deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or > conflict. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > John > > > On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: > > > > > >> Hi John, > > >> > > >> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the > > discussion. > > >> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out > > here and > > >> indicate whether this would be intended to address just > the > > >> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > >> Bill > > >> > > >> John Mathiason wrote: > > >>> Bill, > > >>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. > > > There > > >>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a > > more > > >>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on > > Internet > > >>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate > > Change > > >>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco > > convention > > >>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a > > framework > > >>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is > > bad) and > > >>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves > > many of > > >>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide > > interesting > > >>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- > > semester in the > > >>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple > > of weeks, > > >>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next > > IGF > > >>> consultations on 23 May. > > >>> Best, > > >>> John > > >>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote: > > >>>> Hi Mawaki, > > >>>> > > >>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" > > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message > > below; it > > >>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international > > agrement" > > >>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern > > than > > >>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things > > IG. To my > > >>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a > > legal basis > > >>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, > in > > sum, > > >>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public > > policy > > >>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. > > And so > > >>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of > > such > > >>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that > it > > >>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. > That > > could > > >>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level > > structure where > > >>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, > only > > on > > >>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external > inputs > > >>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused > than > > what > > >>>> John proposed > > >>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is > > IGP's > > >>>> only written > > >>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page > > concept > > >>>> paper, more > > >>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent > further > > >>>> specification, it's > > >>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is > > intended > > >>>> to entail, > > >>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that > it > > could > > >>>> be The > > >>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton > > that you > > >>>> guys take the > > >>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go > > around and > > >>>> around > > >>>> talking past each other. > > >>>> > > >>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already > > has > > >>>> clear legal > > >>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how > a > > FC > > >>>> would relate to > > >>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and > > >>>> international law > > >>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, > > e-commerce > > >>>> and trade, > > >>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing > > that you > > >>>> actually > > >>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core > > resources, > > >>>> and that > > >>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are > > legal > > >>>> bases there too > > >>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I > guess > > the > > >>>> idea is to > > >>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it > an > > FC on the > > >>>> governance of core resources to avoid further > > misunderstanding. > > >>>> And spell > > >>>> out what it might look like so people have something > > concrete to > > >>>> react to, > > >>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in > mind. > > >>>> > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> > > >>>> Bill > > >>>> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute for International Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 19 10:09:52 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:09:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: (mueller@syr.edu) References: Message-ID: <20070419140953.00EAC4EF09@quill.bollow.ch> Milton Mueller wrote: >> I don't think that it's proper to redicule any kind of >> decision-making >> process before a better alternative has been demonstrated (i.e. an > > Norbert: > Many better alternatives have been proposed for new TLD addition > processes over the past 5 years. Making a proposal for an alternative decision-making system, for which (from the authors' perspective at least) it appears _plausible_ that it will be better isn't very hard. (I've done that too, and didn't find that exercise to be particularly difficult. I don't like your proposal of TLD auctions, and I don't know whether you like my proposal or not, but that's besides the point.) The hard part is to _demontrate_ that the proposed system is workable (which includes willingness of government actors to go along with it) and that it results in decisions which are better or at least as good (for some precise and reasonable and yet broadly accepted definition of what is to be considered "good decisions") as those which are achieved by the current system. > Further, I think one can say, a priori, that a proposal that says, "a > committee of 100 governments, not guided by any treaty or law, can > object to an application on any grounds they like," is by definition not > a good process. So what? It is easy to point a finger at just about any currently-existing real-world governance process, point out one of its more unpleasant features, and state "any process with that property is by definition not a good process". The only way to give substance to this kind of criticism is to define an important set of minimal requirements that all "grood processes" will certainly satisfy (e.g. transparency and multistakeholder accountability) and then demonstrate the feasibility of satisfying this set of requirements by establishing an internet governance organization (to govern something for which no internet governance orgnization exists yet, for example website accessibility certification) and when that has been successfully achieved, it becomes reasonable to demand that existing internet governance instituions be reformed to make them also fulfil this set of requirements. 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 wcurrie at apc.org Thu Apr 19 16:14:05 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:14:05 +0000 Subject: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <4626D1A1.8000403@Malcolm.id.au> References: <163529.36426.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4626D1A1.8000403@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <781863267-1176992012-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-534345571-@bwe035-cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Hi Jeremy I think you outline a useful sequence of steps. I'm at a civil society intervention in the reform of global public policy organisaed by the ford foundation (milton is also here) which is looking at three global campaigns - international finance institutions which is regarded as mature, international taxation, which is regarded as a teenager and internet governance which is regarded as very young. So baby steps are clearly required. One suggestion from the meeting is that we should look at the example of the intergovernmental panel of climate change (IPCC) as a way of building the power of the IGF to build its capacity to make recommendations based on research and evidence.. Perhaps en route to an tabling an internet framework convention we should look at the IGFsupporting a multi-stakeholder panel on internet governance with a number of working groups examining the issues identified by WGIG, both narrow and broad forms of internet governance. Willie Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:19:13 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,David Goldstein Subject: Re: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf David Goldstein wrote: >> In fact WGIG anticipated that as well as making recommendations to other >> organisations, the IGF “may also invite — or recommend that the United >> Nations invites — member states to discuss a certain issue in an >> official capacity, or via a vote in the United Nations General >> Assembly.” Likewise, there is no reason why a workshop or Dynamic >> Coalition of the IGF could not write a first draft of the Framework >> Convention and submit it to the plenary body for consideration, in other >> fora no doubt, by states. > > I'd consider this a failure or fault of IGF. Relying on states to be able to best represent people with disabilities would be very hit and miss. Bodies advocating the rights of people with disabilities, either international or national, would be far better, even if the state were to consult with a relevant NGO. Well I agree, but we have to take baby steps here. Ideally, and perhaps eventually, the output of the IGF could take the force of an independent body of transnational law, something like the lex mercatoria, that would exist parallel to (and yet not be trumped by) the existing international system. But how we get there from here is to first develop recommendations in a multi-stakeholder process that nobody can reasonably dissent from, and for those to gain normative force through adoption into the international system's existing governance institutions. Eventually that last step could become redundant, and for the IGF to make a recommendation could then be enough. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 19 11:48:33 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:48:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Hi Jacob, I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual Internet user" as below... There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's interventions). On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of individuals etc.etc.). In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. MG -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Malthouse Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC From: http://alac.icann.org/ ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of ICANN Board members. _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wendy at seltzer.com Thu Apr 19 11:59:37 2007 From: wendy at seltzer.com (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> Everyone who uses the Internet is an "individual Internet user." Why should we try to give the term more content than that? --Wendy Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" > interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual > Internet user" as below... > > There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of > (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, > folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via > telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's > interventions). > > On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then > could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is > more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since > anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or > no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in > this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective > groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives > hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of > these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of > individuals etc.etc.). > > In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming > more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what > constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) > determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating > participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob > Malthouse > Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > From: http://alac.icann.org/ > ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for > considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to > the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" > community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with > technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name > and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting > infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and > represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. > > From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ > The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil > society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting > Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and > supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and > activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of > ICANN Board members. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Apr 19 12:11:19 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:11:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <016801c7829d$617b85f0$247291d0$@com> I think that the general understanding is that the individual internet user is exactly that - a person who uses the Internet (in a personal capacity). Which is the global population (or will be) Very large group. So, we deal with aggregates of users, and groups that serve the interests of these individuals. So both of your cases would fit. Issues that affect these users are the issues of interest to the AtLarge. I disagree that it is without content just because it means anyone... Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:49 AM To: 'Jacob Malthouse'; 'NA Discuss'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC Hi Jacob, I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual Internet user" as below... There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's interventions). On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of individuals etc.etc.). In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. MG -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Malthouse Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC From: http://alac.icann.org/ ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of ICANN Board members. _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Apr 19 12:23:48 2007 From: llynch at civil-tongue.net (Lucy Lynch) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <20070419091847.M29331@hiroshima.bogus.com> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Everyone who uses the Internet is an "individual Internet user." Why > should we try to give the term more content than that? Actually, an internet "user" can be a thing (think sensor nets) and may very well be at the far edge (last hop) of the network. You may want to think in terms of connection and communication at the edge rather than just "individual person based" use. - Lucy > --Wendy > > Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Hi Jacob, >> >> I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" >> interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual >> Internet user" as below... >> >> There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of >> (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, >> folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via >> telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's >> interventions). >> >> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then >> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is >> more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since >> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or >> no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in >> this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective >> groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives >> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of >> individuals etc.etc.). >> >> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming >> more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what >> constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) >> determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating >> participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob >> Malthouse >> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >> To: NA Discuss >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to >> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name >> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >> >> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and >> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and >> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >> ICANN Board members. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >> .icann.org >> --- >> Draft MoU with ICANN: >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU >> >> Draft Operating Principles: >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Apr 19 12:32:54 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:32:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <462799B6.6000208@wz-berlin.de> > On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then > could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is > more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since > anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or > no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in > this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective > groupings i.e. families, communities etc. The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an ISOC chapter to have a say. I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you perhaps confusing users with email accounts? jeanette (individuals as collectives > hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of > these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of > individuals etc.etc.). > > In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming > more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what > constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) > determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating > participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob > Malthouse > Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > From: http://alac.icann.org/ > ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for > considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to > the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" > community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with > technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name > and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting > infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and > represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. > > From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ > The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil > society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting > Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and > supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and > activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of > ICANN Board members. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Apr 19 12:55:42 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:55:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <462799B6.6000208@wz-berlin.de> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462799B6.6000208@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <017901c782a3$95e17790$c1a466b0$@com> A family could represent a grouping of individual users... I don't think that an individual should HAVE to join an organization in order to have a say in processes or policy, but we do need to think how to practically organize it... for example, a place where there are 10 people interested in participating with a particular viewpoint could easily on the basis of 1 person 1 vote be drowned out by 100,000 from a place that is more developed wrt the Internet, and thus has more "members". But the viewpoint of the 10 needs to be heard as well. So how do we organize to get individuals involved as well as groupings of individuals but still allowing all viewpoints to come through? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:33 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then > could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is > more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since > anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or > no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in > this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective > groupings i.e. families, communities etc. The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an ISOC chapter to have a say. I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you perhaps confusing users with email accounts? jeanette (individuals as collectives > hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of > these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of > individuals etc.etc.). > > In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming > more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what > constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) > determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating > participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob > Malthouse > Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > From: http://alac.icann.org/ > ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for > considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to > the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" > community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with > technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name > and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting > infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and > represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. > > From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ > The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil > society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting > Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and > supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and > activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of > ICANN Board members. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wendy at seltzer.com Thu Apr 19 12:59:33 2007 From: wendy at seltzer.com (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:59:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <20070419091847.M29331@hiroshima.bogus.com> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> <20070419091847.M29331@hiroshima.bogus.com> Message-ID: <46279FF5.400@seltzer.com> Lucy Lynch wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >> Everyone who uses the Internet is an "individual Internet user." Why >> should we try to give the term more content than that? > > Actually, an internet "user" can be a thing (think sensor nets) and > may very well be at the far edge (last hop) of the network. You may want > to think in terms of connection and communication at the edge rather > than just "individual person based" use. When the sensors get strong AIs and start asking for representation, then we'll really have a challenge on our hands! In the meantime, I think researchers and civilians who use those tools can speak for their interests. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Apr 19 13:06:14 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:06:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <017901c782a3$95e17790$c1a466b0$@com> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462799B6.6000208@wz-berlin.de> <017901c782a3$95e17790$c1a466b0$@com> Message-ID: <4627A186.2020008@wz-berlin.de> Hi Jacqueline, if I am not mistaken your example assumes that viewpoints correlate with regional origins. I am not sure this is often the case. Also, voting is just one form of having a say. In most cases, participation might simply mean to offer one's opinion. On the other hand, I am all in favor of protecting minorities. Any ideas? jeanette Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > A family could represent a grouping of individual users... > I don't think that an individual should HAVE to join an organization in > order to have a say in processes or policy, but we do need to think how to > practically organize it... for example, a place where there are 10 people > interested in participating with a particular viewpoint could easily on the > basis of 1 person 1 vote be drowned out by 100,000 from a place that is more > developed wrt the Internet, and thus has more "members". But the viewpoint > of the 10 needs to be heard as well. So how do we organize to get > individuals involved as well as groupings of individuals but still allowing > all viewpoints to come through? > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > >> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then >> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is >> more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since >> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or >> no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in >> this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective >> groupings i.e. families, communities etc. > > > The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of > representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to > participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an > ISOC chapter to have a say. > > I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you > perhaps confusing users with email accounts? > > jeanette > > > > (individuals as collectives >> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of >> individuals etc.etc.). >> >> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming >> more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what >> constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) >> determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating >> participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob >> Malthouse >> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >> To: NA Discuss >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to >> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name >> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >> >> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and >> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and >> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >> ICANN Board members. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >> .icann.org >> --- >> Draft MoU with ICANN: >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU >> >> Draft Operating Principles: >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Apr 19 13:16:10 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:16:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <4627A186.2020008@wz-berlin.de> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462799B6.6000208@wz-berlin.de> <017901c782a3$95e17790$c1a466b0$@com> <4627A186.2020008@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <018401c782a6$722bbec0$56833c40$@com> Well - I thought regions, but it could be any well-organised group of individuals coalescing around a viewpoint that drowns out a minority opinion. It's like the silence equals consent rule in some mailing lists. Some people don't consent, but they don't feel comfortable jumping into some of the rather intense discussions, or they don't check email every day (there are many people here in T&T who have a 20 hour/month dial up plan. I really don't see what you can do with 20 hours/month, but there are a lot of them, and they are users and they have the right to put their 2 cents in on issues) No - I have no ideas that might work - that's my problem. I am thinking about it, though. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris Cc: 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'Michael Gurstein' Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC Hi Jacqueline, if I am not mistaken your example assumes that viewpoints correlate with regional origins. I am not sure this is often the case. Also, voting is just one form of having a say. In most cases, participation might simply mean to offer one's opinion. On the other hand, I am all in favor of protecting minorities. Any ideas? jeanette Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > A family could represent a grouping of individual users... > I don't think that an individual should HAVE to join an organization in > order to have a say in processes or policy, but we do need to think how to > practically organize it... for example, a place where there are 10 people > interested in participating with a particular viewpoint could easily on the > basis of 1 person 1 vote be drowned out by 100,000 from a place that is more > developed wrt the Internet, and thus has more "members". But the viewpoint > of the 10 needs to be heard as well. So how do we organize to get > individuals involved as well as groupings of individuals but still allowing > all viewpoints to come through? > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > >> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then >> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is >> more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since >> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or >> no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in >> this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective >> groupings i.e. families, communities etc. > > > The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of > representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to > participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an > ISOC chapter to have a say. > > I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you > perhaps confusing users with email accounts? > > jeanette > > > > (individuals as collectives >> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of >> individuals etc.etc.). >> >> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming >> more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what >> constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) >> determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating >> participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob >> Malthouse >> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >> To: NA Discuss >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to >> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name >> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >> >> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and >> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and >> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >> ICANN Board members. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >> .icann.org >> --- >> Draft MoU with ICANN: >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU >> >> Draft Operating Principles: >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 19 13:30:38 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:30:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <20070419091847.M29331@hiroshima.bogus.com> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> <20070419091847.M29331@hiroshima.bogus.com> Message-ID: <4627A73E.8010801@cavebear.com> Lucy Lynch wrote: > Actually, an internet "user" can be a thing (think sensor nets) and > may very well be at the far edge (last hop) of the network. Personally I have trouble with considering mechanical entities as "users". It would be akin to saying that automobiles (as opposed to their drivers) are of the highways. Again my personal opinion - I focus on natural humans as the atomic unit of interest on the internet. A sensor net ought not, in my mind, to be considered a user in the context of internet governance, but each person associated with that net would be. --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 19 13:25:48 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:25:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <4627A61C.2070509@cavebear.com> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" > interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual > Internet user" as below... I use a simple formulation - the community of internet users is composed of all natural people who are affected by the internet. That formulation encompasses precisely those people who have a "stake" in the functioning of the internet. Personally, I feel that alternative formulations that look to whether a person has acquired a domain name or has an email address are too constrained. A person who has no email but uses VOIP is just as affected by the internet as a person who has a domain name. A person who has none of these but is undergoing a medical examination via the net is equally affected by the behaviour of the internet. Now, I'd anticipate a further point - systems that create layers upon layers of intermediaries, such as ICANN's ALAC, between seats from which decisions are actually made and the individuals who compose the internet community are systems that are more facade than substance. Representative systems are OK, but the number of layers between the individual and the decision makers ought not to exceed one intermediary level. Moreover, mechanisms that dilute the link between individuals and the decision makers, mechanisms such as nominating committees, should also be avoided because they are relics of paternalistic, top-down, "we know better than they do what is good for them" mentalities. In other words do we want internet governance to resemble a modern liberal democratic system or a re-enactment of some 1880's colonial imposition? --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 19 13:37:43 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:37:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <017901c782a3$95e17790$c1a466b0$@com> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462799B6.6000208@wz-berlin.de> <017901c782a3$95e17790$c1a466b0$@com> Message-ID: <4627A8E7.9070102@cavebear.com> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > A family could represent a grouping of individual users... > I don't think that an individual should HAVE to join an organization in > order to have a say in processes or policy, but we do need to think how to > practically organize it... for example, a place where there are 10 people > interested in participating with a particular viewpoint could easily on the > basis of 1 person 1 vote be drowned out by 100,000 from a place that is more > developed wrt the Internet, Minority rights are important to recognize. And perhaps the best way to deal with that is to do the following: The definition of the job of the body of internet governance should carefully identify those issues and matters that are of elevated importance. For those matters, supermajority voting requirements should be required. We did this in the Boston Working Group proposal (the alternative to the Jones Day proposal for what would eventually become ICANN) - take a look at the "fundamental assets" part of the materials under http://www.cavebear.com/bwg/ --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 lists at privaterra.info Thu Apr 19 13:46:05 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:46:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <018401c782a6$722bbec0$56833c40$@com> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462799B6.6000208@wz-berlin.de> <017901c782a3$95e17790$c1a466b0$@com> <4627A186.2020008@wz-berlin.de> <018401c782a6$722bbec0$56833c40$@com> Message-ID: Jacqueline: Don't underestimate what people can do online with limited time and limited resources. While many users have the luxury of being on the modern internet for more than 20hrs a month, many do not. Though their experience may be different, ways need to be found for their experience,views and issues to make their way to IG fora such as ICANN and the IGF. Outreach to all users, be they well connected or not is the great challenge for ALAC. Can it do the job entirely in a volunteer capacity or is support from ICANN and other stake-holders needed. ICANN staff has left it up to ALAC to decide. So what do we ask for ? What is appropriate support for ALAC as a whole, and what is best done at the local, regional and/or RALO level? regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 19-Apr-07, at 1:16 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Well - I thought regions, but it could be any well-organised group of > individuals coalescing around a viewpoint that drowns out a minority > opinion. It's like the silence equals consent rule in some mailing > lists. > Some people don't consent, but they don't feel comfortable jumping > into some > of the rather intense discussions, or they don't check email every day > (there are many people here in T&T who have a 20 hour/month dial up > plan. I > really don't see what you can do with 20 hours/month, but there are > a lot of > them, and they are users and they have the right to put their 2 > cents in on > issues) > No - I have no ideas that might work - that's my problem. I am > thinking > about it, though. > Jacqueline ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 19 13:57:48 2007 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton A Samuels) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:57:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Don't mean to be too technical here but an "internet user" could be a 'thing'! [That is, if you accept the idea that the Internet is becoming a pervasive network of 'things'] Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy at seltzer.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:00 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Cc: 'Jacob Malthouse'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC Everyone who uses the Internet is an "individual Internet user." Why should we try to give the term more content than that? --Wendy Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" > interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual > Internet user" as below... > > There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of > (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, > folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via > telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's > interventions). > > On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then > could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is > more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since > anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or > no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in > this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective > groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives > hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of > these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of > individuals etc.etc.). > > In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming > more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what > constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) > determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating > participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob > Malthouse > Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > From: http://alac.icann.org/ > ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for > considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to > the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" > community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with > technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name > and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting > infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and > represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. > > From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ > The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil > society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting > Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and > supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and > activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of > ICANN Board members. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 19 19:17:52 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:17:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <462799B6.6000208@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <009201c782d8$f4fd3450$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging a well for the collective benefit of the community. MG -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then > could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact > is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since > anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer > (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements > in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of > collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an ISOC chapter to have a say. I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you perhaps confusing users with email accounts? jeanette (individuals as collectives > hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of > these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections > of individuals etc.etc.). > > In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is > becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of > who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and > even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other > mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet > governance be formulated. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob > Malthouse > Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > From: http://alac.icann.org/ > ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for > considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to > the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" > community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with > technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name > and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting > infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and > represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. > > From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ > The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil > society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting > Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and > supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and > activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of > ICANN Board members. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis > ts > .icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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:2676,462799bd273386941917785! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Apr 19 20:46:00 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:46:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <009201c782d8$f4fd3450$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <009201c782d8$f4fd3450$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when working collaboratively, I would think. They each individually have an interest in their use (both collective and individual) of the Internet. Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts"). Even when use is collective, users are individuals. For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual users. And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an individual account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the Internet, that does not preclude the person from being an individual user. This is a qualitative question, not quantitative. The goal is not to estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the functional components of the Internet system. The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate in policy making processes, surrounding the Internet. Context shapes categorization. Dan At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a >homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the >family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of >acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging a >well for the collective benefit of the community. > >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > > >> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then > >> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact >> is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since >> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer >> (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements >> in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of >> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. > > >The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of >representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to >participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an >ISOC chapter to have a say. > >I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you >perhaps confusing users with email accounts? > >jeanette > > > >(individuals as collectives >> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections >> of individuals etc.etc.). >> >> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is >> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of >> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and >> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other >> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet >> governance be formulated. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob > >> Malthouse >> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >> To: NA Discuss >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to > >> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name >> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >> >> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and >> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and >> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >> ICANN Board members. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Apr 19 22:11:27 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:11:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00db01c782f1$34e7e390$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding the Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars -- literally who knows what...) No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship. Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were users only because of and through the fact of their relationship to the other (and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the child in the one instance and the other members of the community in the other case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users" makes little or no sense since the "individual user" in those instances is defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative. And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis of participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to take fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would probably argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are being made and thus the basis of the participation that they would in fact wish to make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual". And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against) "organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing highly culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain probably diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long term more significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in Internet policy making". MG -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when working collaboratively, I would think. They each individually have an interest in their use (both collective and individual) of the Internet. Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts"). Even when use is collective, users are individuals. For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual users. And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an individual account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the Internet, that does not preclude the person from being an individual user. This is a qualitative question, not quantitative. The goal is not to estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the functional components of the Internet system. The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate in policy making processes, surrounding the Internet. Context shapes categorization. Dan At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a >homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the >family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of >acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging a >well for the collective benefit of the community. > >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > > >> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid >> then > >> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact >> is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since >> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer >> (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements >> in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of >> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. > > >The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of >representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to >participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an >ISOC chapter to have a say. > >I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you >perhaps confusing users with email accounts? > >jeanette > > > >(individuals as collectives >> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections >> of individuals etc.etc.). >> >> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is >> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of >> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and >> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other >> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet >> governance be formulated. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >> Jacob > >> Malthouse >> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >> To: NA Discuss >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to > >> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name >> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >> >> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and >> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and >> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >> ICANN Board members. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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:2676,46280d81273382123721259! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Apr 19 23:19:38 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:19:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <00db01c782f1$34e7e390$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <00db01c782f1$34e7e390$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding the >Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance >basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we >know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars -- literally >who knows what...) No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not machines). I guess you would have to identify natural persons through some method other than purely net-based functions. But really, there would have to be some process of political representation, because you can't have 6 billion people effectively participating in policy making for a single policy domain. You'd never get through the email. :-) No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules >as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship. Uh, yes exactly: "normal" citizenship. Where did you get the idea that it would be anything else? I certainly said nothing of the sort, and I don't believe that anything I said implies that. This is precisely the point. >Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples >which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were users >only because of and through the fact of their relationship to the other >(and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the child in >the one instance and the other members of the community in the other >case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users" makes >little or no sense since the "individual user" in those instances is >defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative. I wholly disagree that "use" and "user" define the same entities. If an individual person is making use of the Internet, even totally in collaboration with others, how is that person not involved in using the Internet? The use determines whether the person is in or out of the domain, but the political standing is still given to the individual person, because individual people enter into political representational processes. >And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis of >participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to take >fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would probably >argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are being made >and thus the basis of the participation that they would in fact wish to >make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual". The policy must certainly take into account the nature of use. The political standing need not. The point is about individual standing, not type of use. All users should have individual political standing, regardless of the nature of their use. >And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against) >"organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing highly >culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain probably >diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long term more >significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and >universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in >Internet policy making". It's not a "culturally specific notion of individualism" -- it is a context specific definition, relevant to the context of identifying "citizenship" standing in a process of human political representation. In politics, natural persons have standing. (Maybe "legal persons" also have standing, but I am not aware that any avatars, robots or other non-sentient systems are legal persons, etc. As Wendy said, when we get there, we can deal with it then. So far there is no "Star Trek Lt. Commander Data" to prompt the legal clarification.) Dan PS -- I have to confess, I don't fully understand the confusion here, unless there is an unspoken agenda that I am not yet aware of. >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > >Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when working >collaboratively, I would think. They each individually have an interest >in their use (both collective and individual) of the Internet. > >Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts"). Even when >use is collective, users are individuals. > >For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual users. >And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an individual >account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the Internet, >that does not preclude the person from being an individual user. > >This is a qualitative question, not quantitative. The goal is not to >estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the functional >components of the Internet system. > >The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate in >policy making processes, surrounding the Internet. > >Context shapes categorization. > >Dan > > > >At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a >>homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the >>family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of >>acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging a >>well for the collective benefit of the community. >> >>MG >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >> >> >>> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid >>> then >> >>> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact >>> is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since > >>> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer >>> (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements > >>> in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of >>> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. >> >> >>The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of >>representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to >>participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an > >>ISOC chapter to have a say. >> >>I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you >>perhaps confusing users with email accounts? >> >>jeanette >> >> >> >>(individuals as collectives >>> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >>> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections > >>> of individuals etc.etc.). >>> >>> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is >>> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of >>> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and >>> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other >>> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet >>> governance be formulated. >>> >>> MG >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>> Jacob >> >>> Malthouse >>> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >>> To: NA Discuss >>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>> >>> >>> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >>> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >>> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to >> >>> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >>> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >>> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name >>> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >>> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >>> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >>> >>> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >>> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >>> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and > >>> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and > >>> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >>> ICANN Board members. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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:2676,46280d81273382123721259! > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 19 23:50:21 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:20:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070418135203.E8CB3334C74@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070420035009.A4A84E0CB2@smtp3.electricembers.net> > >Without that 'access' is an empty concept. I have seen too many people > think > >very differently about it, and too many people speak about it glibly, > even > >deceitfully, because they aren't interested in real political issues > which > >impact access. > > Well, access for people in developing world is not an empty concept; > it's something they face daily. Or, rather, they face the lack of it. > So, to say it in other words - for some of the members of our list > the most important topic is IP/DNS. For the huuuuuuge majority of > users, they don't care about it. They care how to pay less for their > phone dial-up access. Veni, I think you completely misunderstood my email... In > >Without that 'access' is an empty concept "without that" is the operative part and not "access is an empty concept" As to what does "without that" refers to, it is all over in my email. In the first part, where I speak of clear agenda/ issues for different actors (especially at the global level) on what they could/ should do about "access". And in the second part of the email, where I put it across a bit more strongly - about how I have heard many speak about "access" without real commitment to examine and do anything about important political/ policy issues that impact access. To illustrate my point, Microsoft has many "access" programs in developing countries. Hope, I am clearer now... And I said the above on the issue of what should be discussed at IGF, proceeding from what I see as the character of (and the opportunity at) IGF. 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: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:12 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > >The issue is not just what to discuss, but (more, importantly) why, i.e. > to > >what effect. > > > >IGF is not merely a deliberative space but (again, more importantly) a > >political one... Or at least somewhere in between the two. > > The IGF is what we make of it. We = all of us, governments, > businesses, civil society, users. It can easily become another > UN-agency, if we let it happen. > > >levels, secondarily) can and should do about it - and how can we try to > push > >them to do it. We need contributions and advocacy in that direction. > > > >Without that 'access' is an empty concept. I have seen too many people > think > >very differently about it, and too many people speak about it glibly, > even > >deceitfully, because they aren't interested in real political issues > which > >impact access. > > Well, access for people in developing world is not an empty concept; > it's something they face daily. Or, rather, they face the lack of it. > So, to say it in other words - for some of the members of our list > the most important topic is IP/DNS. For the huuuuuuge majority of > users, they don't care about it. They care how to pay less for their > phone dial-up access. > > > > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Apr 20 01:30:24 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <005a01c78263$6ebbe7d0$7fabf10a@IAN> References: <005a01c78263$6ebbe7d0$7fabf10a@IAN> Message-ID: Ian, readers of the WGIG report and documents, and people who have sort of followed the WSIS and post-WSIS process will of course applaud your email/posting here, maybe with some bittersweet feelings, as it re-charts the course of the WGIG! Welcome to 2003, pals, let's get to do the work on the 17 issues that were left unsolved. As I asked recently, spam, anyone? Phishing? Any takers for interconnection costs? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ian Peter wrote: > Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:16:20 +1000 > From: Ian Peter > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > "[iso-8859-1] 'Kleinwächter, Wolfgang'" > , > 'Anriette Esterhuysen' , > 'William Drake' , > 'John Mathiason' > Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention > > I think Wolfgang has the heart of a good model here. Maybe a task for Rio is > to develop this and present it. > > Step one - define the issues that need some form of Internet governance- is > the current list of 18 issues useful or do we need to extend or refine? > > Step two - for each issue define > * lead stakeholder > * other major stakeholders ( I think we need to look at UN organizations as > well as the three major stakeholder groups) > > Step three - what does that tell us about which issues might be able to be > handled by a common organizational structure (eg do spam and phishing have > nearly identical stakeholder structures or are they sufficiently different > to suggest different governance models for these two related issues > (similarly privacy and copyright etc etc) > > From this we can make assumptions about models and gap analysis of existing > organisations. > > An interesting exercise! > > PS and as an aside - I appreciate that the avenue for Al Quaeda input is > clearly civil society. I think their Internet governance interests perhaps > are mainly around issues such as censorship and freedom of expression. > (another issue grouping that needs its own structure perhaps). The middle > east is becoming a perfect example of a problem that cannot be solved by > governments alone without the involvement in a solution of non-government > players (aka civil society) and business interests. All three groupings have > interested intertwined in the current quagmire and attempts to arrive at > solutions without involving all three are clearly unworkable. We could > rapidly develop a list of a number of current issues where resolution is > dependent on interaction of major groupings outside government - in my > immediate areas of interest climate change and internet governance are clear > examples where any one group not working in co-operation with the other two > major groupings isn’t going to make much headway. > > 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: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 19 April 2007 17:57 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason > Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention > > Dear list, > > > One of the challenges is to figure out how the relationship (in legal and > political terms) among the stakeholders can be organized (and formalized), > probably on a case by case basis. In a paper for WGIG (Internet > Co-Governance) I proposed a model, where you have basically a trilateral > mechanism for each of the IG issues (as listed in the WGIG report), but for > each issues the triangel would be different. Governmental leadership would > be needed in the fight against cybercrime, but also here the involvment of > private sector and civil society is needed. On the other hand, the > management of the DNS should by led by the private sector (but also here a > certain involvment of governments and civil society is needed). In WGIG we > listed 18 relevant IG issues, which would mean 18 different governance > models, based on multistakeholderism, that is of a specific triangular > relationship. With other words, we would have 18 different triangels. I have > called this IG model the "Tower of Triangels". But again, when we accept, > that we are moving towards a system change, then we have to go beyond > refering to existing (legal and political) instruments and have to invent > something which is new. BTW, the majority of todays war are not among > sovereign states. Al Kaida is not a sovereign nationstate, it is a network > :-((((. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 23:40 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason > Betreff: Re: [governance] Framework convention > > > > Keep in mind what has been achieved with the > UN Economic Commission for Europe's Aarhus > Convention on Access to Information, Public > Participation in Decision-making and Access to > Justice in Environmental Matters. > > It secure rights to participation and access > information. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention > > I.o.w. the modalities for participation of non- > state actors in the 'implementation' of a > framework convention (or any other multi- > lateral agreement) could theoretically be > determined by a linked convention established > specifically for that purpose. And, it can > address some of the concerns that has been > raised. > > Anriette > >> Bill, >> >> I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your >> comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are >> on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we >> clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with >> the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. >> >> Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a >> multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on >> the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, >> resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are >> probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be >> said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is >> worth the convention it is written in." >> >> We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. >> >> Best, >> >> John >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi Lee, >>> >>> There are about twenty different conversations now running under the >>> heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could >>> please separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches >>> etc. that'd be helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had >>> to go find them in the list archive. >>> >>> On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: >>> >>>> Bill, Wolfgang, >>>> >>>> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this >>>> list, sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. >>> >>> You're not alone >>> >>>> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the >>>> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, >>>> but I admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though >>>> and John and I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get >>>> something put together by the time John suggests, for the rest of >>>> you to throw stones at. >>> >>> Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we >>> talking about a >>> Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, >>> rather than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a >>> Recommendation, Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal >>> agreement, or something else? I can't help wondering if the basic >>> rationale isn't, 'because the UN has done conventions in other, >>> unrelated fields, let's have one here too,' which to me wouldn't be >>> a compelling answer. Normally one would think form should follow >>> function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we should >>> agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure >>> out what it's for, which seems odd. >>> >>>> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet >>>> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet >>>> Framework >>> >>> Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me >>> why this isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem >>> definition => bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons >>> of each => the selection of a solution? >>> >>>> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam >>>> have cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on >>>> the other >>> >>> Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They >>> didn't invent something new when the telephone came along, they >>> grafted language onto telegraph arrangements. The international >>> standardization and diffusion of telephony was slowed in >>> consequence. Ditto datacommunications. Institutionally embedded >>> history's not always the best guide within much less across global >>> policy domains. >>> >>>> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote >>>> participation given the Internet crowd. >>>> >>>> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed >>>> >>>> only >>>> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and >>>> around that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and >>>> commitments may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state >>>> actors, ie business, civil society, and individuals. Without >>>> ICANN, APWG, etc >>> >>> How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN >>> (meaning ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? >>> >>>> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the >>>> GAC is putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its >>>> own activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. >>>> So it's not like the framework precludes the need for various >>>> groups to do what they are doing, as well as they can. It may >>>> however help institutionalize other Internet governance processes, >>>> to the degree there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. >>> >>> Sure >>> >>>> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's >>>> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, >>>> and the agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any >>>> recommendations emanating from the discussion, will determine its >>>> ultimate utility, or lack thereof. A discussion on the framework >>>> convention would also merit another workshop I'd think. Maybe >>>> Parminder and John can coorganize that. >>> >>> Sure, sure >>> >>>> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and >>>> many other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP >>>> also looks forward to contributing to the degree we are able. >>> >>> Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just >>> puzzled by the reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent >>> invocations of the solution. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> >>>>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>>>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign >>>> the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented >>>> arrangement? >>>> >>>> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? >>>> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How >>>> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How >>>> these non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would >>>> join such a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? >>>> >>>> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even >>>> more important. >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> wolfgang >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] >>>> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 >>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William >>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover >>>> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to >>>> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would >>>> have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have >>>> to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be >>>> subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to >>>> apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or >>>> conflict. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> John >>>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >>>>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >>>>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >>>>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> John Mathiason wrote: >>>>>> Bill, >>>>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>>>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>>>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>>>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>>>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>>>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>>>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>>>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>>>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>>>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in >>>>>> the groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of >>>>>> weeks, but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next >>>>>> IGF consultations on 23 May. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, >>>>>> William Drake wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal >>>>>>>> basis to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in >>>>>>>> sum, the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public >>>>>>>> policy issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. >>>>>>>> And so far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of >>>>>>>> such authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure >>>>>>>> where governments may get to make final decisions (again, only >>>>>>>> on public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>>>>> John proposed in his paper three years ago, which to my >>>>>>> knowledge is IGP's only written statement on the matter. And >>>>>>> that was just a four page concept paper, more of a teaser than >>>>>>> an elaborated proposal. Absent further specification, it's >>>>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>>>>> to entail, and differently react to the recurrent suggestion >>>>>>> that it could be The Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday >>>>>>> to Milton that you guys take the next step and spell it out. >>>>>>> Otherwise we'll just go around and around talking past each >>>>>>> other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>>>>> clear legal bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious >>>>>>> how a FC would relate to and further clarify the disparate bits >>>>>>> of national and international law underlying the shared rule >>>>>>> systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and trade, security, >>>>>>> consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you actually >>>>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>>>>> and that this is why you found my comment confusing. There are >>>>>>> legal bases there too but to the extent they're unclear or >>>>>>> problematic I guess the idea is to change them. Fine, but then >>>>>>> maybe you should call it an FC on the governance of core >>>>>>> resources to avoid further misunderstanding. And spell out what >>>>>>> it might look like so people have something concrete to react >>>>>>> to, rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >>> Director, Project on the Information >>> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >>> Graduate Institute for International Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: >> 4/17/2007 5:20 PM >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 > 16:22 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 > 16:22 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Fri Apr 20 04:35:35 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:35:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "users" (was Re: ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <4627A73E.8010801@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:30:38 -0700) References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> <20070419091847.M29331@hiroshima.bogus.com> <4627A73E.8010801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070420083535.F1A3554B13@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > Lucy Lynch wrote: > > Actually, an internet "user" can be a thing (think sensor nets) and > > may very well be at the far edge (last hop) of the network. > > Personally I have trouble with considering mechanical entities as > "users". On this point I agree with both of you. From an engineering perspective, I strongly agree with Lucy: internet technical infrastructure, including computer programs like "web browsers", should allow "things" to acts as users. In particular, there should be webservice interfaces for everything (i.e. not just point-and-click interfaces). However I feel equally strongly that in the internet governance context any tendency is very troubling which distracts from what I feel should be the clear and uncontested objective of all internet governance efforts, namely to coordinate efforts to make the internet meet the needs and interests of _people_. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Apr 20 08:58:09 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: 4627A61C.2070509@cavebear.com Message-ID: IMHO, Since anyone with a Cell-Phone, or in the future an Implant (who knows what? Hell my refrigerator is connected to the Net, thanks to IPv6 why not me next). 'Eligible Individuals' are all those who come-of-age to Vote. Not that it is restricted to those who are 18 and older, for this has some objectionable problems. For example: many of those who are between the ages of 18 to 21 feel its unfair that they can vote but not drink alcohol (engage in Adult activities), similarly Younger than 18 year olds feel left out of participation. To avoid this I would suggest that the Eligibility be structured into classes. For instance; ages 5-15 class I, ages 16-25 class II, ages 26-55 class III, ages 56-1oo+ Class IV. The designation of Classes may or may-not effect the 'Group- Class 'dependant on the condition of the referendum item. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 10:03:19 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:03:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <018101c78354$a988b9f0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Dan, You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my "agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and significance of this form of political representation is likely to increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby and socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to pay... So its important to get some of these things on the table and try to get them right while there is still some (probably remote) possibility of doing that... In this context then we are talking about "political representation" which according to what you have indicated below: 1. consists of "natural persons" whose only realistic mode of identification/verification is via a means which doesn't seem (at least to me) to offer any way to determine whether this "natural person" representative is "natural", a sensor, or a dog (q.v. the New Yorker)... 2. is assigned some form of Internet "citizenship" as a result of this status but so far one without any definition of what the attendant rights or responsibilities of that citizenship might be apart from the right to make what would appear to be one way complaints to/about ICANN (shades of The Castle--Kafka) 3. is based on a form of assigned status/prescribed role (i.e. that of the "individual user") which refuses to take account of how that use is actually undertaken in the real world (in many cases collaboratively, through dyads, by communities etc.etc.) (Its you who are introducing the nature of definition of "political standing" (Internet use) and then rather than accepting the implications of this (giving politcal standing to who or what is actually undertaking the use), you are interposing what seems to be an ideological bias in insisting that the "users" must be "individuals", when in fact in many instances the "user" is not an "individual" at all (except possibly through the for now, artifact of individual keyboarding). 4. I agree with your statements concerning the nature of the relationship between citizenship and poltical representation, the problem is that there really isn't any relationship between the first part of your argument and your second except your evident belief that there is one. All this to say that I don't think that one can build any useful structure of "political representation" on the basis of really vague and ultimately undefinable notions of "individual user" (which seems to be an attempt to conflate the notion of "individual user" with Internet citizenship). However, that being said, continuing forward and having representation being done by "self-selected individual Internet activists" is probably no worse than any other and doesn't preclude the development of some more robust and ultimately democratic structures alongside the current admittedly extremely formative processes. Best, MG -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: April 19, 2007 8:20 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding >the Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance >basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we >know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars -- >literally who knows what...) No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not machines). I guess you would have to identify natural persons through some method other than purely net-based functions. But really, there would have to be some process of political representation, because you can't have 6 billion people effectively participating in policy making for a single policy domain. You'd never get through the email. :-) No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules >as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship. Uh, yes exactly: "normal" citizenship. Where did you get the idea that it would be anything else? I certainly said nothing of the sort, and I don't believe that anything I said implies that. This is precisely the point. >Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples >which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were >users only because of and through the fact of their relationship to the >other (and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the >child in the one instance and the other members of the community in the >other case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users" >makes little or no sense since the "individual user" in those instances >is defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative. I wholly disagree that "use" and "user" define the same entities. If an individual person is making use of the Internet, even totally in collaboration with others, how is that person not involved in using the Internet? The use determines whether the person is in or out of the domain, but the political standing is still given to the individual person, because individual people enter into political representational processes. >And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis of >participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to take >fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would probably >argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are being made >and thus the basis of the participation that they would in fact wish to >make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual". The policy must certainly take into account the nature of use. The political standing need not. The point is about individual standing, not type of use. All users should have individual political standing, regardless of the nature of their use. >And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against) >"organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing >highly culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain >probably diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long term >more significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and >universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in >Internet policy making". It's not a "culturally specific notion of individualism" -- it is a context specific definition, relevant to the context of identifying "citizenship" standing in a process of human political representation. In politics, natural persons have standing. (Maybe "legal persons" also have standing, but I am not aware that any avatars, robots or other non-sentient systems are legal persons, etc. As Wendy said, when we get there, we can deal with it then. So far there is no "Star Trek Lt. Commander Data" to prompt the legal clarification.) Dan PS -- I have to confess, I don't fully understand the confusion here, unless there is an unspoken agenda that I am not yet aware of. >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > >Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when working >collaboratively, I would think. They each individually have an >interest in their use (both collective and individual) of the Internet. > >Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts"). Even when >use is collective, users are individuals. > >For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual users. >And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an individual >account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the Internet, >that does not preclude the person from being an individual user. > >This is a qualitative question, not quantitative. The goal is not to >estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the >functional components of the Internet system. > >The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate in >policy making processes, surrounding the Internet. > >Context shapes categorization. > >Dan > > > >At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a >>homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the >>family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of >>acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging a >>well for the collective benefit of the community. >> >>MG >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >> >> >>> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid >>> then >> >>> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in >>> fact is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, >>> since > >>> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer >>> (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any >>> judgements > >>> in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of >>> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. >> >> >>The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of >>representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to >>participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as >>an > >>ISOC chapter to have a say. >> >>I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you >>perhaps confusing users with email accounts? >> >>jeanette >> >> >> >>(individuals as collectives >>> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >>> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as >>> collections > >>> of individuals etc.etc.). >>> >>> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is >>> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of >>> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and >>> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other >>> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet >>> governance be formulated. >>> >>> MG >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>> Jacob >> >>> Malthouse >>> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >>> To: NA Discuss >>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>> >>> >>> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >>> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >>> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate >>> to >> >>> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >>> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >>> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name >>> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >>> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >>> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >>> >>> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >>> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >>> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops >>> and > >>> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication >>> and > >>> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >>> ICANN Board members. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 !DSPAM:2676,46283181273381517018951! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 20 12:46:35 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:46:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: References: <00db01c782f1$34e7e390$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <4628EE6B.80002@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding the >> Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance >> basically anyone/everyone--every age, status... It is sensible to adopt the normal constraints that require a person to be of adequate age and mental competency. And by "universal suffrage" I would hope that we are not assuming that that necessarily means a direct democratic vote on every issue - representative forms in which elections for representatives occur every couple of years, and in which the representatives are plenary decisionmakers and not simply members that elect other members to a long succession of Russian-doll like bodies. > No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not > machines). Let's not remake the major mistake of giving civil rights to legal fictions such as corporations. The people who own/control such fictions have voices and through those voices the fictions will have more than adequate means to make their desires known. --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 20 13:00:55 2007 From: shahshah at irnic.ir (Siavash Shahshahani) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:30:55 +0330 (IRST) Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> References: <008901c7829a$30b967a0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <462791E9.2060309@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <3887.172.16.16.119.1177088455.squirrel@chapar.irnic.ir> > Everyone who uses the Internet is an "individual Internet user." Why > should we try to give the term more content than that? > > --Wendy For one thing, this raises an intractable representation problem. But more importantly, we all know in our hearts what we mean by 'individual Internet user'; it is the counterpoint to powerful and organized bodies. And we do not want these to completely dominate the Internet for at least two reasons: 1. Internet's vitality and growth owes a lot to innovative individuals and grass-roots initiatives. 2. Internet offers a potential counter-weight to traditional world divisions and communication barriers between peoples, not generally encouraged by organized institutions of power. It is for the latter reason that I personally find 'regional' divisions of ICANN distasteful specially in the at-large arena. Regional organizations may just turn out to be convenient new tools for perpetuating traditional political divisions. Siavash > Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Hi Jacob, >> >> I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" >> interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual >> Internet user" as below... >> >> There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of >> (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, >> folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via >> telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's >> interventions). >> >> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then >> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is >> more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since >> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or >> no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in >> this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective >> groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives >> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of >> individuals etc.etc.). >> >> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming >> more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what >> constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) >> determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating >> participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. >> >> MG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob >> Malthouse >> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >> To: NA Discuss >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to >> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name >> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >> >> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and >> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and >> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >> ICANN Board members. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >> .icann.org >> --- >> Draft MoU with ICANN: >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU >> >> Draft Operating Principles: >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org > phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.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 > ------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah at irnic.ir, shahshah at nic.ir ----------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Apr 20 14:49:28 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:49:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <018101c78354$a988b9f0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <018101c78354$a988b9f0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: At 7:03 AM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Dan, > >You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is >some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my >"agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and >significance of this form of political representation is likely to >increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it >continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby and >socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to pay... I definitely concur on wanting to avoid the clubby thing. So, one goal here seems to be to make sure the representational process is appropriately broad, capturing every natural person who needs to be represented without going overboard into the realm of devices. >So its important to get some of these things on the table and try to get >them right while there is still some (probably remote) possibility of >doing that... > >In this context then we are talking about "political representation" >which according to what you have indicated below: > 1. consists of "natural persons" whose only realistic mode of >identification/verification is via a means which doesn't seem (at least >to me) to offer any way to determine whether this "natural person" >representative is "natural", a sensor, or a dog (q.v. the New Yorker)... I don't know exactly what modes of ID/verification are available in this context. I suppose strictly speaking you haven't yet verified that I am not a robot/avatar, unless this exchange qualifies as an instance of the Turing Test... However, I am personally acquainted with several others on this list, including Robin Gross, Robert Guerra, and Wendy Seltzer. ;-) > 2. is assigned some form of Internet "citizenship" as a result >of this status but so far one without any definition of what the >attendant rights or responsibilities of that citizenship might be apart >from the right to make what would appear to be one way complaints >to/about ICANN (shades of The Castle--Kafka) I'm still learning about ICANN's representational processes, such as they are, but it appears the primary role of the various advisory groups and constituencies is precisely to voice opinions about policies and practices at ICANN. If many of those opinions are complaints, it is probably because there isn't so much time as to constantly compliment the things it does right, plus the fact that there is quite obviously room for improvement (and one form of improvement may be recusal from certain domains of activity). I wouldn't suppose that anyone at ICANN thinks it is perfect just yet, even its greatest proponents. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :-) > 3. is based on a form of assigned status/prescribed role (i.e. >that of the "individual user") which refuses to take account of how that >use is actually undertaken in the real world (in many cases >collaboratively, through dyads, by communities etc.etc.) > >(Its you who are introducing the nature of definition of "political >standing" (Internet use) and then rather than accepting the implications >of this (giving politcal standing to who or what is actually undertaking >the use), you are interposing what seems to be an ideological bias in >insisting that the "users" must be "individuals", when in fact in many >instances the "user" is not an "individual" at all (except possibly >through the for now, artifact of individual keyboarding). I would contend that my "bias" is not ideological, it is merely contextual. The context (as I understand it) is primarily to design a representational process for natural persons. Thus, natural persons are the fundamental element of representation here. This is where we start, this is our "base set" or "universe/domain" (cf. Norbert's recent comments). We then move on to "which particular policy domain" within the natural-person universe: that of Internet policy as it affects those natural persons. So we are talking about the subset of all natural persons who are somehow involved in using the Internet, however that may be. The *nature* of that "use" seems totally irrelevant to me with regard to the question of *what kind of entity* is represented -- it is merely a qualifier applied to the original universe/set. Any use that involves any natural person and the Internet seems enough to me to qualify the natural person as an Internet "user". I see utterly no reason that the nature of the use should enter the picture in this particular context (the narrow question of standing for representation). The idea here is to cast a wide net, to capture *any natural persons who have some direct interest in Internet policy* (I suppose: "who are not already captured in some other ICANN constituency or advisory group" ... context, again). You may consider this to be "ideological" but I consider it to be sensible. At some point, the full universe of natural persons could eventually enter the set of representation, because society as a whole has an interest in Internet policy as the Internet permeates society ever more deeply over time. But for now, it's fair enough to confine the set to those natural persons with some direct involvement with the Internet, even if only sporadic, collective, etc. Some of those people will eventually grow to have more consistent access or more individual use, but perhaps only if the right policies are enacted with regard to the Internet, so the interest here is not only current but potential. Nevertheless, perhaps for now we can step back from the full potential which is to represent *all natural persons on the planet* with regard to Internet policy. (Note: Karl's warning about legal persons is well-taken. I am reluctant about that idea, but given the realities of current legal paradigms it may have to be dealt with somehow. Of course, they could get their own separate process of representation without folding into ALAC or NCUC.) > 4. I agree with your statements concerning the nature of the >relationship between citizenship and poltical representation, the >problem is that there really isn't any relationship between the first >part of your argument and your second except your evident belief that >there is one. I hope my comments directly above clarify that. >All this to say that I don't think that one can build any useful >structure of "political representation" on the basis of really vague and >ultimately undefinable notions of "individual user" (which seems to be >an attempt to conflate the notion of "individual user" with Internet >citizenship). > >However, that being said, continuing forward and having representation >being done by "self-selected individual Internet activists" is probably >no worse than any other and doesn't preclude the development of some >more robust and ultimately democratic structures alongside the current >admittedly extremely formative processes. Maybe it would be better if ICANN didn't even try to do this sort of thing in the first place, and left all of the political considerations to other forums. I agree that the representational structure currently at large at ICANN is clubby and imperfect, and I don't see how that could ever be fixed under any model similar to the current one, as ICANN is still a private corporation with only the MoU to tie it tenuously to any form of genuine political representation in the first place. So I do agree with your last sentence: Given the current ICANN structure, there is no obvious way to create a truly representative structure of political representation inside ICANN, and it will definitely be self-selecting in many ways (the activists on the corporate side are equally self-selected, for example). So, I see two parallel tracks (as apparently several others here do as well, even yourself): * Inside: use what structure of representation there is currently at ICANN to advocate for workable policies and push back against unworkable policies, especially in terms of removing political domains from ICANN's consideration in the first place. * Outside: try to put together a genuinely representative political structure to deal with the political issues (i.e., IGF, perhaps this Framework Convention idea, etc.). I see more agreement here than disagreement. I hope you understand my stance with regard to "Internet users" better now. No need to make things more complicated than necessary, as Wendy suggested earlier. Best, Dan > >Best, > >MG > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: April 19, 2007 8:20 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > >At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding >>the Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance >>basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we >>know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars -- >>literally who knows what...) > >No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not >machines). I guess you would have to identify natural persons through >some method other than purely net-based functions. But really, there >would have to be some process of political representation, because you >can't have 6 billion people effectively participating in policy making >for a single policy domain. You'd never get through the email. :-) > > > > No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules >>as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship. > >Uh, yes exactly: "normal" citizenship. Where did you get the idea that >it would be anything else? I certainly said nothing of the sort, and I >don't believe that anything I said implies that. This is precisely the >point. > > > >>Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples >>which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were >>users only because of and through the fact of their relationship to the > >>other (and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the >>child in the one instance and the other members of the community in the > >>other case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users" >>makes little or no sense since the "individual user" in those instances > >>is defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative. > >I wholly disagree that "use" and "user" define the same entities. If an >individual person is making use of the Internet, even totally in >collaboration with others, how is that person not involved in using the >Internet? The use determines whether the person is in or out of the >domain, but the political standing is still given to the individual >person, because individual people enter into political representational >processes. > > > >>And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis of >>participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to take >>fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would probably >>argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are being made >>and thus the basis of the participation that they would in fact wish to > >>make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual". > >The policy must certainly take into account the nature of use. The >political standing need not. The point is about individual standing, >not type of use. All users should have individual political standing, >regardless of the nature of their use. > > > >>And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against) >>"organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing >>highly culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain >>probably diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long term > >>more significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and >>universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in >>Internet policy making". > >It's not a "culturally specific notion of individualism" -- it is a >context specific definition, relevant to the context of identifying >"citizenship" standing in a process of human political representation. >In politics, natural persons have standing. (Maybe "legal persons" also >have standing, but I am not aware that any avatars, robots or other >non-sentient systems are legal persons, etc. As Wendy said, when we get >there, we can deal with it then. So far there is no "Star Trek Lt. >Commander Data" to prompt the legal clarification.) > >Dan > >PS -- I have to confess, I don't fully understand the confusion here, >unless there is an unspoken agenda that I am not yet aware of. > > > >>MG >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >>Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >>Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when working >>collaboratively, I would think. They each individually have an >>interest in their use (both collective and individual) of the Internet. >> >>Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts"). Even when >>use is collective, users are individuals. >> >>For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual users. >>And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an individual >>account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the Internet, >>that does not preclude the person from being an individual user. >> >>This is a qualitative question, not quantitative. The goal is not to >>estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the >>functional components of the Internet system. >> >>The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate in >>policy making processes, surrounding the Internet. >> >>Context shapes categorization. >> >>Dan >> >> >> >>At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a >>>homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the >>>family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of >>>acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging a > >>>well for the collective benefit of the community. >>> >>>MG >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>>Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>>Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid >>>> then >>> >>>> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in >>>> fact is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, > >>>> since >> >>>> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer >>>> (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any >>>> judgements >> >>>> in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of >>>> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. >>> >>> >>>The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of >>>representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to >>>participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as >>>an >> >>>ISOC chapter to have a say. >>> >>>I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you >>>perhaps confusing users with email accounts? >>> >>>jeanette >>> >>> >>> >>>(individuals as collectives >>>> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >>>> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as >>>> collections >> >>>> of individuals etc.etc.). >>>> >>>> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is >>>> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of > >>>> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and >>>> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other > >>>> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet >>>> governance be formulated. >>>> >>>> MG >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Jacob >>> >>>> Malthouse >>>> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >>>> To: NA Discuss >>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>>> >>>> >>>> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >>>> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >>>> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate >>>> to >>> >>>> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >>>> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >>>> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name > >>>> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >>>> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >>>> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >>>> >>>> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >>>> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >>>> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops >>>> and >> >>>> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication >>>> and >> >>>> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >>>> ICANN Board members. >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, 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 > > >!DSPAM:2676,46283181273381517018951! > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Fri Apr 20 15:31:05 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:31:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <022401c78382$7c8a1600$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> (I don't want to belabour this so I'll make my point and close the issue as far as my contributions, with the following... Dan, You've shifted ground here quite materially... I started this discussion by rather innocently asking if there was a formally articulated definition for what I considered to be the ambiguous (and potentially contentious) term "individual Internet user". That term appears in the documents and seems to be a term with some formal significance in the ICANN etc. context. The term used is not as you suggest, "natural persons", which actually I probably wouldn't have any problem with since it would I think, immediately require (or at least strongly suggest) the need for some serious attention being paid to how to achieve "representation" from those "natural persons" from whom representation is being sought or to whom the opportunity for representation is being offered. Rather the term used was "individual Internet users" which to my mind and nothing I've seen in the discussion so far disabuses me of that observation, evokes little more as a definition than ... "me an' my mates". And why does this matter? Well what happens if I'm not one of your mates, and I don't really want to be matey or my concern is that being "mate-worthy" by your or your mates' definition isn't what should be the determiner of who gets to speak and on what issues and in what structures in what may be a (or even god forbid, the) major determiner of political representation in the future. MG -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: April 20, 2007 11:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC At 7:03 AM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Dan, > >You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is >some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my >"agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and >significance of this form of political representation is likely to >increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it >continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby >and socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to >pay... I definitely concur on wanting to avoid the clubby thing. So, one goal here seems to be to make sure the representational process is appropriately broad, capturing every natural person who needs to be represented without going overboard into the realm of devices. >So its important to get some of these things on the table and try to >get them right while there is still some (probably remote) possibility >of doing that... > >In this context then we are talking about "political representation" >which according to what you have indicated below: > 1. consists of "natural persons" whose only realistic mode of >identification/verification is via a means which doesn't seem (at least >to me) to offer any way to determine whether this "natural person" >representative is "natural", a sensor, or a dog (q.v. the New >Yorker)... I don't know exactly what modes of ID/verification are available in this context. I suppose strictly speaking you haven't yet verified that I am not a robot/avatar, unless this exchange qualifies as an instance of the Turing Test... However, I am personally acquainted with several others on this list, including Robin Gross, Robert Guerra, and Wendy Seltzer. ;-) > 2. is assigned some form of Internet "citizenship" as a result of this >status but so far one without any definition of what the attendant >rights or responsibilities of that citizenship might be apart from the >right to make what would appear to be one way complaints to/about ICANN >(shades of The Castle--Kafka) I'm still learning about ICANN's representational processes, such as they are, but it appears the primary role of the various advisory groups and constituencies is precisely to voice opinions about policies and practices at ICANN. If many of those opinions are complaints, it is probably because there isn't so much time as to constantly compliment the things it does right, plus the fact that there is quite obviously room for improvement (and one form of improvement may be recusal from certain domains of activity). I wouldn't suppose that anyone at ICANN thinks it is perfect just yet, even its greatest proponents. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :-) > 3. is based on a form of assigned status/prescribed role (i.e. that of >the "individual user") which refuses to take account of how that use is >actually undertaken in the real world (in many cases collaboratively, >through dyads, by communities etc.etc.) > >(Its you who are introducing the nature of definition of "political >standing" (Internet use) and then rather than accepting the >implications of this (giving politcal standing to who or what is >actually undertaking the use), you are interposing what seems to be an >ideological bias in insisting that the "users" must be "individuals", >when in fact in many instances the "user" is not an "individual" at all >(except possibly through the for now, artifact of individual >keyboarding). I would contend that my "bias" is not ideological, it is merely contextual. The context (as I understand it) is primarily to design a representational process for natural persons. Thus, natural persons are the fundamental element of representation here. This is where we start, this is our "base set" or "universe/domain" (cf. Norbert's recent comments). We then move on to "which particular policy domain" within the natural-person universe: that of Internet policy as it affects those natural persons. So we are talking about the subset of all natural persons who are somehow involved in using the Internet, however that may be. The *nature* of that "use" seems totally irrelevant to me with regard to the question of *what kind of entity* is represented -- it is merely a qualifier applied to the original universe/set. Any use that involves any natural person and the Internet seems enough to me to qualify the natural person as an Internet "user". I see utterly no reason that the nature of the use should enter the picture in this particular context (the narrow question of standing for representation). The idea here is to cast a wide net, to capture *any natural persons who have some direct interest in Internet policy* (I suppose: "who are not already captured in some other ICANN constituency or advisory group" ... context, again). You may consider this to be "ideological" but I consider it to be sensible. At some point, the full universe of natural persons could eventually enter the set of representation, because society as a whole has an interest in Internet policy as the Internet permeates society ever more deeply over time. But for now, it's fair enough to confine the set to those natural persons with some direct involvement with the Internet, even if only sporadic, collective, etc. Some of those people will eventually grow to have more consistent access or more individual use, but perhaps only if the right policies are enacted with regard to the Internet, so the interest here is not only current but potential. Nevertheless, perhaps for now we can step back from the full potential which is to represent *all natural persons on the planet* with regard to Internet policy. (Note: Karl's warning about legal persons is well-taken. I am reluctant about that idea, but given the realities of current legal paradigms it may have to be dealt with somehow. Of course, they could get their own separate process of representation without folding into ALAC or NCUC.) > 4. I agree with your statements concerning the nature of the >relationship between citizenship and poltical representation, the >problem is that there really isn't any relationship between the first >part of your argument and your second except your evident belief that >there is one. I hope my comments directly above clarify that. >All this to say that I don't think that one can build any useful >structure of "political representation" on the basis of really vague >and ultimately undefinable notions of "individual user" (which seems to >be an attempt to conflate the notion of "individual user" with Internet >citizenship). > >However, that being said, continuing forward and having representation >being done by "self-selected individual Internet activists" is probably >no worse than any other and doesn't preclude the development of some >more robust and ultimately democratic structures alongside the current >admittedly extremely formative processes. Maybe it would be better if ICANN didn't even try to do this sort of thing in the first place, and left all of the political considerations to other forums. I agree that the representational structure currently at large at ICANN is clubby and imperfect, and I don't see how that could ever be fixed under any model similar to the current one, as ICANN is still a private corporation with only the MoU to tie it tenuously to any form of genuine political representation in the first place. So I do agree with your last sentence: Given the current ICANN structure, there is no obvious way to create a truly representative structure of political representation inside ICANN, and it will definitely be self-selecting in many ways (the activists on the corporate side are equally self-selected, for example). So, I see two parallel tracks (as apparently several others here do as well, even yourself): * Inside: use what structure of representation there is currently at ICANN to advocate for workable policies and push back against unworkable policies, especially in terms of removing political domains from ICANN's consideration in the first place. * Outside: try to put together a genuinely representative political structure to deal with the political issues (i.e., IGF, perhaps this Framework Convention idea, etc.). I see more agreement here than disagreement. I hope you understand my stance with regard to "Internet users" better now. No need to make things more complicated than necessary, as Wendy suggested earlier. Best, Dan > >Best, > >MG > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: April 19, 2007 8:20 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > >At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding >>the Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance >>basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we >>know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars -- >>literally who knows what...) > >No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not >machines). I guess you would have to identify natural persons through >some method other than purely net-based functions. But really, there >would have to be some process of political representation, because you >can't have 6 billion people effectively participating in policy making >for a single policy domain. You'd never get through the email. :-) > > > > No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules >>as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship. > >Uh, yes exactly: "normal" citizenship. Where did you get the idea that >it would be anything else? I certainly said nothing of the sort, and I >don't believe that anything I said implies that. This is precisely the >point. > > > >>Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples >>which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were >>users only because of and through the fact of their relationship to >>the > >>other (and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the >>child in the one instance and the other members of the community in >>the > >>other case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users" >>makes little or no sense since the "individual user" in those >>instances > >>is defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative. > >I wholly disagree that "use" and "user" define the same entities. If >an individual person is making use of the Internet, even totally in >collaboration with others, how is that person not involved in using the >Internet? The use determines whether the person is in or out of the >domain, but the political standing is still given to the individual >person, because individual people enter into political representational >processes. > > > >>And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis >>of participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to >>take fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would >>probably argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are >>being made and thus the basis of the participation that they would in >>fact wish to > >>make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual". > >The policy must certainly take into account the nature of use. The >political standing need not. The point is about individual standing, >not type of use. All users should have individual political standing, >regardless of the nature of their use. > > > >>And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against) >>"organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing >>highly culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain >>probably diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long >>term > >>more significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and >>universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in >>Internet policy making". > >It's not a "culturally specific notion of individualism" -- it is a >context specific definition, relevant to the context of identifying >"citizenship" standing in a process of human political representation. >In politics, natural persons have standing. (Maybe "legal persons" >also have standing, but I am not aware that any avatars, robots or >other non-sentient systems are legal persons, etc. As Wendy said, when >we get there, we can deal with it then. So far there is no "Star Trek >Lt. Commander Data" to prompt the legal clarification.) > >Dan > >PS -- I have to confess, I don't fully understand the confusion here, >unless there is an unspoken agenda that I am not yet aware of. > > > >>MG >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >>Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >>Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when >>working collaboratively, I would think. They each individually have >>an interest in their use (both collective and individual) of the >>Internet. >> >>Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts"). Even >>when use is collective, users are individuals. >> >>For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual >>users. And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an >>individual account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the >>Internet, that does not preclude the person from being an individual >>user. >> >>This is a qualitative question, not quantitative. The goal is not to >>estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the >>functional components of the Internet system. >> >>The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate >>in policy making processes, surrounding the Internet. >> >>Context shapes categorization. >> >>Dan >> >> >> >>At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a >>>homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the >>>family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of >>>acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging >>>a > >>>well for the collective benefit of the community. >>> >>>MG >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>>Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>>Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid >>>> then >>> >>>> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in >>>> fact is more or less without content as it could either mean >>>> anyone, > >>>> since >> >>>> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet >>>> surfer (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any >>>> judgements >> >>>> in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of >>>> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. >>> >>> >>>The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of >>>representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to >>>participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as >>>an >> >>>ISOC chapter to have a say. >>> >>>I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are >>>you perhaps confusing users with email accounts? >>> >>>jeanette >>> >>> >>> >>>(individuals as collectives >>>> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of >>>> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as >>>> collections >> >>>> of individuals etc.etc.). >>>> >>>> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is >>>> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion >>>> of > >>>> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and >>>> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some >>>> other > >>>> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet >>>> governance be formulated. >>>> >>>> MG >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Jacob >>> >>>> Malthouse >>>> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >>>> To: NA Discuss >>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>>> >>>> >>>> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >>>> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >>>> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate >>>> to >>> >>>> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >>>> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with >>>> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain >>>> name > >>>> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >>>> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >>>> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >>>> >>>> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >>>> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >>>> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops >>>> and >> >>>> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication >>>> and >> >>>> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >>>> ICANN Board members. >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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:2676,46290b8f273386332510249! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Apr 20 15:43:13 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:43:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Egmont Group granted International Organization Status Message-ID: Thought the following announcement could be of interest to this list. Specially in the context of the internationalization of ICANN http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2007/20070418/html/sor67-e.html From the Canadian (Government Gazette) Vol. 141, No. 8 — April 18, 2007 Registration SOR/2007-67 March 29, 2007 FOREIGN MISSIONS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ACT Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Privileges and Immunities Order P.C. 2007-434 March 29, 2007 Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance, pursuant to section 5 (see footnote a) of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act(see footnote b), hereby makes the annexed Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Privileges and Immunities Order. EGMONT GROUP OF FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNITS PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ORDER INTERPRETATION 1. The following definitions apply in this Order. "United Nations Convention" means the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations set out in Schedule III to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. (Convention des Nations Unies) "Organization" means the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units. (Organisation) "Vienna Convention" means the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations set out in Schedule I to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. (Convention de Vienne) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES 2. (1) The Organization shall have in Canada the legal capacities of a body corporate and the privileges and immunities set out in Articles II and III of the United Nations Convention. (2) Officials of the Organization shall have in Canada, to the extent that may be required for the exercise of their functions in relation to the Organization, the privileges and immunities set out in section 18 of Article V of the United Nations Convention. (3) In addition to the privileges and immunities accorded to officials under subsection (2), the Executive Secretary of the Secretariat of the Organization, together with the members of his or her family forming part of his or her household, shall have in Canada privileges and immunities comparable to the privileges and immunities accorded to diplomatic agents and the members of their families forming part of their households under the Vienna Convention. 3. The privileges and immunities referred to in subsections 2(2) and (3) do not apply to Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada in respect of their liability for taxes or duties imposed by any law in Canada. 4. This Order does not restrict the capacity of the Government of Canada to refuse officials of the Organization entry to Canada or to exclude them from Canada, for reasons linked to national security. COMING INTO FORCE 5. This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT (This statement is not part of the Order.) Description The Order grants legal capacities to the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (Organization) as well as privileges and immunities to the Organization and its officials. The privileges and immunities derive from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (UN Convention) as set out in Schedules I and III of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act (Act) respectively. These legal capacities and privileges and immunities are granted by Order of the Governor in Council following the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, pursuant to section 5 of the Act. Legal Capacities and Privileges and Immunities granted to the Organization The Order will grant the Organization the legal capacities of a body corporate under Canadian law. The Organization will also be granted privileges and immunities as set out in Articles II and III of the UN Convention. As an indication and, except in so far as it has expressly waived its immunity, this means that any property and assets of the Organization will enjoy immunity from any legal process and will be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action. In addition, the Organization's premises and archives will be inviolable and official communications and correspondence of the Organization will be treated with the same consideration as diplomatic communications. The Organization's assets, income and other property in Canada will also be exempt from all direct taxes and from customs duties, prohibitions and restrictions in respect of articles the Organization imports and exports for its official use or in respect of its publications (certain conditions apply). Privileges and Immunities granted to Officials of the Organization Officials of the Organization will receive the privileges and immunities set forth in section 18 of Article V of the UN Convention. As an indication and, except in so far as they have been expressly waived, these privileges and immunities include immunity from legal process of every kind in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their official capacity, exemption from immigration restrictions for themselves, together with their spouses and relatives dependent on them, and exemption, for non-Canadians who are not permanent residents of Canada, from taxation on their salaries, emoluments and allowances. In addition to the immunities and privileges specified in section 18, the Executive Secretary of the Egmont Group's permanent secretariat, together with the members of his or her family forming part of his or her household, will be granted privileges and immunities comparable to those accorded to diplomatic agents and the members of their families forming part of their households under the Vienna Convention. Taxes and duties legally imposed in Canada This Order does not exempt a person who is a permanent resident of Canada or a Canadian citizen from liability for taxes or duties imposed by any law in Canada. Alternatives If the Organization is to fulfill its functions, the Organization and its officials require privileges and immunities and such privileges and immunities may only be granted, under the Act, by the Governor General in Council. Benefits and Costs This Order will permit Canada to fulfill its international commitments as host to the permanent secretariat of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units. The privileges and immunities granted to the Organization are necessary to allow it to pursue its goals and those accorded to the officials of the Organization to allow them to exercise independently their functions with respect to the Organization. Consultation The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and the RCMP were consulted on and are supportive of this Order. Compliance and Enforcement As the purpose of this Order is to grant specific privileges and immunities, appropriate action is to be taken on a case by case basis. Contact Keith Morrill Director Criminal, Security and Treaty Law Division Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade 125 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2 Telephone: 613-995-8508 FAX: 613-944-0870 Footnote a S.C. 2002, c. 12, ss. 3 and 10 Footnote b S.C. 1991, c. 41 NOTICE: The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with hypertext language (HTML). Its content is very similar except for the footnotes, the symbols and the tables. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Apr 20 16:32:39 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:32:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <022401c78382$7c8a1600$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <022401c78382$7c8a1600$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Then one final response and we can close it off. I don't believe I made any material shift, though perhaps we were not understanding each other initially. The core issue of "matey-ness" is precisely the structural complaint about ICANN's entrance into political domains in the first place, above and beyond the original technical mandate. I don't see how this could effectively be improved under the existing structure of ICANN. An MoU is hardly enough to provide genuine political accountability to any broad-based constituency. So frankly, the best course of action from my point of view would be to rein in ICANN jurisdiction to non-political matters and get rid of any need for political representation whatsoever inside ICANN in the first place. Then there is no problem of mates, either yours or mine. But given that this is not likely to happen quickly if at all (perhaps the argument will be made by some that there has to be some other political body to transfer political functions to, but I don't think this at all necessary in order for ICANN to recuse itself from political jurisdiction), the idea is that whatever mates there are inside ICANN will be working toward their self-selected agendas, and the reality is that the imperfect system is all that is available at the moment, from the inside. I understand how the term might be interpreted as ambiguous, but you're getting into a pretty arcane (and IMHO spurious) semantic debate. There would presumably be two ways to parse the term "individual Internet user": (1) any "entity" directly using the Internet for "individual use" (yours?) (2) an *individual natural person* using the Internet in any direct manner (mine) Bone of contention: is "individuality" applied to the person or to the use? On the face of it, #2 makes much more common sense to me, in the present context of political representation for natural persons, however matey and flawed it may be. ALAC is intended to represent the "at-large community" and "community" implies "natural persons" to me. The #1 interpretation seems forced, at best. I suppose that there may be no more formal definition of this term, but I'm still on a learning curve here so I wouldn't know that for certain. I was presenting the common sense interpretation, which I assume would be the preferred one in the absence of any other formal clarification. Perhaps in the spirit of "originalism" we ought to track down the actual people who wrote that phrase and ask them what *they* meant by it. :-) Or perhaps the current policy making process inside ICANN can determine this, in which case I'm sure there will be a substantial constituency for the #2 interpretation. I would hope that it would be large enough to form a majority. Dan At 12:31 PM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >(I don't want to belabour this so I'll make my point and close the issue >as far as my contributions, with the following... > >Dan, > >You've shifted ground here quite materially... I started this discussion >by rather innocently asking if there was a formally articulated >definition for what I considered to be the ambiguous (and potentially >contentious) term "individual Internet user". That term appears in the >documents and seems to be a term with some formal significance in the >ICANN etc. context. > >The term used is not as you suggest, "natural persons", which actually I >probably wouldn't have any problem with since it would I think, >immediately require (or at least strongly suggest) the need for some >serious attention being paid to how to achieve "representation" from >those "natural persons" from whom representation is being sought or to >whom the opportunity for representation is being offered. > >Rather the term used was "individual Internet users" which to my mind >and nothing I've seen in the discussion so far disabuses me of that >observation, evokes little more as a definition than ... "me an' my >mates". > >And why does this matter? Well what happens if I'm not one of your >mates, and I don't really want to be matey or my concern is that being >"mate-worthy" by your or your mates' definition isn't what should be the >determiner of who gets to speak and on what issues and in what >structures in what may be a (or even god forbid, the) major determiner >of political representation in the future. > >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: April 20, 2007 11:49 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > >At 7:03 AM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>Dan, >> >>You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is >>some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my >>"agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and >>significance of this form of political representation is likely to >>increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it > >>continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby >>and socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to >>pay... > >I definitely concur on wanting to avoid the clubby thing. So, one goal >here seems to be to make sure the representational process is >appropriately broad, capturing every natural person who needs to be >represented without going overboard into the realm of devices. > > > >>So its important to get some of these things on the table and try to >>get them right while there is still some (probably remote) possibility >>of doing that... >> >>In this context then we are talking about "political representation" >>which according to what you have indicated below: >> 1. consists of "natural persons" whose only realistic mode of >>identification/verification is via a means which doesn't seem (at least > >>to me) to offer any way to determine whether this "natural person" >>representative is "natural", a sensor, or a dog (q.v. the New >>Yorker)... > >I don't know exactly what modes of ID/verification are available in this >context. I suppose strictly speaking you haven't yet verified that I am >not a robot/avatar, unless this exchange qualifies as an instance of the >Turing Test... However, I am personally acquainted with several others >on this list, including Robin Gross, Robert Guerra, and Wendy Seltzer. >;-) > > > >> 2. is assigned some form of Internet "citizenship" as a result >of this >>status but so far one without any definition of what the attendant >>rights or responsibilities of that citizenship might be apart from the >>right to make what would appear to be one way complaints to/about ICANN > >>(shades of The Castle--Kafka) > >I'm still learning about ICANN's representational processes, such as >they are, but it appears the primary role of the various advisory groups >and constituencies is precisely to voice opinions about policies and >practices at ICANN. If many of those opinions are complaints, it is >probably because there isn't so much time as to constantly compliment >the things it does right, plus the fact that there is quite obviously >room for improvement (and one form of improvement may be recusal from >certain domains of activity). I wouldn't suppose that anyone at ICANN >thinks it is perfect just yet, even its greatest proponents. Please >correct me if I'm wrong. >:-) > > > >> 3. is based on a form of assigned status/prescribed role (i.e. >that of >>the "individual user") which refuses to take account of how that use is > >>actually undertaken in the real world (in many cases collaboratively, >>through dyads, by communities etc.etc.) >> >>(Its you who are introducing the nature of definition of "political >>standing" (Internet use) and then rather than accepting the >>implications of this (giving politcal standing to who or what is >>actually undertaking the use), you are interposing what seems to be an >>ideological bias in insisting that the "users" must be "individuals", >>when in fact in many instances the "user" is not an "individual" at all > >>(except possibly through the for now, artifact of individual >>keyboarding). > >I would contend that my "bias" is not ideological, it is merely >contextual. > >The context (as I understand it) is primarily to design a >representational process for natural persons. Thus, natural persons are >the fundamental element of representation here. This is where we start, >this is our "base set" or "universe/domain" (cf. Norbert's recent >comments). > >We then move on to "which particular policy domain" within the >natural-person universe: that of Internet policy as it affects those >natural persons. So we are talking about the subset of all natural >persons who are somehow involved in using the Internet, however that may >be. > >The *nature* of that "use" seems totally irrelevant to me with regard to >the question of *what kind of entity* is represented -- it is merely a >qualifier applied to the original universe/set. Any use that involves >any natural person and the Internet seems enough to me to qualify the >natural person as an Internet "user". I see utterly no reason that the >nature of the use should enter the picture in this particular context >(the narrow question of standing for representation). The idea here is >to cast a wide net, to capture *any natural persons who have some direct >interest in Internet policy* (I suppose: "who are not already captured >in some other ICANN constituency or advisory group" ... context, >again). > >You may consider this to be "ideological" but I consider it to be >sensible. At some point, the full universe of natural persons could >eventually enter the set of representation, because society as a whole >has an interest in Internet policy as the Internet permeates society >ever more deeply over time. But for now, it's fair enough to confine >the set to those natural persons with some direct involvement with the >Internet, even if only sporadic, collective, etc. Some of those people >will eventually grow to have more consistent access or more individual >use, but perhaps only if the right policies are enacted with regard to >the Internet, so the interest here is not only current but potential. >Nevertheless, perhaps for now we can step back from the full potential >which is to represent *all natural persons on the planet* with regard to >Internet policy. > >(Note: Karl's warning about legal persons is well-taken. I am reluctant >about that idea, but given the realities of current legal paradigms it >may have to be dealt with somehow. Of course, they could get their own >separate process of representation without folding into ALAC or NCUC.) > > > >> 4. I agree with your statements concerning the nature of the >>relationship between citizenship and poltical representation, the >>problem is that there really isn't any relationship between the first >>part of your argument and your second except your evident belief that >>there is one. > >I hope my comments directly above clarify that. > > > >>All this to say that I don't think that one can build any useful >>structure of "political representation" on the basis of really vague >>and ultimately undefinable notions of "individual user" (which seems to > >>be an attempt to conflate the notion of "individual user" with Internet > >>citizenship). >> >>However, that being said, continuing forward and having representation >>being done by "self-selected individual Internet activists" is probably > >>no worse than any other and doesn't preclude the development of some >>more robust and ultimately democratic structures alongside the current >>admittedly extremely formative processes. > >Maybe it would be better if ICANN didn't even try to do this sort of >thing in the first place, and left all of the political considerations >to other forums. I agree that the representational structure currently >at large at ICANN is clubby and imperfect, and I don't see how that >could ever be fixed under any model similar to the current one, as ICANN >is still a private corporation with only the MoU to tie it tenuously to >any form of genuine political representation in the first place. > >So I do agree with your last sentence: Given the current ICANN >structure, there is no obvious way to create a truly representative >structure of political representation inside ICANN, and it will >definitely be self-selecting in many ways (the activists on the >corporate side are equally self-selected, for example). > >So, I see two parallel tracks (as apparently several others here do as >well, even yourself): > > * Inside: use what structure of representation there is currently at >ICANN to advocate for workable policies and push back against unworkable >policies, especially in terms of removing political domains from ICANN's >consideration in the first place. > > * Outside: try to put together a genuinely representative political >structure to deal with the political issues (i.e., IGF, perhaps this >Framework Convention idea, etc.). > >I see more agreement here than disagreement. I hope you understand my >stance with regard to "Internet users" better now. No need to make >things more complicated than necessary, as Wendy suggested earlier. > >Best, >Dan > > >> >>Best, >> >>MG >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >>Sent: April 19, 2007 8:20 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >> >> >>At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding >>>the Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance >>>basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we > >>>know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars -- >>>literally who knows what...) >> >>No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not >>machines). I guess you would have to identify natural persons through >>some method other than purely net-based functions. But really, there >>would have to be some process of political representation, because you >>can't have 6 billion people effectively participating in policy making >>for a single policy domain. You'd never get through the email. :-) >> >> >> >> No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules >>>as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship. >> >>Uh, yes exactly: "normal" citizenship. Where did you get the idea that > >>it would be anything else? I certainly said nothing of the sort, and I > >>don't believe that anything I said implies that. This is precisely the > >>point. >> >> >> >>>Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples > >>>which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were >>>users only because of and through the fact of their relationship to >>>the >> >>>other (and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the >>>child in the one instance and the other members of the community in >>>the >> >>>other case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users" >>>makes little or no sense since the "individual user" in those >>>instances >> >>>is defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative. >> >>I wholly disagree that "use" and "user" define the same entities. If >>an individual person is making use of the Internet, even totally in >>collaboration with others, how is that person not involved in using the > >>Internet? The use determines whether the person is in or out of the >>domain, but the political standing is still given to the individual >>person, because individual people enter into political representational > >>processes. >> >> >> >>>And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis >>>of participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to >>>take fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would >>>probably argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are >>>being made and thus the basis of the participation that they would in >>>fact wish to >> >>>make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual". >> >>The policy must certainly take into account the nature of use. The >>political standing need not. The point is about individual standing, >>not type of use. All users should have individual political standing, >>regardless of the nature of their use. >> >> >> >>>And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against) >>>"organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing >>>highly culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain > >>>probably diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long >>>term >> >>>more significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and >>>universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in >>>Internet policy making". >> >>It's not a "culturally specific notion of individualism" -- it is a >>context specific definition, relevant to the context of identifying >>"citizenship" standing in a process of human political representation. >>In politics, natural persons have standing. (Maybe "legal persons" >>also have standing, but I am not aware that any avatars, robots or >>other non-sentient systems are legal persons, etc. As Wendy said, when > >>we get there, we can deal with it then. So far there is no "Star Trek >>Lt. Commander Data" to prompt the legal clarification.) >> >>Dan >> >>PS -- I have to confess, I don't fully understand the confusion here, >>unless there is an unspoken agenda that I am not yet aware of. >> >> >> >>>MG >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >>>Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>> >>> >>>Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when >>>working collaboratively, I would think. They each individually have >>>an interest in their use (both collective and individual) of the >>>Internet. >>> >>>Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts"). Even >>>when use is collective, users are individuals. >>> >>>For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual >>>users. And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an >>>individual account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the > >>>Internet, that does not preclude the person from being an individual >>>user. >>> >>>This is a qualitative question, not quantitative. The goal is not to >>>estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the >>>functional components of the Internet system. >>> >>>The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate >>>in policy making processes, surrounding the Internet. >>> >>>Context shapes categorization. >>> >>>Dan >>> >>> >>> >>>At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>>In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a >>>>homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the >>>>family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of >>>>acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging >>>>a >> >>>>well for the collective benefit of the community. >>>> >>>>MG >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>>>Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM >>>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid >>>>> then >>>> >>>>> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in >>>>> fact is more or less without content as it could either mean >>>>> anyone, >> >>>>> since >>> >>>>> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet >>>>> surfer (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any >>>>> judgements >>> >>>>> in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of >>>>> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. >>>> >>>> >>>>The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of >>>>representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to >>>>participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as >>>>an >>> >>>>ISOC chapter to have a say. >>>> >>>>I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are >>>>you perhaps confusing users with email accounts? >>>> >>>>jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>(individuals as collectives >>>>> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of > >>>>> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as >>>>> collections >>> >>>>> of individuals etc.etc.). >>>>> >>>>> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is >>>>> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion >>>>> of >> >>>>> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and >>>>> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some >>>>> other >> >>>>> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet >>>>> governance be formulated. >>>>> >>>>> MG >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>>>> Jacob >>>> >>>>> Malthouse >>>>> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM >>>>> To: NA Discuss >>>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: http://alac.icann.org/ >>>>> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for >>>>> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet >>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate >>>>> to >>>> >>>>> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" >>>>> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with > >>>>> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain >>>>> name >> >>>>> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting >>>>> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and >>>>> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. >>>>> >>>>> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil >>>>> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting >>>>> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops >>>>> and >>> >>>>> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication >>>>> and >>> >>>>> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of >>>>> ICANN Board members. >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, 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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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:2676,46290b8f273386332510249! > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 20 16:42:55 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:42:55 +1000 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> Alx, Interesting that people put spam and phishing together always - because they are primarily email related issues - But from a governance perspective phishing belongs with cybercrime, I suspect, and mechanisms to deal with fraud. Spam in a wider sense may not always be criminal - phishing always is. >From a technical perspective, there are measures that assist that assist in addressing spam/phishing by assisting in tracking origins of messages, but as we saw in the sender id/spf debacle a few years ago, technical measures by themselves wont go far. What's lacking, as you suggest, is the governance structure whereby all of the regulatory, legal, consumer, technical approaches can be utilized and considered in a common integrated strategy or series of strategies. I didn't see that happening either pre or post WGIG despite increased attention to the problem Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] Sent: 20 April 2007 15:30 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention Ian, readers of the WGIG report and documents, and people who have sort of followed the WSIS and post-WSIS process will of course applaud your email/posting here, maybe with some bittersweet feelings, as it re-charts the course of the WGIG! Welcome to 2003, pals, let's get to do the work on the 17 issues that were left unsolved. As I asked recently, spam, anyone? Phishing? Any takers for interconnection costs? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ian Peter wrote: > Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:16:20 +1000 > From: Ian Peter > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > "[iso-8859-1] 'Kleinwächter, Wolfgang'" > , > 'Anriette Esterhuysen' , > 'William Drake' , > 'John Mathiason' > Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention > > I think Wolfgang has the heart of a good model here. Maybe a task for Rio is > to develop this and present it. > > Step one - define the issues that need some form of Internet governance- is > the current list of 18 issues useful or do we need to extend or refine? > > Step two - for each issue define > * lead stakeholder > * other major stakeholders ( I think we need to look at UN organizations as > well as the three major stakeholder groups) > > Step three - what does that tell us about which issues might be able to be > handled by a common organizational structure (eg do spam and phishing have > nearly identical stakeholder structures or are they sufficiently different > to suggest different governance models for these two related issues > (similarly privacy and copyright etc etc) > > From this we can make assumptions about models and gap analysis of existing > organisations. > > An interesting exercise! > > PS and as an aside - I appreciate that the avenue for Al Quaeda input is > clearly civil society. I think their Internet governance interests perhaps > are mainly around issues such as censorship and freedom of expression. > (another issue grouping that needs its own structure perhaps). The middle > east is becoming a perfect example of a problem that cannot be solved by > governments alone without the involvement in a solution of non-government > players (aka civil society) and business interests. All three groupings have > interested intertwined in the current quagmire and attempts to arrive at > solutions without involving all three are clearly unworkable. We could > rapidly develop a list of a number of current issues where resolution is > dependent on interaction of major groupings outside government - in my > immediate areas of interest climate change and internet governance are clear > examples where any one group not working in co-operation with the other two > major groupings isn’t going to make much headway. > > 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: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 19 April 2007 17:57 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; > governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason > Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention > > Dear list, > > > One of the challenges is to figure out how the relationship (in legal and > political terms) among the stakeholders can be organized (and formalized), > probably on a case by case basis. In a paper for WGIG (Internet > Co-Governance) I proposed a model, where you have basically a trilateral > mechanism for each of the IG issues (as listed in the WGIG report), but for > each issues the triangel would be different. Governmental leadership would > be needed in the fight against cybercrime, but also here the involvment of > private sector and civil society is needed. On the other hand, the > management of the DNS should by led by the private sector (but also here a > certain involvment of governments and civil society is needed). In WGIG we > listed 18 relevant IG issues, which would mean 18 different governance > models, based on multistakeholderism, that is of a specific triangular > relationship. With other words, we would have 18 different triangels. I have > called this IG model the "Tower of Triangels". But again, when we accept, > that we are moving towards a system change, then we have to go beyond > refering to existing (legal and political) instruments and have to invent > something which is new. BTW, the majority of todays war are not among > sovereign states. Al Kaida is not a sovereign nationstate, it is a network > :-((((. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 23:40 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason > Betreff: Re: [governance] Framework convention > > > > Keep in mind what has been achieved with the > UN Economic Commission for Europe's Aarhus > Convention on Access to Information, Public > Participation in Decision-making and Access to > Justice in Environmental Matters. > > It secure rights to participation and access > information. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention > > I.o.w. the modalities for participation of non- > state actors in the 'implementation' of a > framework convention (or any other multi- > lateral agreement) could theoretically be > determined by a linked convention established > specifically for that purpose. And, it can > address some of the concerns that has been > raised. > > Anriette > >> Bill, >> >> I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your >> comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are >> on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we >> clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with >> the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. >> >> Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a >> multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on >> the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, >> resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are >> probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be >> said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is >> worth the convention it is written in." >> >> We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. >> >> Best, >> >> John >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi Lee, >>> >>> There are about twenty different conversations now running under the >>> heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could >>> please separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches >>> etc. that'd be helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had >>> to go find them in the list archive. >>> >>> On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: >>> >>>> Bill, Wolfgang, >>>> >>>> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this >>>> list, sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. >>> >>> You're not alone >>> >>>> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the >>>> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, >>>> but I admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though >>>> and John and I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get >>>> something put together by the time John suggests, for the rest of >>>> you to throw stones at. >>> >>> Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we >>> talking about a >>> Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, >>> rather than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a >>> Recommendation, Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal >>> agreement, or something else? I can't help wondering if the basic >>> rationale isn't, 'because the UN has done conventions in other, >>> unrelated fields, let's have one here too,' which to me wouldn't be >>> a compelling answer. Normally one would think form should follow >>> function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we should >>> agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure >>> out what it's for, which seems odd. >>> >>>> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet >>>> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet >>>> Framework >>> >>> Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me >>> why this isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem >>> definition => bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons >>> of each => the selection of a solution? >>> >>>> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam >>>> have cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on >>>> the other >>> >>> Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They >>> didn't invent something new when the telephone came along, they >>> grafted language onto telegraph arrangements. The international >>> standardization and diffusion of telephony was slowed in >>> consequence. Ditto datacommunications. Institutionally embedded >>> history's not always the best guide within much less across global >>> policy domains. >>> >>>> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote >>>> participation given the Internet crowd. >>>> >>>> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed >>>> >>>> only >>>> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and >>>> around that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and >>>> commitments may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state >>>> actors, ie business, civil society, and individuals. Without >>>> ICANN, APWG, etc >>> >>> How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN >>> (meaning ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? >>> >>>> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the >>>> GAC is putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its >>>> own activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. >>>> So it's not like the framework precludes the need for various >>>> groups to do what they are doing, as well as they can. It may >>>> however help institutionalize other Internet governance processes, >>>> to the degree there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. >>> >>> Sure >>> >>>> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's >>>> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, >>>> and the agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any >>>> recommendations emanating from the discussion, will determine its >>>> ultimate utility, or lack thereof. A discussion on the framework >>>> convention would also merit another workshop I'd think. Maybe >>>> Parminder and John can coorganize that. >>> >>> Sure, sure >>> >>>> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and >>>> many other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP >>>> also looks forward to contributing to the degree we are able. >>> >>> Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just >>> puzzled by the reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent >>> invocations of the solution. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> >>>>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>>>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign >>>> the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented >>>> arrangement? >>>> >>>> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? >>>> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How >>>> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How >>>> these non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would >>>> join such a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? >>>> >>>> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even >>>> more important. >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> wolfgang >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] >>>> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 >>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William >>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover >>>> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to >>>> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would >>>> have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have >>>> to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be >>>> subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to >>>> apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or >>>> conflict. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> John >>>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >>>>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >>>>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >>>>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> John Mathiason wrote: >>>>>> Bill, >>>>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>>>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>>>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>>>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>>>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>>>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>>>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>>>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>>>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>>>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in >>>>>> the groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of >>>>>> weeks, but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next >>>>>> IGF consultations on 23 May. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, >>>>>> William Drake wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal >>>>>>>> basis to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in >>>>>>>> sum, the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public >>>>>>>> policy issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. >>>>>>>> And so far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of >>>>>>>> such authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure >>>>>>>> where governments may get to make final decisions (again, only >>>>>>>> on public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>>>>> John proposed in his paper three years ago, which to my >>>>>>> knowledge is IGP's only written statement on the matter. And >>>>>>> that was just a four page concept paper, more of a teaser than >>>>>>> an elaborated proposal. Absent further specification, it's >>>>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>>>>> to entail, and differently react to the recurrent suggestion >>>>>>> that it could be The Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday >>>>>>> to Milton that you guys take the next step and spell it out. >>>>>>> Otherwise we'll just go around and around talking past each >>>>>>> other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>>>>> clear legal bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious >>>>>>> how a FC would relate to and further clarify the disparate bits >>>>>>> of national and international law underlying the shared rule >>>>>>> systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and trade, security, >>>>>>> consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you actually >>>>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>>>>> and that this is why you found my comment confusing. There are >>>>>>> legal bases there too but to the extent they're unclear or >>>>>>> problematic I guess the idea is to change them. Fine, but then >>>>>>> maybe you should call it an FC on the governance of core >>>>>>> resources to avoid further misunderstanding. And spell out what >>>>>>> it might look like so people have something concrete to react >>>>>>> to, rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >>> Director, Project on the Information >>> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >>> Graduate Institute for International Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: >> 4/17/2007 5:20 PM >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 > 16:22 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 > 16:22 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 16:22 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 16:22 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 16:51:47 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:51:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <018101c78354$a988b9f0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <018101c78354$a988b9f0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: On 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Dan, > > You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is > some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my > "agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and > significance of this form of political representation is likely to > increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it > continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby and > socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to pay... Soooo, what if everyone who was interested joined the techies lists and went to those meetings? Would there still be a need for reform? Wouldn't a situation where all Internet Users could represent themselves if they wanted to, be the best of all possible worlds? -- 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Fri Apr 20 17:02:26 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:02:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> Message-ID: Ian, sure thing. Adam Peake has described part of the underlying causes: a discussion about ICANN sucks up all the oxygen from around. The only progress of the last weeks in this group is that the issue is now openly called "ICANN" and not dissimulated under euphemisms like "critical Internet resources." Devising a global-governance structure that can have a chance to be useful in any issue other than the now-solved coordination of the DNS, IP addressing, etc. systems is hard, requires domain-specific knowledge and depth of thought. No wonder that the people who deal with spam, or phishing, or interconnection costs, or systemic, trans-national impediments to access to networks and knowledge or freedom of speech or development or data protection or privacy rights or consumer rights or multilingualism have gone elsewhere, even for interacting with the recognized experts among us. Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a discussion here. Alternatively, if this group were to say "we won't try to even discuss a global-governance mechanism that can have an impact on spam because it is difficult" we will only have to decide whether we wait for it to become easy, or dissolve, modestly. Sense of strategic direction, anyone? Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Ian Peter wrote: > Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:42:55 +1000 > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Alejandro Pisanty' > Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention > > Alx, > > Interesting that people put spam and phishing together always - because they > are primarily email related issues - > > But from a governance perspective phishing belongs with cybercrime, I > suspect, and mechanisms to deal with fraud. Spam in a wider sense may not > always be criminal - phishing always is. > > From a technical perspective, there are measures that assist that assist in > addressing spam/phishing by assisting in tracking origins of messages, but > as we saw in the sender id/spf debacle a few years ago, technical measures > by themselves wont go far. What's lacking, as you suggest, is the governance > structure whereby all of the regulatory, legal, consumer, technical > approaches can be utilized and considered in a common integrated strategy or > series of strategies. I didn't see that happening either pre or post WGIG > despite increased attention to the problem > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > Sent: 20 April 2007 15:30 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention > > Ian, > > readers of the WGIG report and documents, and people who have sort of > followed the WSIS and post-WSIS process will of course applaud your > email/posting here, maybe with some bittersweet feelings, as it re-charts > the course of the WGIG! > > Welcome to 2003, pals, let's get to do the work on the 17 issues that were > left unsolved. As I asked recently, spam, anyone? Phishing? Any takers for > interconnection costs? > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico > UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 > http://www.dgsca.unam.mx > * > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:16:20 +1000 >> From: Ian Peter >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >> "[iso-8859-1] 'Kleinwächter, Wolfgang'" >> , >> 'Anriette Esterhuysen' , >> 'William Drake' , >> 'John Mathiason' >> Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention >> >> I think Wolfgang has the heart of a good model here. Maybe a task for Rio > is >> to develop this and present it. >> >> Step one - define the issues that need some form of Internet governance- > is >> the current list of 18 issues useful or do we need to extend or refine? >> >> Step two - for each issue define >> * lead stakeholder >> * other major stakeholders ( I think we need to look at UN organizations > as >> well as the three major stakeholder groups) >> >> Step three - what does that tell us about which issues might be able to be >> handled by a common organizational structure (eg do spam and phishing have >> nearly identical stakeholder structures or are they sufficiently different >> to suggest different governance models for these two related issues >> (similarly privacy and copyright etc etc) >> >> From this we can make assumptions about models and gap analysis of > existing >> organisations. >> >> An interesting exercise! >> >> PS and as an aside - I appreciate that the avenue for Al Quaeda input is >> clearly civil society. I think their Internet governance interests perhaps >> are mainly around issues such as censorship and freedom of expression. >> (another issue grouping that needs its own structure perhaps). The middle >> east is becoming a perfect example of a problem that cannot be solved by >> governments alone without the involvement in a solution of non-government >> players (aka civil society) and business interests. All three groupings > have >> interested intertwined in the current quagmire and attempts to arrive at >> solutions without involving all three are clearly unworkable. We could >> rapidly develop a list of a number of current issues where resolution is >> dependent on interaction of major groupings outside government - in my >> immediate areas of interest climate change and internet governance are > clear >> examples where any one group not working in co-operation with the other > two >> major groupings isn’t going to make much headway. >> >> 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: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> Sent: 19 April 2007 17:57 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; >> governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason >> Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention >> >> Dear list, >> >> >> One of the challenges is to figure out how the relationship (in legal and >> political terms) among the stakeholders can be organized (and formalized), >> probably on a case by case basis. In a paper for WGIG (Internet >> Co-Governance) I proposed a model, where you have basically a trilateral >> mechanism for each of the IG issues (as listed in the WGIG report), but > for >> each issues the triangel would be different. Governmental leadership would >> be needed in the fight against cybercrime, but also here the involvment of >> private sector and civil society is needed. On the other hand, the >> management of the DNS should by led by the private sector (but also here a >> certain involvment of governments and civil society is needed). In WGIG we >> listed 18 relevant IG issues, which would mean 18 different governance >> models, based on multistakeholderism, that is of a specific triangular >> relationship. With other words, we would have 18 different triangels. I > have >> called this IG model the "Tower of Triangels". But again, when we accept, >> that we are moving towards a system change, then we have to go beyond >> refering to existing (legal and political) instruments and have to invent >> something which is new. BTW, the majority of todays war are not among >> sovereign states. Al Kaida is not a sovereign nationstate, it is a network >> :-((((. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 23:40 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason >> Betreff: Re: [governance] Framework convention >> >> >> >> Keep in mind what has been achieved with the >> UN Economic Commission for Europe's Aarhus >> Convention on Access to Information, Public >> Participation in Decision-making and Access to >> Justice in Environmental Matters. >> >> It secure rights to participation and access >> information. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention >> >> I.o.w. the modalities for participation of non- >> state actors in the 'implementation' of a >> framework convention (or any other multi- >> lateral agreement) could theoretically be >> determined by a linked convention established >> specifically for that purpose. And, it can >> address some of the concerns that has been >> raised. >> >> Anriette >> >>> Bill, >>> >>> I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your >>> comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are >>> on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we >>> clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with >>> the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper. >>> >>> Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a >>> multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on >>> the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations, >>> resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are >>> probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be >>> said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is >>> worth the convention it is written in." >>> >>> We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> John >>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Lee, >>>> >>>> There are about twenty different conversations now running under the >>>> heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf." If we could >>>> please separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches >>>> etc. that'd be helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had >>>> to go find them in the list archive. >>>> >>>> On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bill, Wolfgang, >>>>> >>>>> As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this >>>>> list, sorry for fading in and out of the dialog. >>>> >>>> You're not alone >>>> >>>>> I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the >>>>> framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, >>>>> but I admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though >>>>> and John and I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get >>>>> something put together by the time John suggests, for the rest of >>>>> you to throw stones at. >>>> >>>> Sounds good. But I have an antecedent question. Why are we >>>> talking about a >>>> Convention per se? Why fix on this particular institutional form, >>>> rather than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a >>>> Recommendation, Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal >>>> agreement, or something else? I can't help wondering if the basic >>>> rationale isn't, 'because the UN has done conventions in other, >>>> unrelated fields, let's have one here too,' which to me wouldn't be >>>> a compelling answer. Normally one would think form should follow >>>> function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we should >>>> agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure >>>> out what it's for, which seems odd. >>>> >>>>> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet >>>>> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet >>>>> Framework >>>> >>>> Right. I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me >>>> why this isn't ass backwards. Why not work from a precise problem >>>> definition => bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons >>>> of each => the selection of a solution? >>>> >>>>> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam >>>>> have cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on >>>>> the other >>>> >>>> Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century. They >>>> didn't invent something new when the telephone came along, they >>>> grafted language onto telegraph arrangements. The international >>>> standardization and diffusion of telephony was slowed in >>>> consequence. Ditto datacommunications. Institutionally embedded >>>> history's not always the best guide within much less across global >>>> policy domains. >>>> >>>>> hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote >>>>> participation given the Internet crowd. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed >>>>> >>>>> only >>>>> by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and >>>>> around that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and >>>>> commitments may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state >>>>> actors, ie business, civil society, and individuals. Without >>>>> ICANN, APWG, etc >>>> >>>> How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN >>>> (meaning ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)? >>>> >>>>> etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the >>>>> GAC is putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its >>>>> own activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. >>>>> So it's not like the framework precludes the need for various >>>>> groups to do what they are doing, as well as they can. It may >>>>> however help institutionalize other Internet governance processes, >>>>> to the degree there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so. >>>> >>>> Sure >>>> >>>>> And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's >>>>> nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, >>>>> and the agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any >>>>> recommendations emanating from the discussion, will determine its >>>>> ultimate utility, or lack thereof. A discussion on the framework >>>>> convention would also merit another workshop I'd think. Maybe >>>>> Parminder and John can coorganize that. >>>> >>>> Sure, sure >>>> >>>>> Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and >>>>> many other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP >>>>> also looks forward to contributing to the degree we are able. >>>> >>>> Ok. Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just >>>> puzzled by the reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent >>>> invocations of the solution. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>>>>>> >>>>> John, >>>>> >>>>> can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign >>>>> the "Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented >>>>> arrangement? >>>>> >>>>> Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention? >>>>> Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How >>>>> non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How >>>>> these non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would >>>>> join such a convention? Just by signing? What about accountability? >>>>> >>>>> Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even >>>>> more important. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> >>>>> wolfgang >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu] >>>>> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39 >>>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William >>>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bill, >>>>> >>>>> Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover >>>>> all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to >>>>> ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would >>>>> have to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have >>>>> to be dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be >>>>> subject to negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to >>>>> apply, should deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or >>>>> conflict. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi John, >>>>>> >>>>>> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion. >>>>>> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and >>>>>> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the >>>>>> governance of core resources, or IG more generally? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill >>>>>> >>>>>> John Mathiason wrote: >>>>>>> Bill, >>>>>>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There >>>>>>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more >>>>>>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet >>>>>>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change >>>>>>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention >>>>>>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework >>>>>>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and >>>>>>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of >>>>>>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting >>>>>>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in >>>>>>> the groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of >>>>>>> weeks, but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next >>>>>>> IGF consultations on 23 May. Best, John On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, >>>>>>> William Drake wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Mawaki, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it >>>>>>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement" >>>>>>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than >>>>>>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my >>>>>>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal >>>>>>>>> basis to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in >>>>>>>>> sum, the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public >>>>>>>>> policy issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. >>>>>>>>> And so far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of >>>>>>>>> such authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it >>>>>>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could >>>>>>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure >>>>>>>>> where governments may get to make final decisions (again, only >>>>>>>>> on public policy) but not without accepting external inputs >>>>>>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what >>>>>>>> John proposed in his paper three years ago, which to my >>>>>>>> knowledge is IGP's only written statement on the matter. And >>>>>>>> that was just a four page concept paper, more of a teaser than >>>>>>>> an elaborated proposal. Absent further specification, it's >>>>>>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended >>>>>>>> to entail, and differently react to the recurrent suggestion >>>>>>>> that it could be The Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday >>>>>>>> to Milton that you guys take the next step and spell it out. >>>>>>>> Otherwise we'll just go around and around talking past each >>>>>>>> other. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has >>>>>>>> clear legal bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious >>>>>>>> how a FC would relate to and further clarify the disparate bits >>>>>>>> of national and international law underlying the shared rule >>>>>>>> systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and trade, security, >>>>>>>> consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you actually >>>>>>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, >>>>>>>> and that this is why you found my comment confusing. There are >>>>>>>> legal bases there too but to the extent they're unclear or >>>>>>>> problematic I guess the idea is to change them. Fine, but then >>>>>>>> maybe you should call it an FC on the governance of core >>>>>>>> resources to avoid further misunderstanding. And spell out what >>>>>>>> it might look like so people have something concrete to react >>>>>>>> to, rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, 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 >>>> >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >>>> Director, Project on the Information >>>> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >>>> Graduate Institute for International Studies >>>> Geneva, Switzerland >>>> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: >>> 4/17/2007 5:20 PM >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director >> Association for Progressive Communications >> anriette at apc.org >> http://www.apc.org >> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 >> Tel. 27 11 726 1692 >> Fax 27 11 726 1692 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 >> 16:22 >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 >> 16:22 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 > 16:22 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 > 16:22 > >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Apr 20 17:05:40 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:05:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: References: <018101c78354$a988b9f0$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Tim, your hidden agenda has been discovered. You really are not in favor of hand-weaving arguments! Nasty, nasty. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, McTim wrote: > Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:51:47 +0300 > From: McTim > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, McTim > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > On 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Dan, >> >> You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is >> some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my >> "agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and >> significance of this form of political representation is likely to >> increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it >> continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby and >> socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to pay... > > Soooo, what if everyone who was interested joined the techies lists and > went to those meetings? > > Would there still be a need for reform? > > Wouldn't a situation where all Internet Users could represent themselves > if they wanted to, be the best of all possible worlds? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Apr 20 18:39:44 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC Message-ID: <672430.11378.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> This is unrealistic McTim. There is no way everyone with an interest in the future of the internet would ever get involved. I'm sure you and everyone else on this list have an interest in how the roads, public transport, hospitals, health systems and education works, to name just a few. But it's highly unlikely you'll ever be involved in more than a couple, if any at all. So when anything to do with IG is concerned, the concerns and desires of everyone who uses the internet should be considered wherever possible. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Sent: Saturday, 21 April, 2007 6:51:47 AM Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC On 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Dan, > > You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is > some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my > "agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and > significance of this form of political representation is likely to > increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it > continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby and > socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to pay... Soooo, what if everyone who was interested joined the techies lists and went to those meetings? Would there still be a need for reform? Wouldn't a situation where all Internet Users could represent themselves if they wanted to, be the best of all possible worlds? -- 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 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 karl at cavebear.com Fri Apr 20 19:40:44 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:40:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> Message-ID: <46294F7C.7050403@cavebear.com> Ian Peter wrote: > Interesting that people put spam and phishing together always... Don't forget the yet-to-come "SPIT" - garbage phone calls via VOIP. I agree that these are distinct issues. One thing that some folks may find surprising (or not) is that some governments may consider deep discussions of the technical solution spaces to be matters that have to be locked (and restricted) under thick layers of "national security" blankets. --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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 21 01:45:31 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:45:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <672430.11378.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <672430.11378.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/21/07, David Goldstein wrote: > This is unrealistic McTim. How can current reality be unrealistic?? That's nonsensical to me. There is no way everyone with an interest in the future of the internet would ever get involved. But they can. Why build structures to "represent" them, when all one needs is outreach to give them the choice? I'm sure you and everyone else on this list have an interest in how the roads, public transport, hospitals, health systems and education works, to name just a few. But it's highly unlikely you'll ever be involved in more than a couple, if any at all. Each individual can pick and choose what areas of policy to get involved in. There is no requirement to be involved in any (or multiple). Internetworking is not like other commons/utilities of a nation state because it is transnational. > > So when anything to do with IG is concerned, the concerns and desires of everyone who uses the internet should be considered wherever possible. What makes you think this is not happening now? Come and play in the (current) sandbox, it is infinitely large and has toys for all! -- 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 dan at musicunbound.com Sat Apr 21 03:00:16 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:00:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: References: <672430.11378.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: At 8:45 AM +0300 4/21/07, McTim wrote: > ... Internetworking is not like other commons/utilities of a >nation state because it is transnational. > I'm not sure why that should make a huge difference with regard to the principle of representation, though it would certainly make a difference in the practical implementations. It is still a commons, and an increasingly essential utility in a growing number of areas of the world. Not all Internet users (that is, "individual natural persons who use the Internet in some way"...) are competent to participate in the formulation of policies to protect their interests in it. But they still deserve effective representation in the policy making processes that affect that use, especially if current policies could prevent their becoming competent to participate in the future. There are distinct limits to "self-responsibility" in even the most democratic governance processes. There is an ineliminable collective component to governance in any equitable society, where some people must take responsibility for protecting the interests of others. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 21 03:02:46 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:02:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Alejandro: Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a discussion here. Wolfgang: The challenger in the WSIS process were members of the governmental stakeholder group. The EU wanted to have a new cooperation model with governments on the top ("on the level of principle"). Brazil wanted to have an Internet Convention. South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, India and until PrepCom3 also the government of the Peoples Republic of China wanted to have an "Intergovernmental Internet Council". The ITU wanted to overtake some functions from ICANN and to play a greater (probably leading) role. WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNCTAD, ILO and other IGOs which have a stake in IG in its broader understanding (like multiligualism in UNESCO or IPR in WIPO) had a wait and see position with no big ambitions. The USG, supported by a broad range of private sector members and some civil society groups, opposed a broader role for governments. The result was the agreement to start a proces of enhanced cooperation (both on the intergovernmental level as well as among governmnetal and non-governmental stakeholders) but neither the form, the content, the procedure nor the final objective of the process was defined. Janis Karkelins, president of PrepCom of WSIS II and now the GAC chair, said three weeks after Tunis during the ICANN meeting in Vancouver that he does not understand what the governments (representing the heads of states of about 180 countries) decided in detail and he speculated that obviously even the governments have no clue what they want to do. When Nitin Desai started informal consultations on enhanced cooperation in May 2006, he told governments (and others) that they have to come with ideas how to bring butter to the sandwich. But nothing happend (in the public). There is (public) silence. No initiative from the EU. The only word came from Madame Reding when she applauded the JPA as a right step towards a new cooperation model. In May 2007 there is a meeting of the "High Level Internet Governace Working Group" of the EU and there had been consultatitons with the USG under the German EU presidency. But these meetings are closed shops. No agenda, no communique. Brazil has given up obviously its idea of an Inernet Convention? Or do they plan something for the Rio 2007 IGF? What about the supporters for the "Intergovernmental Internet Council" (look into the WGIG report)? Silence from South Africa to India to Iran. Did they give up? The Chinese government was happy with the Tunis Agenda which recognized "national soveriegnty" of the national domain name space. An own Internet root with TLD Root Zone files with Chinese characters (where the authorization of the publication of these zone files is done by the MII and not by the DOC) would obviously qualify for "national domain name space". So why the Chinese government should become active? They got what they wanted to have. They will also wait and see. (BTW does somebody know whether ICANN will have its fall 2007 meeting in Taipeh and does somebody know what the position of the Chinese government, which more or less ignores up today the GAC, is in this question?) The ITU has started just recently a consultatiton with its members on enhanced coopweration according to reolsution 102 from Antalya. But the New ITU SG has made clear in his very first statements that he will not continue to push for ITU leadership in IG as Mr. Utsumi did. ITU under Toure wants to become the leader in Cybersecurity and Infrastructure, two important elements of IG in the broader understanding. And it will make contributions to iDNS, NGNs, ENUM, IPv6 etc. but not in competition to ICANN. But Toure, at the end of the day, is the voice of the member states. So lets wait and see whether the cancellation of his planned visit to the ICANN meeting in Lisbon in March 2007 was indeed for "technical reasons" only. WIPO, UNESCO, WTO etc. did not change their mind. They are waitng. If somebody will ask them to write a report what they have done in their field of competence for IG they will write the report, probably not more than five to ten pages. If nobody asks them, they will do nothing. But who has a mandate to ask for such a report? What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any direction? Best regards Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 21 03:14:39 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:14:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: References: <672430.11378.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/21/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > At 8:45 AM +0300 4/21/07, McTim wrote: > > > ... Internetworking is not like other commons/utilities of a > >nation state because it is transnational. > > > > I'm not sure why that should make a huge difference with regard to the > principle of representation, though it would certainly make a difference in > the practical implementations. I haven't had enough coffee to parse the above. > > It is still a commons, and an increasingly essential utility in a growing > number of areas of the world. ACK > > Not all Internet users (that is, "individual natural persons who use the > Internet in some way"...) are competent to participate in the formulation > of policies to protect their interests in it. Bollocks m8! But they still deserve > effective representation in the policy making processes that affect that > use, and we are more competent to determine that representation than they are? especially if current policies could prevent their becoming competent > to participate in the future. Can you name such a policy? > > There are distinct limits to "self-responsibility" in even the most > democratic governance processes. There is an ineliminable collective > component to governance in any equitable society, where some people must > take responsibility for protecting the interests of others. In my Utopia, people take the responsibility to represent themselves on an issue they are interested in. Why is a collective component needed, just becasue that's what we are used to having? -- 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 dan at musicunbound.com Sat Apr 21 03:42:53 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:42:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: References: <672430.11378.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: At 10:14 AM +0300 4/21/07, McTim wrote: >> There are distinct limits to "self-responsibility" in even the most >> democratic governance processes. There is an ineliminable collective >> component to governance in any equitable society, where some people must >> take responsibility for protecting the interests of others. > >In my Utopia, people take the responsibility to represent themselves >on an issue they are interested in. Why is a collective component >needed, just becasue that's what we are used to having? No, not out of mere habit, but because "self interest" ultimately does not and cannot reach out to the full range of societal interests. Private markets are inherently incomplete with respect to addressing public goods and externalities, and only collective structures of political representation can address those interests. Privatization has its distinct and insurmountable limits. In short, there are some societal interests that are irreducibly collective in nature, and no amount of self help will address them at all. Radical individualism is a recipe for societal disaster. I would characterize your "utopia" as a dystopia. And at this point I would suggest that we agree to disagree, as it's late out on the Pacific Coast and I have a full day offline tomorrow... ;-) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Apr 21 04:18:01 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC Message-ID: <948903.86255.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I totally agree with Dan here. McTim is wrong. There is no practical way on earth that everyone can or will participate in discussions on internet governance. Sure, they may be welcome too, but they won't no matter what. They have other priorities - families and work for example, then there's lack of interest and lack of knowledge. You may well want a utopia McTim, but we also have to deal with reality. Your reality will never happen. But what needs to happen is to get the best representation from as broad a cross section of people as possible. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Krimm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Saturday, 21 April, 2007 5:42:53 PM Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC At 10:14 AM +0300 4/21/07, McTim wrote: >> There are distinct limits to "self-responsibility" in even the most >> democratic governance processes. There is an ineliminable collective >> component to governance in any equitable society, where some people must >> take responsibility for protecting the interests of others. > >In my Utopia, people take the responsibility to represent themselves >on an issue they are interested in. Why is a collective component >needed, just becasue that's what we are used to having? No, not out of mere habit, but because "self interest" ultimately does not and cannot reach out to the full range of societal interests. Private markets are inherently incomplete with respect to addressing public goods and externalities, and only collective structures of political representation can address those interests. Privatization has its distinct and insurmountable limits. In short, there are some societal interests that are irreducibly collective in nature, and no amount of self help will address them at all. Radical individualism is a recipe for societal disaster. I would characterize your "utopia" as a dystopia. And at this point I would suggest that we agree to disagree, as it's late out on the Pacific Coast and I have a full day offline tomorrow... ;-) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Apr 21 04:24:12 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:24:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <4628EE6B.80002@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:46:35 -0700) References: <00db01c782f1$34e7e390$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <4628EE6B.80002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070421082412.CAD783FBFC6@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > It is sensible to adopt the normal constraints that require a person to > be of adequate age and mental competency. What is gained in internet governance by adopting these constraints? Verifying age and mental competency requirements via the internet has some difficulties, which probably can't be resolved without significant cost. 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 peter at peter-dambier.de Sat Apr 21 04:32:02 2007 From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:32:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <46294F7C.7050403@cavebear.com> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <46294F7C.7050403@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4629CC02.4060907@peter-dambier.de> Karl Auerbach wrote: > Ian Peter wrote: > >> Interesting that people put spam and phishing together always... > > > Don't forget the yet-to-come "SPIT" - garbage phone calls via VOIP. > > I agree that these are distinct issues. > > One thing that some folks may find surprising (or not) is that some > governments may consider deep discussions of the technical solution > spaces to be matters that have to be locked (and restricted) under thick > layers of "national security" blankets. > > --karl-- Hi Karl, it is now a couple of years I have VoIP. I do receive my daily spit, but none come over the VoIP. Most prominent here in germany is GEZ the inofficial but biggest secret sevice we have here. They try to raise kind of a tax for every tv-set, every car with a radio and every cellular phone and every computer. Most of the time they double charge you. The guys and gals call you on the phone and tell you "You have won". If you tell them the eye color of a news speaker or if you order a free journal from them, then they have got you and you have to pay. Next come tax people and social services. They ask you silly questions or "you have won". Best drop the phone when you have them on the line. Funny enough those guys are no civil agencies but they may still access all their data and keep their own "secret service" with spies interviewing your naighbars and keep a database of every home and every person in germany that would not be allowed to the police or the other agencies. At some time they made up some 80% of my phone callers. Oh, I forgot the inshurance people - but that is still the very same database, the very same guys and the very same results. The reorganice your assets and tell the tax office. Cheers Peter -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at peter-dambier.de mail: peter at echnaton.arl.pirates http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Apr 21 04:33:48 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:33:48 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, > Alejandro: > > Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of > organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not > comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a discussion > here. Actually Alex, this is not true. Maybe you weren't reading the list much at the time, but I and a few others raised the issue a number of times here, and if memory serves the caucus issued statements during and after WSIS calling for for further work to assess both intergovernmental and private sector governance mechanisms according to the criteria. But there was significant push back. For example, when I gave a talk at an OECD meeting and argued for a work program under IGF on this, I was told by the EU and industry reps that, in effect, WSIS was over and nobody cares (on the other hand, I said the same thing at an ITU reform meeting and didn't get the same reaction; they at least now have a process looking at CS involvement, have made the standards free, etc). And when I wanted to propose a workshop on this for Athens, I was strongly discouraged from doing so on the grounds that it was too sensitive, all the relevant organizations and their key constituencies would be unhappy, and hence the workshop would not be approved (as it happened, all proposals were approved, so I guess I shouldn't have listened). I remain convinced that there's a need for analysis, dialogue, and monitoring/reporting on the ways in which intergovernmental and private sector governance mechanisms do (or don't) transparency and inclusive participation, with an eye, at a minimum, to identifying generalizable good practices. In fact, as I argued in Parminder's FC workshop in Athens, this is one area where I could imagine a FC being useful and doable. Process is easier to agree on than substance, at least in principle, and after all, governments have already gone on record in WSIS saying that IG should always be transparent and inclusive, so it's not like starting from scratch. Who's afraid of "good governance"? I'd like to do for Rio what mistakenly I didn't do for Athens, propose an workshop that would flesh out the idea. Would you support doing this? Would ICANN? I'd be happy to have co-sponsorship... > Wolfgang: [snip] > What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF > 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any > direction? Perhaps one could conclude that like the WSIS principles, the language on enhanced cooperation was not a serious statement of intent on the part of some key parties, but rather a way to cut a deal, end WSIS with a declaration of nominal agreement, and go home and back to business as usual? But also that as with the WSIS principles, the language can still offer possibilities for normative pressuring to take seriously the outcomes of three years of effort... Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Apr 21 06:20:53 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:20:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Age rules (was Re: ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <4629E028.9070302@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:58:00 -0700) References: <00db01c782f1$34e7e390$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <4628EE6B.80002@cavebear.com> <20070421082412.CAD783FBFC6@quill.bollow.ch> <4629E028.9070302@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070421102053.E34C5AD04C@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > >> It is sensible to adopt the normal constraints that require a person to > >> be of adequate age and mental competency. > > > What is gained in internet governance by adopting these constraints? > > It's pretty normal to recognize that children are children and not small > adults. And there are people who have limited capacity to form judgments. > > The former case is usually done via a somewhat arbitrary age of majority > - 18 years, 21 years...; the latter is usually a rather more complex matter. > > It does make sense, at least to me, to adopt the practical wisdom of > these normal distinctions. Ok, I agree that these distinctions sound plausibile enough -- but adopting this as a principle of internet governance, which implies agreeing that the principle is important enough that the resulting costs must be somehow taken care of, IMO requires more than a mere plausibility argument. > Moreover, internet governance would lose > credibility if it were somehow painted as an electronic era form of > children's crusade. AFAIK there is no indication whatsoever that imposing an age rule is necessary to prevent this kind of credibility problem. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 21 06:09:07 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:09:07 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill, I hope you will prepare this as a workshop proposal. We don't know how that proposal process will work this year, but I would be surprised if it we're too much different from last. I also think it might fit as an emerging issue in Internet governance (it's not been discussed before, but identified as important.) An "emerging issue" session will be tried again, but in what format is not yet clear (session structure and modalities should I think be discussed at the May consultation). But discussion of governance mechanisms seems to me to be something that could be raised in that session, and could then link nicely to a workshop. Presenting issues broadly in the main sessions so they link to workshops where they're examined in more depth is the kind of feedback/advice we heard as desirable during stocktaking in February. Greater linkage between the main sessions and workshops, i.e. a more coherent/tighter agenda. As for WSIS principles/enhanced cooperation. Think the principles were far less of a last minute deal than whatever enhanced cooperation might be. And they exist firmly in the mandate of the IGF (72/i) where enhanced cooperation is a separate process (or so it is argued.) Thanks, Adam At 10:33 AM +0200 4/21/07, William Drake wrote: >Hi, > >> Alejandro: >> >> Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of >> organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not >> comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started >>a discussion >> here. > >Actually Alex, this is not true. Maybe you weren't reading the list much at >the time, but I and a few others raised the issue a number of times here, >and if memory serves the caucus issued statements during and after WSIS >calling for for further work to assess both intergovernmental and private >sector governance mechanisms according to the criteria. But there was >significant push back. For example, when I gave a talk at an OECD meeting >and argued for a work program under IGF on this, I was told by the EU and >industry reps that, in effect, WSIS was over and nobody cares (on the other >hand, I said the same thing at an ITU reform meeting and didn't get the same >reaction; they at least now have a process looking at CS involvement, have >made the standards free, etc). And when I wanted to propose a workshop on >this for Athens, I was strongly discouraged from doing so on the grounds >that it was too sensitive, all the relevant organizations and their key >constituencies would be unhappy, and hence the workshop would not be >approved (as it happened, all proposals were approved, so I guess I >shouldn't have listened). > >I remain convinced that there's a need for analysis, dialogue, and >monitoring/reporting on the ways in which intergovernmental and private >sector governance mechanisms do (or don't) transparency and inclusive >participation, with an eye, at a minimum, to identifying generalizable good >practices. In fact, as I argued in Parminder's FC workshop in Athens, this >is one area where I could imagine a FC being useful and doable. Process is >easier to agree on than substance, at least in principle, and after all, >governments have already gone on record in WSIS saying that IG should always >be transparent and inclusive, so it's not like starting from scratch. Who's >afraid of "good governance"? > > I'd like to do for Rio what mistakenly I didn't do for Athens, propose an >workshop that would flesh out the idea. Would you support doing this? >Would ICANN? I'd be happy to have co-sponsorship... > >> Wolfgang: > >[snip] > >> What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF >> 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any >> direction? > >Perhaps one could conclude that like the WSIS principles, the language on >enhanced cooperation was not a serious statement of intent on the part of >some key parties, but rather a way to cut a deal, end WSIS with a >declaration of nominal agreement, and go home and back to business as usual? >But also that as with the WSIS principles, the language can still offer >possibilities for normative pressuring to take seriously the outcomes of >three years of effort... > >Best, > >Bill > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Apr 21 06:08:29 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:08:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Astroturfing (was Re: ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <4629E028.9070302@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:58:00 -0700) References: <00db01c782f1$34e7e390$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <4628EE6B.80002@cavebear.com> <20070421082412.CAD783FBFC6@quill.bollow.ch> <4629E028.9070302@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070421100829.6A208AD049@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > It strikes me that we should not require natural persons to jump through > burning hoops of identification unless we make all "stakeholders" > similarly demonstrate that they actually represent the entities that > they claim to represent and demonstrate that those entities are real. Astroturfing is a real problem, which needs to be addressed somehow. If false claims of representation of businesses (or other entities) are or become problems, then those problems need to be addressed as well. 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 Sat Apr 21 05:58:00 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:58:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <20070421082412.CAD783FBFC6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <00db01c782f1$34e7e390$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> <4628EE6B.80002@cavebear.com> <20070421082412.CAD783FBFC6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4629E028.9070302@cavebear.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> It is sensible to adopt the normal constraints that require a person to >> be of adequate age and mental competency. > What is gained in internet governance by adopting these constraints? It's pretty normal to recognize that children are children and not small adults. And there are people who have limited capacity to form judgments. The former case is usually done via a somewhat arbitrary age of majority - 18 years, 21 years...; the latter is usually a rather more complex matter. It does make sense, at least to me, to adopt the practical wisdom of these normal distinctions. Moreover, internet governance would lose credibility if it were somehow painted as an electronic era form of children's crusade. > Verifying age and mental competency requirements via the internet has > some difficulties, which probably can't be resolved without > significant cost. Yes, it is hard if done "via the internet". Indeed, I do not believe that it is possible "via the internet" alone. In the ICANN elections of year 2000 a somewhat cumbersome system of internet registration coupled with a parallal postal link was used. It wasn't a completely irrational system, but did suffer from costs and, unfortunately, some technical bumbling - but it could have been much better had it had been refined for subsequent use. Others have proposed mechanisms that ride on the coat-tails of other systems ranging from domain name registration to bank credit/atm cards. None of these is, in itself, perfect, and they often give preference to people in wealthy regions over less wealthy regions. My own feeling is that a composit system - constructed by "or-ing" the registrations from a number of these systems - would be appropriate. I would suggest that our goal not be a perfect electorate but rather a workable one. In the US we have had some really terrible manipulation of the electorate, particularly during the 19th century. But even with those flaws, it was a better system than no electorate at all. And things can improve with time and experience. As someone mentioned, we ought not to expect the numbers to be particularly huge - multiples of hundreds of thousands is a number suggested from the ICANN experience in year 2000. For most internet users, the matters we are dealing with are arcane, esoteric, and boring - hardly the kind of thing that generates a tsunami of interest. I find it interesting that questions are raised about the nature and quality of natural persons who would participate in internet governance when, at the same time, we routinely accept that people who claim to represent legal fictions/creations, such as trade associations and corporations, do in fact represent those legal fictions/creations. For example, do we demand that those who claim to represent a corporation show the articles of incorporation and prove the chain of delegation of authority from the plenary body of the corporation? I've never seen it, but we routinely accept such claims. It strikes me that we should not require natural persons to jump through burning hoops of identification unless we make all "stakeholders" similarly demonstrate that they actually represent the entities that they claim to represent and demonstrate that those entities are real. --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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 21 05:53:23 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:53:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC In-Reply-To: <948903.86255.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <948903.86255.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/21/07, David Goldstein wrote: > I totally agree with Dan here. McTim is wrong. Always a first for everything ;-) > > There is no practical way on earth that everyone can or will participate in discussions on internet governance. Sure, they may be welcome too, but they won't no matter what. They have other priorities - families and work for example, then there's lack of interest and lack of knowledge. > > You may well want a utopia McTim, but we also have to deal with reality. Your reality will never happen. You boys have been missing my point, this IS the current reality. If you don't believe me, pick a topic (SPAM/DNSSEC/phish/pharming/critical resource distribution/whatever). I can point you to the lists where this can be your reality as well. -- 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Apr 21 07:13:18 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:13:18 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 4/21/07 12:09 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Bill, > > I hope you will prepare this as a workshop proposal. We don't know > how that proposal process will work this year, but I would be > surprised if it we're too much different from last. Fine, I will. But I need co-sponsors. > I also think it might fit as an emerging issue in Internet governance > (it's not been discussed before, but identified as important.) An > "emerging issue" session will be tried again, but in what format is > not yet clear (session structure and modalities should I think be > discussed at the May consultation). But discussion of governance > mechanisms seems to me to be something that could be raised in that > session, and could then link nicely to a workshop. This would be logical, but it would require that there be greater receptivity this time around to having institutional issues, aka the actual practice of IG, addressed in the main program. > Presenting issues broadly in the main sessions so they link to > workshops where they're examined in more depth is the kind of > feedback/advice we heard as desirable during stocktaking in February. > Greater linkage between the main sessions and workshops, i.e. a more > coherent/tighter agenda. > > As for WSIS principles/enhanced cooperation. Think the principles > were far less of a last minute deal than whatever enhanced > cooperation might be. And they exist firmly in the mandate of the > IGF (72/i) where enhanced cooperation is a separate process (or so it > is argued.) Sorry, perhaps my rushed sentence structure was confusing. The parallel I was drawing was with respect to actual political commitments to do what was said, not when the two ideas were introduced or how often they were repeated in the documents or referenced in the debates. There's of course a difference in that dimension. Best, Bill > > At 10:33 AM +0200 4/21/07, William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> Alejandro: >>> >>> Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of >>> organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do >>> not >>> comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started >>> a discussion >>> here. >> >> Actually Alex, this is not true. Maybe you weren't reading the list much at >> the time, but I and a few others raised the issue a number of times here, >> and if memory serves the caucus issued statements during and after WSIS >> calling for for further work to assess both intergovernmental and private >> sector governance mechanisms according to the criteria. But there was >> significant push back. For example, when I gave a talk at an OECD meeting >> and argued for a work program under IGF on this, I was told by the EU and >> industry reps that, in effect, WSIS was over and nobody cares (on the other >> hand, I said the same thing at an ITU reform meeting and didn't get the same >> reaction; they at least now have a process looking at CS involvement, have >> made the standards free, etc). And when I wanted to propose a workshop on >> this for Athens, I was strongly discouraged from doing so on the grounds >> that it was too sensitive, all the relevant organizations and their key >> constituencies would be unhappy, and hence the workshop would not be >> approved (as it happened, all proposals were approved, so I guess I >> shouldn't have listened). >> >> I remain convinced that there's a need for analysis, dialogue, and >> monitoring/reporting on the ways in which intergovernmental and private >> sector governance mechanisms do (or don't) transparency and inclusive >> participation, with an eye, at a minimum, to identifying generalizable good >> practices. In fact, as I argued in Parminder's FC workshop in Athens, this >> is one area where I could imagine a FC being useful and doable. Process is >> easier to agree on than substance, at least in principle, and after all, >> governments have already gone on record in WSIS saying that IG should always >> be transparent and inclusive, so it's not like starting from scratch. Who's >> afraid of "good governance"? >> >> I'd like to do for Rio what mistakenly I didn't do for Athens, propose an >> workshop that would flesh out the idea. Would you support doing this? >> Would ICANN? I'd be happy to have co-sponsorship... >> >>> Wolfgang: >> >> [snip] >> >>> What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF >>> 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any >>> direction? >> >> Perhaps one could conclude that like the WSIS principles, the language on >> enhanced cooperation was not a serious statement of intent on the part of >> some key parties, but rather a way to cut a deal, end WSIS with a >> declaration of nominal agreement, and go home and back to business as usual? >> But also that as with the WSIS principles, the language can still offer >> possibilities for normative pressuring to take seriously the outcomes of >> three years of effort... >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 lists at privaterra.info Sat Apr 21 12:29:19 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:29:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Egmont Group granted International Organization Status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My reasoning in posting the news on the Egmont Group being granted International Organization Status in Canada... There has been the start of a discussion about changing the status of ICANN from a California based 501c3 non profit to an sme other type of private structure, such as an International organization of some kind. As such, thought it would be worthwhile to discuss on this list what examples ICANN could borrow from. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), has been mentioned as have several other organizations. The Egmont Group, i don't think has been mentioned . Anyone know more about them ? If there are any lessons learned from their creation could be , i think , helpful in the embryonic discussion starting on ICANN's internationalization. regards Robert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sat Apr 21 15:48:09 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:48:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Egmont Group granted International Organization Status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <462A6A79.9060106@cavebear.com> Robert Guerra wrote: > There has been the start of a discussion about changing the status of > ICANN from a California based 501c3 non profit Just a minor nit - ICANN is indeed a California corporation of the public-benefit/non-profit type. The 501(c)(3) is US Federal tax exemption classification. These two things are quite different from one another. There are officials in California who are aware of ICANN and who have expressed concern about endowing the benefits of the California status upon a body that much more resembles a typical trade protection body than a typical public-benefit body. > As such, thought it would be worthwhile to discuss on this list what > examples ICANN could borrow from. The International Committee for the > Red Cross (ICRC), has been mentioned as have several other organizations. I wrote a note on this topic some years back. The point of that paper was that the most prominent and broadly accepted of such organizations, the Red Cross being a prime example, obtain the foundations of their legitimacy by doing a good job of doing good things over a long period of time. The legal structures develop later. Of course it is also done the other way around - a body is created by treaty or some other multi-national/international process - and it then the organization might, or might not, live up to its birthright. ICANN would be dreaming if it were to believe that it could follow the first of these two courses. Outside a relative small circle of direct beneficiaries the sense of ICANN as an electronic-era analog to the Red Cross is not present. Indeed, I would suggest that the broad perception is rather to the contrary. Such a change would require a substantial reconstruction of ICANN. ICANN is a body that exerts its control mainly through a hierarchy of private contracts. How those contracts are shifted and made enforceable is not a trivial matter. All-in-all, however, I find the notion of ICANN "going international" to be a flight of fancy. The US government has its tendrils far too deep into ICANN for anyone to think that this change would not entail major political changes in the views of the US gov't - views that may not necessarily change after November 2008 when the next major election occurs. And also, ICANN is based not on a broad technical foundation but rather an a very thin technical ledge. The DNS that ICANN manages can slip out of its control in an electronic instant, and there are signs that that is happening with the advent of root system fracturing (occurring) and more decentralized p2p style naming systems (occurring). It is not unlikely that ICANN will find itself in the position of a hypothetical body that oversees the color of the wire used for telephone handsets in an era of wireless phones. --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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sat Apr 21 17:10:29 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Egmont Group granted International Organization Status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egmont_Group, intergovernmental. What is it with due diligence that scares so many people off? Yours, Alx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Robert Guerra wrote: > Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:29:19 -0400 > From: Robert Guerra > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Robert Guerra > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Egmont Group granted International Organization > Status > > My reasoning in posting the news on the Egmont Group being granted > International Organization Status in Canada... > > There has been the start of a discussion about changing the status of ICANN > from a California based 501c3 non profit to an sme other type of private > structure, such as an International organization of some kind. > > As such, thought it would be worthwhile to discuss on this list what examples > ICANN could borrow from. The International Committee for the Red Cross > (ICRC), has been mentioned as have several other organizations. > > The Egmont Group, i don't think has been mentioned . Anyone know more about > them ? If there are any lessons learned from their creation could be , i > think , helpful in the embryonic discussion starting on ICANN's > internationalization. > > regards > > Robert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 21 18:39:53 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:39:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Framework convention Message-ID: >>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 4/20/2007 5:02:26 PM >>> >Devising a global-governance structure that can have a chance >to be useful in any issue other than the now-solved coordination >of the DNS, IP addressing, etc. systems is hard, requires domain- >specific knowledge and depth of thought. Yes it's hard, etc. And your point about what should be done next is....? Contrary to what you say there are many global governance issues related to DNS/IP addressing that remain manifestly unsolved. Including, for example, the legal and organizational status of ICANN, its representational structures, and the nature of its relationship to national governments. ICANN becomes the focal point of so many of these conversations because it is an established, fully globalized regulatory structure. Various interest groups like to leverage that for policy purposes. As long as there is no real institutional solution to the "public policy" problem ICANN will continue to be a magnet for those concerns. >No wonder that the people who deal with [many issues] have >gone elsewhere, even for interacting with the recognized >experts among us. Gone where? Actually, more are coming into this space than ever before. As I learned in several recent speaking engagements, people in many other issue domains are still surprisingly ignorant of ICANN, IG and the Forum. Some will become interested when they learn what it is about, some will not. But an IGF that can't directly discuss ICANN-related issues is not worthy of the name. >Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large >number of organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet >governance which do not comply with the WSIS criteria about >which no-one has even started a discussion here. It seems to me that Bill Drake and others on this list have been trying to start a discussion of that for the last 18 months. I didn't notice you helping them. Indeed, I thought you were in the "keep the IGF focused on safe and innocuous generic themes like access, openness and security" camp. And it also seems to me that a framework convention or some other conscious and formal global governance process would be the best way to address those issues, but again I don't recall seeing you devote any energies to exploring that approach. Bottom line, Alejandro its hard for me to tell what direction you're pushing in. The tacit tone is that we should all just go home and leave ICANN and all other existing institutions alone. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Apr 21 19:32:52 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:32:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> Message-ID: <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > Devising a global-governance structure that can have a chance to be > useful in any issue other than the now-solved coordination of the DNS, > IP addressing, etc. I would have to strongly differ with the assertion that DNS coordination is "solved". Certainly DNS "solved" in the sense that trademark owners have had their wildest dreams fulfilled. And certainly in the sense that Verisign has had a temporary management contract turned into perpetual ownership of a money tree. But what matters to the community of internet users is whether the upper tiers of DNS reliably, accurately, and efficiently transform DNS query packets into DNS response packets with neither prejudice for nor prejudice against any query source or query subject. In that regard DNS is as naked as it was in 1995 and is as susceptible now as it was then to failure or destabilization due to natural or human causes. In that regard, our experience with internet governance with DNS has been an abject failure and there remains a very necessary job that is not being done and all internet users are at risk of a DNS that wobbles or fails in its most primary of functions. As for IP addresses - Yes, the RIRs are doing a reasonable, and relatively inexpensive, job of it. It is interesting to compare how they approach their job - they approach issues with a tight focus on technical matters and do not try to engage in social or economic engineering. As for "protocol parameters", well one can't say that the IETF is particularly satisfied with performance to date. --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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sat Apr 21 20:25:14 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Milgon, since you ask, the directions I am pushing in are pretty simple and clear: 1. move beyond your obsession with ICANN and put the collective talent available to work on Internet Governance issues far more in need of work. End of numbering. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Milton Mueller wrote: > Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:39:53 -0400 > From: Milton Mueller > To: apisan at servidor.unam.mx > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention > >>>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 4/20/2007 5:02:26 PM >>> >> Devising a global-governance structure that can have a chance >> to be useful in any issue other than the now-solved coordination >> of the DNS, IP addressing, etc. systems is hard, requires domain- >> specific knowledge and depth of thought. > > Yes it's hard, etc. And your point about what should be done next > is....? > > Contrary to what you say there are many global governance issues > related to DNS/IP addressing that remain manifestly unsolved. Including, > for example, the legal and organizational status of ICANN, its > representational structures, and the nature of its relationship to > national governments. ICANN becomes the focal point of so many of these > conversations because it is an established, fully globalized regulatory > structure. Various interest groups like to leverage that for policy > purposes. As long as there is no real institutional solution to the > "public policy" problem ICANN will continue to be a magnet for those > concerns. > >> No wonder that the people who deal with [many issues] have >> gone elsewhere, even for interacting with the recognized >> experts among us. > > Gone where? Actually, more are coming into this space than ever before. > As I learned in several recent speaking engagements, people in many > other issue domains are still surprisingly ignorant of ICANN, IG and the > Forum. Some will become interested when they learn what it is about, > some will not. But an IGF that can't directly discuss ICANN-related > issues is not worthy of the name. > >> Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large >> number of organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet >> governance which do not comply with the WSIS criteria about >> which no-one has even started a discussion here. > > It seems to me that Bill Drake and others on this list have been trying > to start a discussion of that for the last 18 months. I didn't notice > you helping them. Indeed, I thought you were in the "keep the IGF > focused on safe and innocuous generic themes like access, openness and > security" camp. And it also seems to me that a framework convention or > some other conscious and formal global governance process would be the > best way to address those issues, but again I don't recall seeing you > devote any energies to exploring that approach. > > Bottom line, Alejandro its hard for me to tell what direction you're > pushing in. The tacit tone is that we should all just go home and leave > ICANN and all other existing institutions alone. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Apr 21 20:34:13 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, the civil answer is that the storm of scandalous statements you have subjected us to, including this last one, is in discord with fact. Bye-bye. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:32:52 -0700 > From: Karl Auerbach > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Karl Auerbach > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Framework convention > > Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > >> Devising a global-governance structure that can have a chance to be useful >> in any issue other than the now-solved coordination of the DNS, IP >> addressing, etc. > > I would have to strongly differ with the assertion that DNS coordination is > "solved". > > Certainly DNS "solved" in the sense that trademark owners have had their > wildest dreams fulfilled. And certainly in the sense that Verisign has had a > temporary management contract turned into perpetual ownership of a money > tree. > > But what matters to the community of internet users is whether the upper > tiers of DNS reliably, accurately, and efficiently transform DNS query > packets into DNS response packets with neither prejudice for nor prejudice > against any query source or query subject. > > In that regard DNS is as naked as it was in 1995 and is as susceptible now as > it was then to failure or destabilization due to natural or human causes. > > In that regard, our experience with internet governance with DNS has been an > abject failure and there remains a very necessary job that is not being done > and all internet users are at risk of a DNS that wobbles or fails in its most > primary of functions. > > As for IP addresses - Yes, the RIRs are doing a reasonable, and relatively > inexpensive, job of it. It is interesting to compare how they approach their > job - they approach issues with a tight focus on technical matters and do not > try to engage in social or economic engineering. > > As for "protocol parameters", well one can't say that the IETF is > particularly satisfied with performance to date. > > --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 Sat Apr 21 21:13:55 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:13:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > the civil answer is that the storm of scandalous statements you have > subjected us to, including this last one, is in discord with fact. I agree that the word "scandalous" is appropriate. But rather than being applicable to my comments, it is more appropriate as a description of ICANN's abandonment of the public interest and its unconcern that the upper tiers of DNS efficiently, reliably, and accurately transforms DNS query packets into DNS reponse packets without prejudice for or against any query source or query subject. There is certainly nothing inaccurate about what I have written. ICANN has left internet users in the lurch and at risk of actual instability and failure of DNS. ICANN has utterly abandoned its job to oversee that the root layer even operates at all, much less operates adequately. We of the internet community have the current root server operators to thank for the stability we have had; ICANN is merely a bystander that is willing to take the credit. The failure of ICANN to actually engage with the matters for which it was formed - to protect the technical stability of the internet for the benefit of internet users - should shame ICANN into action rather than into hand waiving denials. The fact that ICANN has become a body that protects its industrial "stakeholders" rather then the community of internet users is also not dispelled by denials. This is why ICANN should be used as a lesson in failure rather than a model for success. --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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sat Apr 21 21:40:05 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, your posting reaches a level of offense, bias, and falsehood, and is based on so thin a basis of qualifications of yours to emit it, that civil response becomes an exercise in restraint. Allow me to exert it. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:13:55 -0700 > From: Karl Auerbach > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Karl Auerbach > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Alejandro Pisanty > Subject: Re: [governance] Framework convention > > Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > >> the civil answer is that the storm of scandalous statements you have >> subjected us to, including this last one, is in discord with fact. > > I agree that the word "scandalous" is appropriate. But rather than being > applicable to my comments, it is more appropriate as a description of ICANN's > abandonment of the public interest and its unconcern that the upper tiers of > DNS efficiently, reliably, and accurately transforms DNS query packets into > DNS reponse packets without prejudice for or against any query source or > query subject. > > There is certainly nothing inaccurate about what I have written. > > ICANN has left internet users in the lurch and at risk of actual instability > and failure of DNS. > > ICANN has utterly abandoned its job to oversee that the root layer even > operates at all, much less operates adequately. We of the internet community > have the current root server operators to thank for the stability we have > had; ICANN is merely a bystander that is willing to take the credit. > > The failure of ICANN to actually engage with the matters for which it was > formed - to protect the technical stability of the internet for the benefit > of internet users - should shame ICANN into action rather than into hand > waiving denials. > > The fact that ICANN has become a body that protects its industrial > "stakeholders" rather then the community of internet users is also not > dispelled by denials. > > This is why ICANN should be used as a lesson in failure rather than a model > for success. > > --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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Apr 21 22:00:43 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Egmont Group granted International Organization Status In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.62.0704211943330.12053@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx Message-ID: >What is it with due diligence that scares so many people off? Alejandro, It not �Due Diligence� that scares off people. It�s ***�Due Process�*** [ the Due Process of Law] I have tabled the subject of �Due Process� on this forum several times, and Members of this list whom wear their Judicial BAR upon their sleeves, knew exactly of what I was referencing. However they resolve themselves moot, as though the matter would disappear. Some may have a legitimate �recusal�, as they represent Parties (e.g.: Enom) involved. In a few words: REGISTERFLY.COM could be a landmark case for those who would persevere and advocate for the absence of DUE PROCESS for the hundreds-of-thousands of Domains which lay outside the jurisdiction of U.S. domicile. [PERIOD] Bottom line is that there is not a system in place to handle these sort of ISSUES. I guess that�s what we�re here for. GOVERNACE ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 22 00:01:11 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:01:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > your posting reaches a level of offense, bias, and falsehood, and is > based on so thin a basis of qualifications of yours to emit it, that > civil response becomes an exercise in restraint. Allow me to exert it. Falsehood? No, what I said is quite true and has never been contradicted by concrete facts. You offer none. Bias? Truth is not biased. Offense - None is intended to you. The subject here is Internet governance, in the stark reality of what it is, what it ought to be, what it can not be, and how it ought to be done. ICANN, because it is am important lessen, must be examined with clarity and without self-deception. In that harsh light of reality ICANN as an institution of governance has been an abject failure (except to a a few industrial beneficiaries); less a model of what to do than as warning about what not to do. ICANN fails to do its essential purpose - protecting the technical stability of the DNS. You have not offered any concrete facts to contradict this. The community of internet users - natural people and businesses - live under the shadow of technical instability, manipulation, or failure of the upper tiers of DNS because ICANN has abrogated its responsibilities. You have not offered any concrete facts to contradict this. And at the same time ICANN has turned into a captured body that is best described as a combination in restraint of trade with direct costs onto the community of internet users on the order of half a billion dollars (US) every year. You have not offered any concrete facts to contradict this. As we go forward into the new world of internet governance we should pay careful attention to avoid the mistakes that underlie ICANN: There was the mistake of non-comprehension of the technology either then or now. There was the mistake of hubris that said that it was acceptable to establish a paternalistic governance structure that imposes the choices and values of selected industrial "stakeholders" onto the entire internet community. There was the mistake of forgetting that the primary purpose was to assure technical stability and, instead making social, economic, and business choices that had only the most tenuous of tenuous relationships to technical matters. Then there was the mistake of mission creep to the degree in which ICANN is now so bloated that its budget forecasts are now within an order of magnitude of the ITU. If ICANN can't take the heat of the truth then it ought to get out of the kitchen. --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 veni at veni.com Sun Apr 22 08:05:04 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:05:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> Alejandro, Karl's statements are based on his views, not on truths or facts. He is coming into this discussion with an opinion, not with questions. The purpose of a discussion is to reach the truth. But you can't reach the truth, if you already have an opinion, and you believe this is the right opinion (i.e. "truth"). There are several facts, upon which a discussion may be formed, but - unfortunately - they are not enough for people, who have different agenda. I see that people who are left outside of a solution, are sometimes getting angry at this fact. I don't remember who of the people writing here (don't want to state a fact, which is not correct, but it was someone around Milton's Internet Governance Project, MIGP), was complaining orally or in writing (again, don't remember well) that the Advisory Group to the IGF is not a good group, unlike the WGIG. The reason for these complaints? There was only one person of the MIGP in the Advisory Group (sic!). How was that possible? Why only one? Where is the justice to have at least three of the members of the MIGP (http://internetgovernance.org/people.html) ? So, what we have here is very simple, and it's good to put down the facts, and not make the conclusions: 1. The IGP (and similar projects, I call them IGPs) exist only because a discussion on IG exists. Remove the discussion, and the IGPs are not going to be needed. (So, do you think they... er.. the discussion would disappear?) 2. There's no statement on the web site as to who is funding this projects. Let's see the MIGP - one could found a file ( http://osp.syr.edu/highlights/FiscalYear2006/FebruaryHighlights.xls), where it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the Ford Foundation for that project, but nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumoured to have been awarded to the project only by the Ford, and nothing about other donors? 3. People are building their careers around the Internet Governance; therefore the subject will not disappear - ever. It's a process, which those people have interest to continue as long as it is possible. 4. ICANN is the only working organization in the field; it has started as a project of the US government (can you believe that this would have happened with some other governments, which would volunteerly give away the Internet to the private sector?). It made possible the existence of all these IG-related projects and questions. ICANN has a lot of history with people like Karl and Milton - and some of this history is bitter, which one could find out even today in some of the e-mails. 5. The governments were not interested in "governance" of the Internet until the WSIS - 2nd phase (oh, and btw, there was no one from our list in the small ad hoc working group that solved the problem in the last PrepCom in Dec. 2003, just before WSIS-1 in Geneva. I can say that, as I was there not only as an observer. http://www.isoc.bg/news_en.html#kummer). 6. There is - so far - only ONE government which has solved the issues around IP addresses / DNS by law, and that's the Bulgarian government. ISOC-Bulgaria made that possible, together with Jim Demspey and George Sadowsky, way back before the WSIS, and way before I even run for the ICANN board. The very fact that no one of the many supporters of the IG debate has managed - or may be even tried? - to push their own governments into solving these problems, shows that the interest is to keep the problem open. I could continue on and on, but before I do that, I'd like to hear interests, stated, and posted, so that we know who is who, and not guess what is indeed behing someones' words. veni On 4/22/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > > > your posting reaches a level of offense, bias, and falsehood, and is > > based on so thin a basis of qualifications of yours to emit it, that > > civil response becomes an exercise in restraint. Allow me to exert it. > > Falsehood? No, what I said is quite true and has never been > contradicted by concrete facts. You offer none. > > Bias? Truth is not biased. > > > -------------- 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 Sun Apr 22 08:55:07 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:55:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Why is any of this recent stupid personal invective relevant to Internet Governance? Can we please cut the silliness and try to think of what the IGC would like to say at the next consultation, now a few weeks nearer than it was last time I asked. And many weeks nearer than when I believe Jeanette and Robin first asked. Please, we don't ask for fun -- we're still members of some kind of voluntary (whatever) IGF advisory group and while the business and other groups have firm ideas, we have nothing from you. So how much influence do you think we have in the advisory group discussion... a lot less that we could if you would give us some ideas to support! Will this group be able to pull its head from collective (sorry, I can't say that....) and write a proposal? What issues should be on the agenda? What are we proposing for the Rio meeting. Draft something. We used to be able to do it. And moaning about the February contribution doesn't cut it. Read the chair's summary of the meeting, much of what we said was reflected (and if you look back at discussion when drafting that document you'll see it was unfinished.) Thank you. Adam (an apologies if it sounds like I'm speaking for Jeanette, Robin and other members of the advisory group... I am not. Just me.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 22 10:34:11 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] What is a: necessary/efficient/ultimate Number Message-ID: Karl, I have a question for you. There are approximately 6.8 Billion Humans on the planet, All of whom require to meet Maslow's hierarchy of needs at one level or another every day. The question is: With encompassing the whole realm of iGovernance, How many People (Seats) are needed to run the Internet? Questions: A. What is your best guess? (a necessary number) B. What number would you be happy with? (a efficient number) C. What would be ideal? (a ultimate number) -- P.S.: I have a general core figure between 50-100 (Officials/Directors - Not including ancillary support staff - ie: apnic enum etc.) Would you be happy with 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Sun Apr 22 12:37:39 2007 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:37:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Dear Wolfgang, You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments worldwide (if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003, when IG was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral damage" of the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In the US, there is strong political opposition to the Iraq war and a gradual move back to multilateralism (even in the field of environment!). Beside the suspicion about the US foreign policy, the second reason for initiating the IG-debate was the story that "a country can be removed from the Internet by the US government." It was a powerful trigger and it created concern among diplomats and policy-makers. It was the most frequent question I was asked by diplomats in Geneva. The story led to a crisis (at least in perception). After that... you know what has happened.... WGIG... discussion became substantive... there was an extensive learning process.... Ultimately, it became clear that the theoretical possibility of removing a country's domain from the root zone file is not real possibility for various reasons, including decentralized root-servers and the possibility of creating parallel roots, etc. In fact, the power over the root server is an example of the paradox of power. The possibility of removing a country from the Internet can hardly be described as a power, since, effectively, it can never be used. The central element of power is forcing another side to act in the way the holder of power wants. The use of US power over the root could create a different outcome--that countries and regions establish their own Internets. The US would then be a bigger loser than the other players in a possible disintegration of the Internet. The US would face the loss of the predominance of US-promoted values on the Internet, English as the Internet lingua franca, and the global market for US-based Internet companies (Google, e-Bay, Yahoo,...). All in all, the two elements that shaped discussion back in 2003 do not exist any more (strong suspicion about US foreign policy, misperception of the possibility of removing countries from the Internet). Today? It is not very likely that the IG-debate will gain momentum. The reason is simple... there is no crisis. The Internet was created to survive a major “crisis” (nuclear war). The potential major failure of the Internet, which could trigger a strong policy reaction, is not likely to happen. Moreover, in the most recent crises (9/11, London terrorist attack, Tsunami), the Internet has proven itself the most reliable communication structure. The latest example of Internet robustness was the cut of the Asian telecom cable. While it slowed down Internet traffic and attracted a bit journalistic attention at Christmas, it did not create a major crisis. Without a crisis-driven process (fertile context for simplifications and stereotypes), ICANN and the US government have a unique chance to introduce a new and innovative global governance model, which should address a few open issues including involvement of other governments and internalization of ICANN’s status. They are no longer under "siege" as they were during the WSIS. It should provide them with more space for creative and forward-looking solutions. A promising sign was ICANN’s presidential debate on the future of ICANN. A potential problem is that there is no external pressure for reform. This list and GIGANet should help in discussing and proposing some policy solutions. In my “batch-processing” of latest messages, I will also reflect on the Framework Convention and Triangle/Variable Geometry of IG. Best, Jovan -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 09:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention Alejandro: Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a discussion here. Wolfgang: The challenger in the WSIS process were members of the governmental stakeholder group. The EU wanted to have a new cooperation model with governments on the top ("on the level of principle"). Brazil wanted to have an Internet Convention. South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, India and until PrepCom3 also the government of the Peoples Republic of China wanted to have an "Intergovernmental Internet Council". The ITU wanted to overtake some functions from ICANN and to play a greater (probably leading) role. WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNCTAD, ILO and other IGOs which have a stake in IG in its broader understanding (like multiligualism in UNESCO or IPR in WIPO) had a wait and see position with no big ambitions. The USG, supported by a broad range of private sector members and some civil society groups, opposed a broader role for governments. The result was the agreement to start a proces of enhanced cooperation (both on the intergovernmental level as well as among governmnetal and non-governmental stakeholders) but neither the form, the content, the procedure nor the final objective of the process was defined. Janis Karkelins, president of PrepCom of WSIS II and now the GAC chair, said three weeks after Tunis during the ICANN meeting in Vancouver that he does not understand what the governments (representing the heads of states of about 180 countries) decided in detail and he speculated that obviously even the governments have no clue what they want to do. When Nitin Desai started informal consultations on enhanced cooperation in May 2006, he told governments (and others) that they have to come with ideas how to bring butter to the sandwich. But nothing happend (in the public). There is (public) silence. No initiative from the EU. The only word came from Madame Reding when she applauded the JPA as a right step towards a new cooperation model. In May 2007 there is a meeting of the "High Level Internet Governace Working Group" of the EU and there had been consultatitons with the USG under the German EU presidency. But these meetings are closed shops. No agenda, no communique. Brazil has given up obviously its idea of an Inernet Convention? Or do they plan something for the Rio 2007 IGF? What about the supporters for the "Intergovernmental Internet Council" (look into the WGIG report)? Silence from South Africa to India to Iran. Did they give up? The Chinese government was happy with the Tunis Agenda which recognized "national soveriegnty" of the national domain name space. An own Internet root with TLD Root Zone files with Chinese characters (where the authorization of the publication of these zone files is done by the MII and not by the DOC) would obviously qualify for "national domain name space". So why the Chinese government should become active? They got what they wanted to have. They will also wait and see. (BTW does somebody know whether ICANN will have its fall 2007 meeting in Taipeh and does somebody know what the position of the Chinese government, which more or less ignores up today the GAC, is in this question?) The ITU has started just recently a consultatiton with its members on enhanced coopweration according to reolsution 102 from Antalya. But the New ITU SG has made clear in his very first statements that he will not continue to push for ITU leadership in IG as Mr. Utsumi did. ITU under Toure wants to become the leader in Cybersecurity and Infrastructure, two important elements of IG in the broader understanding. And it will make contributions to iDNS, NGNs, ENUM, IPv6 etc. but not in competition to ICANN. But Toure, at the end of the day, is the voice of the member states. So lets wait and see whether the cancellation of his planned visit to the ICANN meeting in Lisbon in March 2007 was indeed for "technical reasons" only. WIPO, UNESCO, WTO etc. did not change their mind. They are waitng. If somebody will ask them to write a report what they have done in their field of competence for IG they will write the report, probably not more than five to ten pages. If nobody asks them, they will do nothing. But who has a mandate to ask for such a report? What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any direction? Best regards Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 22 12:46:21 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:46:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Veni's diatribe Message-ID: Wow, this is interesting. Ad hominem attacks, inaccurate rumor-mongering, and some evident anger. Let me respond with facts. >>> veni at veni.com 4/22/2007 8:05 AM >>> >I see that people who are left outside of a solution, are >sometimes getting angry at this fact. I don't remember who >of the people writing here (don't want to state a fact, which >is not correct, but it was someone around Milton's Internet >Governance Project, MIGP), was complaining orally or in writing >(again, don't remember well) that the Advisory Group to the IGF is >not a good group, unlike the WGIG. The reason for these complaints? >There was only one person of the MIGP in the Advisory Group (sic!). If this explains our concerns about the composition of the IGF MAG, how is it that we did not complain about the composition of the WGIG, which contained _zero_ MIGP members? Perhaps we were motivated by other concerns, such as political balance? >1. The IGP (and similar projects, I call them IGPs) exist only because >a discussion on IG exists. True of IGP and at least 20 other research centers and advocacy organizations, including IGF and its MAG. And indeed ICANN itself is a product of "discussion about Internet governance." >Remove the discussion, and the IGPs are not going >to be needed. (So, do you think they... er.. the >discussion would disappear? I am truly sorry, Veni, that you and other members of ICANN staff and board are bothered with "discussion" and controversy. I guess you would prefer "silence" and "following orders" or "a willingness to be bought off." Criticism and debate are so.....irritating. People who engage in it must have something wrong with them. Obviously, such debates do not happen around any other global governance issue. Everyone agrees on the environment and climate change. Everyone agrees on issues of war and peace. Everyone agrees on world trade. Why is poor ICANN facing such "discussion?" It is anomalous and unfair. We should all just shut up. Make Veni's day: unsubscribe from governance list now! IGP will collapse shortly thereafter, and so will my career. >2. There's no statement on the web site as to who is funding this projects. This projects? Do you mean IGP? Well, in fact there is. http://internetgovernance.org/about.html >Let's see the MIGP - one could found a file >(http://osp.syr.edu/highlights/FiscalYear2006/FebruaryHighlights.xls), >where it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the >Ford Foundation for that project >But nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumoured to >have been awarded to the project only by the Ford, and >nothing about other donors? Whoa. There are no other donors. And there are no other funds. And here you make it clear that you have descended to the level of unfounded insinuations. You have even manufactured a false, completely invented number ($170,000). This is something you made up, Veni. Please retract, for the sake of your credibility. >3. People are building their careers around the Internet >Governance; Yes, Veni, we had noticed that about you. >4. ICANN is the only working organization in the field; it has started >as a project of the US government (can you believe that this would >have happened with some other governments, which would >volunteerly give away the Internet to the private sector?). You might read the JPA and the IANA contract next time you have a few moments, as well as the 2005 DNS "principles" of the US. Nothing has been "given away." But from your statement I can see what kind of attitude is required for a successful career in ICANN. >5. The governments were not interested in "governance" >of the Internet until the WSIS - 2nd phase This is untrue. WIPO was interested in 1996. ITU -- an intergovernmental institution, in case you did not know -- was interested in 1996. The USG seized control of the root in 1997. The EU shortly thereafter insisted on the creation of a GAC in 1998. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 22 13:44:48 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: For the record, Veni, are you paid by ICANN or any other organization or corporation with an interest in Internet policy? Have your received any money from ICANN or other such groups since leaving the Board? I am not suggesting that I have reason to believe that you are: but my my experience is that when people start claiming that others are paid off, it's a good idea for them to make clear their own situation in order to avoid misunderstanding. Note: For the record, I don't get any such funds from anyone. -- 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 avri at psg.com Sun Apr 22 16:32:48 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:32:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] "civil society doing someone else's dirty work" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5EFBDB26-61A8-42D5-9A3D-577503D779F3@psg.com> (just catching up on the flurry of email) On 17 apr 2007, at 04.12, Milton Mueller wrote: > In substantive policy > terms, we at IGP have always viewed the FC as a way to LIMIT national > govts power over Internet coordination as much as a way to insert it > where it is needed. i have heard this argued before but never understood it. it is like saying that putting the fox in charge of the hens will limit their power over the hens. governments, those in power, have always sought to expand their power over people and have ever attempted to minimize the actual influence of democracy. within a FC, no matter what contribution CS believes it can make, governments will be the only ones allowed to negotiate and to decide. i do not see how turning over control of the IG to a deliberative body composed solely of governments will have anything but a deleterious effect. when you write the paper on your proposal for a FC, please expand on the IGP notion and explain why this could possibly be the case. 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 Sun Apr 22 16:44:40 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:44:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) Message-ID: Jovan: I think your comments skim the surface of a political situation that is much deeper. Contention over policy issues in global Internet governance will be around as long as there is an Internet. As ICANN and other identifier-related institutions mature, attention may move away from ICANN's structure and oversight to other issues, but something equally pressing will arise to take their place. I say this as someone who observed, researched and sometimes participated in telecom policy issues since 1981, at the dawn of the AT&T breakup (a process that spanned 30 years). I've seen many an ICT policy issue come and go, and believe me the global governance arrangements around Internet and other ICTs are extremely meaty and no flash in the pan. Maybe to you it was no more than a passing wave to be caught, but not me. So where do things stand now? The root server issue (as IGP predicted at the last IGF) is now reinvented and renewed thanks to the prospect of DNSSEC implementation. (See our serial blog at http://blog.internetgovernance.org) ICANN's new TLD process fuses freedom of expression, economic regulation, process and multilingual issues. The deregulation of domain name registry prices raises classical issues in regulation, with a somewhat new twist given the global scope, ICANN's lack of any legal foundation (or competence) in that area. Whois/privacy is still unresolved. There is an impending fight over address scarcity in IPv4 and the difficult transition to IPv6. The beat goes on. In addition, there are a host of non-ICANN related Internet governance issues, from net neutrality to WIPO treaties to continued efforts to regulate internet content. Each of them as deep and involved as the ICANN issue. The digital identity issue will emerge in full force within 5 years, take my word for it. Further, all these issues exist in a context of economic globalization, which has created challenges to and reform of other global institutions, and severe political reaction to globalization, raising issues which are linked in numerous ways to what happens to the Internet. Many of us -- and I am obviously one of them -- find these struggles and issues intellectually fascinating and politically important. It's truly unfortunate that some people apparently feel threatened by our attempt to engage in the scrutiny, discussion and debate that inevitably occur around such global processes. But the debate becomes particularly odd when those people attempt to portray university-based research and policy experts as per se illegitimate for....raising the money needed to engage in research and policy analysis. >>> jovank at diplomacy.edu 04/22/07 12:37 PM >>> Dear Wolfgang, You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments worldwide (if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003, when IG was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral damage" of the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In the US, there is strong political opposition to the Iraq war and a gradual move back to multilateralism (even in the field of environment!). Beside the suspicion about the US foreign policy, the second reason for initiating the IG-debate was the story that "a country can be removed from the Internet by the US government." It was a powerful trigger and it created concern among diplomats and policy-makers. It was the most frequent question I was asked by diplomats in Geneva. The story led to a crisis (at least in perception). After that... you know what has happened.... WGIG... discussion became substantive... there was an extensive learning process.... Ultimately, it became clear that the theoretical possibility of removing a country's domain from the root zone file is not real possibility for various reasons, including decentralized root-servers and the possibility of creating parallel roots, etc. In fact, the power over the root server is an example of the paradox of power. The possibility of removing a country from the Internet can hardly be described as a power, since, effectively, it can never be used. The central element of power is forcing another side to act in the way the holder of power wants. The use of US power over the root could create a different outcome--that countries and regions establish their own Internets. The US would then be a bigger loser than the other players in a possible disintegration of the Internet. The US would face the loss of the predominance of US-promoted values on the Internet, English as the Internet lingua franca, and the global market for US-based Internet companies (Google, e-Bay, Yahoo,...). All in all, the two elements that shaped discussion back in 2003 do not exist any more (strong suspicion about US foreign policy, misperception of the possibility of removing countries from the Internet). Today? It is not very likely that the IG-debate will gain momentum. The reason is simple... there is no crisis. The Internet was created to survive a major "crisis" (nuclear war). The potential major failure of the Internet, which could trigger a strong policy reaction, is not likely to happen. Moreover, in the most recent crises (9/11, London terrorist attack, Tsunami), the Internet has proven itself the most reliable communication structure. The latest example of Internet robustness was the cut of the Asian telecom cable. While it slowed down Internet traffic and attracted a bit journalistic attention at Christmas, it did not create a major crisis. Without a crisis-driven process (fertile context for simplifications and stereotypes), ICANN and the US government have a unique chance to introduce a new and innovative global governance model, which should address a few open issues including involvement of other governments and internalization of ICANN's status. They are no longer under "siege" as they were during the WSIS. It should provide them with more space for creative and forward-looking solutions. A promising sign was ICANN's presidential debate on the future of ICANN. A potential problem is that there is no external pressure for reform. This list and GIGANet should help in discussing and proposing some policy solutions. In my "batch-processing" of latest messages, I will also reflect on the Framework Convention and Triangle/Variable Geometry of IG. Best, Jovan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 22 16:54:43 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:54:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please Message-ID: OK, Adam. I'll bite. As a first proposition, I would reiterate something I said ten days ago, and which received a couple expressions of support (and no direct opposition I can recall): > 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?" This could deal with the huge loose end left by the Tunis Agenda's claim that "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States" I would like to see IGC come out in favor of a plenary session on this topic. It seems a topic ideally suited for the Forum. It is a problem that agitates people in government as well as civil society, there is no other place to talk about it, it is one of the unresolved issues of WSIS, and it is not something that the Forum can actually do anything about, so those who still look under their beds at night for fear of a UN takeover of the Internet can put their hearts at ease. I can produce a rough draft of such a proposal in an hour or so. Or someone else can. >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 04/22/07 8:55 AM >>> Internet Governance? Can we please cut the silliness and try to think of what the IGC would like to say at the next consultation, now a few weeks nearer than it was last time I asked. And many weeks nearer than when I believe Jeanette and Robin first asked. Please, we don't ask for fun -- we're still members of some kind of voluntary (whatever) IGF advisory group and while the business and other groups have firm ideas, we have nothing from you. So how much influence do you think we have in the advisory group discussion... a lot less that we could if you would give us some ideas to support! Will this group be able to pull its head from collective (sorry, I can't say that....) and write a proposal? What issues should be on the agenda? What are we proposing for the Rio meeting. Draft something. We used to be able to do it. And moaning about the February contribution doesn't cut it. Read the chair's summary of the meeting, much of what we said was reflected (and if you look back at discussion when drafting that document you'll see it was unfinished.) Thank you. Adam (an apologies if it sounds like I'm speaking for Jeanette, Robin and other members of the advisory group... I am not. Just me.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 22 17:00:18 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:00:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070422174533.03d57218@lacnic.net> Jovan: Thank you for this very interesting analysis. Raúl At 01:37 p.m. 22/04/2007, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >Dear Wolfgang, > >You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments worldwide >(if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most >important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003, when IG >was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. > >Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral damage" of >the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In the US, >there is strong political opposition to the Iraq war and a gradual move back >to multilateralism (even in the field of environment!). > >Beside the suspicion about the US foreign policy, the second reason for >initiating the IG-debate was the story that "a country can be removed from >the Internet by the US government." It was a powerful trigger and it created >concern among diplomats and policy-makers. It was the most frequent question >I was asked by diplomats in Geneva. The story led to a crisis (at least in >perception). > >After that... you know what has happened.... WGIG... discussion became >substantive... there was an extensive learning process.... Ultimately, it >became clear that the theoretical possibility of removing a country's domain >from the root zone file is not real possibility for various reasons, >including decentralized root-servers and the possibility of creating >parallel roots, etc. > >In fact, the power over the root server is an example of the paradox of >power. The possibility of removing a country from the Internet can hardly be >described as a power, since, effectively, it can never be used. The central >element of power is forcing another side to act in the way the holder of >power wants. The use of US power over the root could create a different >outcome--that countries and regions establish their own Internets. The US >would then be a bigger loser than the other players in a possible >disintegration of the Internet. The US would face the loss of the >predominance of US-promoted values on the Internet, English as the Internet >lingua franca, and the global market for US-based Internet companies >(Google, e-Bay, Yahoo,...). > >All in all, the two elements that shaped discussion back in 2003 do not >exist any more (strong suspicion about US foreign policy, misperception of >the possibility of removing countries from the Internet). > >Today? It is not very likely that the IG-debate will gain momentum. The >reason is simple... there is no crisis. The Internet was created to survive >a major “crisis” (nuclear war). The potential major failure of the Internet, >which could trigger a strong policy reaction, is not likely to happen. >Moreover, in the most recent crises (9/11, London terrorist attack, >Tsunami), the Internet has proven itself the most reliable communication >structure. The latest example of Internet robustness was the cut of the >Asian telecom cable. While it slowed down Internet traffic and attracted a >bit journalistic attention at Christmas, it did not create a major crisis. > >Without a crisis-driven process (fertile context for simplifications and >stereotypes), ICANN and the US government have a unique chance to introduce >a new and innovative global governance model, which should address a few >open issues including involvement of other governments and internalization >of ICANN’s status. They are no longer under "siege" as they were during the >WSIS. It should provide them with more space for creative and >forward-looking solutions. A promising sign was ICANN’s presidential debate >on the future of ICANN. A potential problem is that there is no external >pressure for reform. This list and GIGANet should help in discussing and >proposing some policy solutions. In my “batch-processing” of latest >messages, I will also reflect on the Framework Convention and >Triangle/Variable Geometry of IG. > >Best, Jovan > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 09:03 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Ian Peter >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention > >Alejandro: > >Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of >organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not >comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a >discussion here. > >Wolfgang: > >The challenger in the WSIS process were members of the governmental >stakeholder group. The EU wanted to have a new cooperation model with >governments on the top ("on the level of principle"). Brazil wanted to have >an Internet Convention. South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, India and >until PrepCom3 also the government of the Peoples Republic of China wanted >to have an "Intergovernmental Internet Council". The ITU wanted to overtake >some functions from ICANN and to play a greater (probably leading) role. >WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNCTAD, ILO and other IGOs which have a stake in IG in >its broader understanding (like multiligualism in UNESCO or IPR in WIPO) had >a wait and see position with no big ambitions. The USG, supported by a broad >range of private sector members and some civil society groups, opposed a >broader role for governments. > >The result was the agreement to start a proces of enhanced cooperation (both >on the intergovernmental level as well as among governmnetal and >non-governmental stakeholders) but neither the form, the content, the >procedure nor the final objective of the process was defined. Janis >Karkelins, president of PrepCom of WSIS II and now the GAC chair, said three >weeks after Tunis during the ICANN meeting in Vancouver that he does not >understand what the governments (representing the heads of states of about >180 countries) decided in detail and he speculated that obviously even the >governments have no clue what they want to do. When Nitin Desai started >informal consultations on enhanced cooperation in May 2006, he told >governments (and others) that they have to come with ideas how to bring >butter to the sandwich. But nothing happend (in the public). There is >(public) silence. > >No initiative from the EU. The only word came from Madame Reding when she >applauded the JPA as a right step towards a new cooperation model. In May >2007 there is a meeting of the "High Level Internet Governace Working Group" >of the EU and there had been consultatitons with the USG under the German EU >presidency. But these meetings are closed shops. No agenda, no communique. > > >Brazil has given up obviously its idea of an Inernet Convention? Or do they >plan something for the Rio 2007 IGF? What about the supporters for the >"Intergovernmental Internet Council" (look into the WGIG report)? Silence >from South Africa to India to Iran. Did they give up? The Chinese government >was happy with the Tunis Agenda which recognized "national soveriegnty" of >the national domain name space. An own Internet root with TLD Root Zone >files with Chinese characters (where the authorization of the publication of >these zone files is done by the MII and not by the DOC) would obviously >qualify for "national domain name space". So why the Chinese government >should become active? They got what they wanted to have. They will also wait >and see. (BTW does somebody know whether ICANN will have its fall 2007 >meeting in Taipeh and does somebody know what the position of the Chinese >government, which more or less ignores up today the GAC, is in this >question?) > >The ITU has started just recently a consultatiton with its members on >enhanced coopweration according to reolsution 102 from Antalya. But the New >ITU SG has made clear in his very first statements that he will not continue >to push for ITU leadership in IG as Mr. Utsumi did. ITU under Toure wants to >become the leader in Cybersecurity and Infrastructure, two important >elements of IG in the broader understanding. And it will make contributions >to iDNS, NGNs, ENUM, IPv6 etc. but not in competition to ICANN. But Toure, >at the end of the day, is the voice of the member states. So lets wait and >see whether the cancellation of his planned visit to the ICANN meeting in >Lisbon in March 2007 was indeed for "technical reasons" only. WIPO, UNESCO, >WTO etc. did not change their mind. They are waitng. If somebody will ask >them to write a report what they have done in their field of competence for >IG they will write the report, probably not more than five to ten pages. If >nobody asks them, they will do nothing. But who has a mandate to ask for >such a report? > >What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF >2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any >direction? > >Best regards > >Wolfgang >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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: 269.5.6/770 - >Release Date: 20/04/2007 06:43 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 22 17:09:17 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:09:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Can governmental powers be limited? Message-ID: I've changed the heading. >>> avri at psg.com 04/22/07 4:32 PM >>> >i have heard this argued before but never understood it. >it is like saying that putting the fox in charge of the hens >will limit their power over the hens. governments, those in >power, have always sought to expand their power over people >and have ever attempted to minimize the actual influence >of democracy. I recognize the risk of involving governments, but they are already involved, and becoming more so, so we have no choice about taking that risk. What you are saying is that no government has ever been constrained by law. Isn't that obviously false? Think of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or the many examples of European privacy/data protection laws being used to stop governmental actions. Recently another attempt to impose content regulation on the internet was struck down by the supreme court. That is governmental power being used against itself; checks and balances. Where did those constraints come from? They came from legally binding governmental agreements (laws). I think in the context of an international negotiation, one that allows nonstate actors to participate directly, there is some chance of imposing direct, strategically placed limits on the possibility of state intervention, and getting governments themselves to recognize and (usually) respect that limitation. Again, I am fully aware of the risks of such an approach. But please tell me, if we don't establish formal limits that governments themselves agree to and ratify, how do YOU expect to constrain state interventions? If you have a better way, I am totally open to it. Really; there's no "not invented here" syndrome, I just want the result. >within a FC, no matter what >contribution CS believes it can make, governments will be >the only ones allowed to negotiate and to decide. i do not see how turning >over control of the IG to a deliberative body composed solely of >governments will have anything but a deleterious effect. > >when you write the paper on your proposal for a FC, please expand on >the IGP notion and explain why this could possibly be the case. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Apr 22 17:19:00 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:19:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Can governmental powers be limited? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37350BBB-02CA-4736-A2CC-B1BC39CD74CE@maxwell.syr.edu> I am afraid that if governments are foxes, they are already in charge of the henhouse. The issue is not that (unless, as I said in an earlier e-mail, we can convince them to repeal the Treaty of Westphalia or invest some other institution with the task of ensuring order and justice in human transactions). This responsibility for order which is one reason that the US Declaration of Independence stated "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." The issue, then, is what just powers should be exercised by governments regarding the Internet and how should the consent of the governed be reflected. Here we have the dilemma that State behavior is essentially self-regulating and that States determine the rules. However, there is (and always has been, but clearly increasing in our era) influence on the rules agreed by non-State actors. Some could argue that the strong role given to multi-stakeholder processes at WSIS was the most lasting result of that conference. The debate around a Framework Convention turns on how and to what an extent States can agree on the self-limiting rules that will provide for an orderly, open and secure Internet. We will certainly lay out these considerations, along with the points made by Milton, in our promised paper. Regards, John On Apr 22, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Milton Mueller wrote: > I've changed the heading. > >>>> avri at psg.com 04/22/07 4:32 PM >>> >> i have heard this argued before but never understood it. >> it is like saying that putting the fox in charge of the hens >> will limit their power over the hens. governments, those in >> power, have always sought to expand their power over people >> and have ever attempted to minimize the actual influence >> of democracy. > > I recognize the risk of involving governments, but they are already > involved, and becoming more so, so we have no choice about taking that > risk. > > What you are saying is that no government has ever been constrained by > law. Isn't that obviously false? > > Think of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or > the many examples of European privacy/data protection laws being > used to > stop governmental actions. Recently another attempt to impose content > regulation on the internet was struck down by the supreme court. > That is > governmental power being used against itself; checks and balances. > Where > did those constraints come from? They came from legally binding > governmental agreements (laws). > > I think in the context of an international negotiation, one that > allows > nonstate actors to participate directly, there is some chance of > imposing direct, strategically placed limits on the possibility of > state > intervention, and getting governments themselves to recognize and > (usually) respect that limitation. > > Again, I am fully aware of the risks of such an approach. But please > tell me, if we don't establish formal limits that governments > themselves > agree to and ratify, how do YOU expect to constrain state > interventions? > If you have a better way, I am totally open to it. Really; there's no > "not invented here" syndrome, I just want the result. > >> within a FC, no matter what >> contribution CS believes it can make, governments will be >> the only ones allowed to negotiate and to decide. i do not see how > turning >> over control of the IG to a deliberative body composed solely of >> governments will have anything but a deleterious effect. >> >> when you write the paper on your proposal for a FC, please expand on >> the IGP notion and explain why this could possibly be the case. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 22 18:12:16 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:12:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] What is a: necessary/efficient/ultimate Number In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <462BDDC0.1050303@cavebear.com> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > The question is: > With encompassing the whole realm of iGovernance, How many People (Seats) are > needed to run the Internet? Running "the net" requires several tasks at several levels (global, regional, local, personal.) The most important task is that of maintaining IP level connectivity. Although that is largely nearly automatic, it does require the 24x7x365 cooperation between many (hundreds) of autonomous routing authorities (often called ISPs). That system is largely driven by enlightened self interest. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, there is an potential future need for there to be external mechanisms to provide for end users, or their agents, to obtain end-to-end assurances across a sequence of providers. DNS is operated by several different groups. At the top by perhaps one quarter of a full time person who must daily prepare and inspect a root zone file. That file has, on average, perhaps one change per day, and it is quite small (less than 20K bytes compressed) and easily disseminated. The harder part is validating it, which is easily done with digital checksums (digests). At the root layer there are 13 distinct entities, some of only a few people, who operate the 13 root servers. Many of those servers are, thanks to the innovation of those operators and not to ICANN, are now replicated around the world using a technique known as "anycast". These root server operators are entirely independent of ICANN. Those operators are free to sell their positions, to date mine the query stream, to give preferential (or impaired service), or even to cease operation altogether. These people do a very good job, but their only obligation is self imposed. ICANN has promised to oversee these folks and establish enforceable service level obligations, but has failed to do so, thus leaving network users in the lurch. There are many other jobs needed to run the net on a day-to-day basis, but those are typically localized, such as maintaining the contents of lower-layer DNS zone files, configuring and monitoring the zillions of local naming and security/access control systems, etc. The life of a network sysadmin is never quiet. The vast bulk of the things talked about in the context of internet governance are things that have absolutely nothing to do with the day-to-day or even the year-to-year operation of the internet. For example, the entire mess that ICANN has created about top level domains is a construct that is entirely political and protective of certain status-quo interests (such as trademarks.) Imagine, for example, a supermarket. It has many products on its shelves. Imagine another supermarket; it too has many products on its shelves. For the most part the products are from the same vendors. There are a few boutique products that are sold only in one store or the other. DNS is like that. We go to a root, just as we go to a supermarket, and select the top level TLDs that we want - .com, .net, .org, etc... If a new vendor comes along and has a new product, that new vendor has to convince each supermarket manager to carry that new brand. Whether that newcomer obtains a place on the shelves of most supermarkets depends on both the efforts of the vendor and the acceptance by the public. It's called "building brand recognition". If there is a vendor of a brand, let's call it "Coca Cola", has built its brand and some newcomer comes along and tries to label its products as "Coca Cola" there are mechanism in the existing legal system to deal with the issue. The supermarkets need not be involved and there is no ned of some global authority over supermarkets to supplant the workings of the trademark enforcement system. The same thing can occur in DNS. However, it is ICANN's position that there must be exactly one supermarket. Were we to recognize the fallacy of that dogma we would see that nearly every aspect of internet governance done under the ICANN banner is work that is not needed, is excessive regulation, anti-competitive, and duplicative of the existing legal system. You mentioned ENUM - apart from the fact that a lot of VOIP telephone numbers contain no numbers at all but, rather look like email addresses - ENUM does not seem to be taking off. Most of the effort to administer ENUM will be a front-end effort to establish the delegations to the countries. After that point it will require minimal maintenance on a daily basis and the workload will move to the national and local provider levels. And that will require a number of people with a lot of computer assistance. It will also require a huge troubleshooting staff: regular expressions are hard even for experienced people; they can become a nightmare and a source of many, many operational problems. There are other matters - IP address allocation requires a few smart people. The RIRs have a good handle on this. Right now ICANN's (actually IANA's) IP address policy can be described as "when a RIR asks, ICANN/IANA grants". That layer can be eliminated and left to the good efforts of the RIRs working together (which they do rather well already.) IP protocol parameters, another IANA job, is largely simply assigning the next number in sequence. There are some more intricate allocations that do require some thought, but the IETF has created a system of experts to help out with that. All in all we can figure that protocol number assignments can be done by a handful of people. And it is a job without political overtones. The job of recognizing ccTLDs is something that is akin to recognition of what and who is a sovereign. That's something that is highly political. ICANN has done a bang-up job on that - recognizing, for example, a purported ccTLD operator on the basis of a handwritten document on an otherwise blank sheet of paper, and bearing an unauthenticated signature of an unknown person. As for non-ccTLDs: That can be readily mechanized by creating an inexpensive and very lightweight system of applications that requires the applicant to promise to adhere to widely accepted and used written internet technical standards. If they so promise, their application is accepted and they enter either an auction or lottery to compete with other applications for some number of TLD slots that are made available on a periodic basis (I've suggested 10,000 a year, or one million over a century, but even if it were 1/200th of that, or about one per week it would be a vast improvement over the current stasis.) I hope that this answers some of your questions. Certainly what we have seen to date is massively bloated over what is needed. That is the result of the capture of the existing bodies of internet governance and their transformation from internet governance into bodies that protect incumbent industrial interests. --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 veni at veni.com Sun Apr 22 18:37:42 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:37:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Veni's diatribe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070422223753.564E6335948@mxr.isoc.bg> At 12:46 4/22/2007 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: >Wow, this is interesting. Ad hominem attacks, inaccurate >rumor-mongering, and some evident anger. Just the second sentence, Milton, and the 14th word you wrote, and it's the typical you. Again, you express opinion. You don't ask, "Veni, are you angry?", but you asume...oh, no - you believe you know I am. I even don't feel any need to read further. I've said what I wanted to say; if what I wrote made you reach yet another of your opinions, then we are (again) not in the discussion field. I am not discussing anything with people who don't need a discussion. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Sun Apr 22 18:33:06 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:33:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Message-ID: <20070422223752.7582F335944@mxr.isoc.bg> At 18:37 4/22/2007 +0200, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments worldwide >(if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most >important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003, when IG >was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. [cut] >What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF >2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any >direction? Hi, Jovan! Well said! There's always space for discussion, and we may wish to continue to be involved in such discussions. I love participating in constructive discussions. What bothers me are people who come into the discussion with an opinion on the topics we are supposed to discuss, and that makes the discussion impossible. 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 22 19:34:33 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] The web is dead; long live the web Message-ID: <847625.34410.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, The Sunday Times article below raises some interesting points. One is the anonymity raised by the internet enables users to be more vitriolic when there is no imperative to reveal who they are. The article refers to an earlier article from Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2054181,00.html). Jonathan Freedland commented that the anonymity made possible by web protocols is at fault. People find it easy to behave badly if nobody knows who they are. A couple of his paragraphs on this are: "My immediate hunch is that the anonymity of the web is the problem. People do not tend to call each other Nazis in public meetings, or on radio phone-ins, because other people would know who they were. But if you're called DaffyDuck you can insult whoever you like. If democracy means anything it means accountability - and that should include accountability for our own words. "Yet suggest a ban on anonymity and watch the cybersky fall on your head. Web users regard it as an almost sacred right. They cite the Iranian students or Chinese dissidents, hungry for outside debate, only able to take part by hiding their true identities. The truth may in fact be more prosaic: plenty of commenters post their rants while at work and don't want the boss to know what they're up to." The Sunday Times also notes a report by American psychologists, Inflated Egos over Time, that suggests "social-network sites such as MySpace and YouTube were promoting damagingly high — and illusory — levels of self-esteem among teenagers. Meanwhile, bloggers have been angered — it doesn’t take much — by two high-profile attacks from the land of “dead tree” journalism." To me this is an important issue in internet governance. And *if*, and it's a big if, attacks such as those on Kathy Sierra spiral out of control, governments are going to get more involved in regulating issues such as content. I have no answers, but it's an interesting debate and one that deserves thought. Cheers David The web is dead; long live the web:As the internet evolves, the backlash begins. But is it really going to destroy our civilisation? The web is dead; long live the web. The dead web is Web 1.0. It had dial-up connections, dot-com crashes and some of the worst business plans since Napoleon marched on Moscow. The live web is Web 2.0. It has broadband, enormous interactivity — or “user-generated content” — and Google, a faith-based operation whose employees proclaim “Thank Google it’s Friday” at the end of the working week. Web 2.0 makes money and owns the future. The downside is that Web 2.0 may be destroying civilisation. That, at least, is the view of Andrew Keen, a Silicon Valley-based British entrepreneur and author. He has written The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture (due out in June), which argues that the web is an antienlightenment phenomenon, a destroyer of wisdom and culture and an infantile, Rousseau-esque fantasy. “It’s the cult of the child,” he says. “The more you know, the less you know. It’s all about digital narcissism, shameless self-promotion. I find it offensive.” http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1673425.ece --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From db at dannybutt.net Sun Apr 22 19:38:20 2007 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:38:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Message-ID: <2576AD5F-0036-4692-95AF-D14736C520AB@dannybutt.net> I also enjoyed the summary from Jovan and found it helpful for crystallising a few features of the current situation. 1) If we accept that Internet Governance is a policy issue with a complex scope and few urgent levers, there seems to me to be no great pressure to come to the agreement Karl seeks on "What Internet Governance includes or doesn't include." I think it is important to keep an open mind on what it might or might not include, because there are of course many public-policy issues arising from the Internet's growth, and this group should avoid locking itself into a policy platform that may become made obsolete very quickly in the rapidly changing environment. Instead, there is the opportunity for policy development in new areas not currently being addressed by ICANN etc. I don't really see the Framework Convention or similar intergovernmental process getting much leverage when the work which seems to be required is clarification of the issues and downstream effects. This is where the forum aspects of the IGF and the dialogue mechanisms promoted by Bill make sense to me. The discussion has a long way to go. 2) There are of course specific aspects to the governance of ICANN and other coordinating bodies which are problematic or worse from a developmental and rights perspective; and fail to effectively include the relevant stakeholders. The people on this list working on those issues display an understanding of the complex interrelation between policy, technology, and social development -(and here i greatly admire the work of the IGP even though I disagree with many of the conclusions). Personally, I think this group could do more to support collaborative online development of policy inputs related to specific areas (TLDs, IDNs, DNSSEC, spam, etc etc etc), but as I have said previously I don't think this is possible on a single mailing list of this scope, where the natural tendency is to move discussions back to first principles and ideological disagreements. I have yet to see this group agree convincingly on who or what we are supposed to be accountable to as "civil society". The cases that are most often made in IG have a strong, distinctly Nth American "freedom from governments" flavour that I see as part of the problem, rather than the solution. My usual rule of thumb with groups is to not seek strong conclusions where there are deep divisions on principles, so I see this group as a valuable theatre for the rehearsal of various IG positions, and hope we can keep it open to workshop a wide of a range of scripts. Regards, Danny On 23/04/2007, at 4:37 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments > worldwide > (if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most > important--is that the world has changed substantially between > 2003, when IG > was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. > > Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral > damage" of > the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In > the US, > there is strong political opposition to the Iraq war and a gradual > move back > to multilateralism (even in the field of environment!). > > Beside the suspicion about the US foreign policy, the second reason > for > initiating the IG-debate was the story that "a country can be > removed from > the Internet by the US government." It was a powerful trigger and > it created > concern among diplomats and policy-makers. It was the most frequent > question > I was asked by diplomats in Geneva. The story led to a crisis (at > least in > perception). > > After that... you know what has happened.... WGIG... discussion became > substantive... there was an extensive learning process.... > Ultimately, it > became clear that the theoretical possibility of removing a > country's domain > from the root zone file is not real possibility for various reasons, > including decentralized root-servers and the possibility of creating > parallel roots, etc. > > In fact, the power over the root server is an example of the > paradox of > power. The possibility of removing a country from the Internet can > hardly be > described as a power, since, effectively, it can never be used. The > central > element of power is forcing another side to act in the way the > holder of > power wants. The use of US power over the root could create a > different > outcome--that countries and regions establish their own Internets. > The US > would then be a bigger loser than the other players in a possible > disintegration of the Internet. The US would face the loss of the > predominance of US-promoted values on the Internet, English as the > Internet > lingua franca, and the global market for US-based Internet companies > (Google, e-Bay, Yahoo,...). > > All in all, the two elements that shaped discussion back in 2003 do > not > exist any more (strong suspicion about US foreign policy, > misperception of > the possibility of removing countries from the Internet). > > Today? It is not very likely that the IG-debate will gain momentum. > The > reason is simple... there is no crisis. The Internet was created to > survive > a major “crisis” (nuclear war). The potential major failure of the > Internet, > which could trigger a strong policy reaction, is not likely to happen. > Moreover, in the most recent crises (9/11, London terrorist attack, > Tsunami), the Internet has proven itself the most reliable > communication > structure. The latest example of Internet robustness was the cut of > the > Asian telecom cable. While it slowed down Internet traffic and > attracted a > bit journalistic attention at Christmas, it did not create a major > crisis. > > Without a crisis-driven process (fertile context for > simplifications and > stereotypes), ICANN and the US government have a unique chance to > introduce > a new and innovative global governance model, which should address > a few > open issues including involvement of other governments and > internalization > of ICANN’s status. They are no longer under "siege" as they were > during the > WSIS. It should provide them with more space for creative and > forward-looking solutions. A promising sign was ICANN’s > presidential debate > on the future of ICANN. A potential problem is that there is no > external > pressure for reform. This list and GIGANet should help in > discussing and > proposing some policy solutions. In my “batch-processing” of latest > messages, I will also reflect on the Framework Convention and > Triangle/Variable Geometry of IG. > > Best, Jovan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 09:03 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Ian Peter > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention > > Alejandro: > > Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of > organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance > which do not > comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a > discussion here. > > Wolfgang: > > The challenger in the WSIS process were members of the governmental > stakeholder group. The EU wanted to have a new cooperation model with > governments on the top ("on the level of principle"). Brazil wanted > to have > an Internet Convention. South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, > India and > until PrepCom3 also the government of the Peoples Republic of China > wanted > to have an "Intergovernmental Internet Council". The ITU wanted to > overtake > some functions from ICANN and to play a greater (probably leading) > role. > WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNCTAD, ILO and other IGOs which have a stake in > IG in > its broader understanding (like multiligualism in UNESCO or IPR in > WIPO) had > a wait and see position with no big ambitions. The USG, supported > by a broad > range of private sector members and some civil society groups, > opposed a > broader role for governments. > > The result was the agreement to start a proces of enhanced > cooperation (both > on the intergovernmental level as well as among governmnetal and > non-governmental stakeholders) but neither the form, the content, the > procedure nor the final objective of the process was defined. Janis > Karkelins, president of PrepCom of WSIS II and now the GAC chair, > said three > weeks after Tunis during the ICANN meeting in Vancouver that he > does not > understand what the governments (representing the heads of states > of about > 180 countries) decided in detail and he speculated that obviously > even the > governments have no clue what they want to do. When Nitin Desai > started > informal consultations on enhanced cooperation in May 2006, he told > governments (and others) that they have to come with ideas how to > bring > butter to the sandwich. But nothing happend (in the public). There is > (public) silence. > > No initiative from the EU. The only word came from Madame Reding > when she > applauded the JPA as a right step towards a new cooperation model. > In May > 2007 there is a meeting of the "High Level Internet Governace > Working Group" > of the EU and there had been consultatitons with the USG under the > German EU > presidency. But these meetings are closed shops. No agenda, no > communique. > > > Brazil has given up obviously its idea of an Inernet Convention? Or > do they > plan something for the Rio 2007 IGF? What about the supporters for the > "Intergovernmental Internet Council" (look into the WGIG report)? > Silence > from South Africa to India to Iran. Did they give up? The Chinese > government > was happy with the Tunis Agenda which recognized "national > soveriegnty" of > the national domain name space. An own Internet root with TLD Root > Zone > files with Chinese characters (where the authorization of the > publication of > these zone files is done by the MII and not by the DOC) would > obviously > qualify for "national domain name space". So why the Chinese > government > should become active? They got what they wanted to have. They will > also wait > and see. (BTW does somebody know whether ICANN will have its fall 2007 > meeting in Taipeh and does somebody know what the position of the > Chinese > government, which more or less ignores up today the GAC, is in this > question?) > > The ITU has started just recently a consultatiton with its members on > enhanced coopweration according to reolsution 102 from Antalya. But > the New > ITU SG has made clear in his very first statements that he will not > continue > to push for ITU leadership in IG as Mr. Utsumi did. ITU under Toure > wants to > become the leader in Cybersecurity and Infrastructure, two important > elements of IG in the broader understanding. And it will make > contributions > to iDNS, NGNs, ENUM, IPv6 etc. but not in competition to ICANN. But > Toure, > at the end of the day, is the voice of the member states. So lets > wait and > see whether the cancellation of his planned visit to the ICANN > meeting in > Lisbon in March 2007 was indeed for "technical reasons" only. WIPO, > UNESCO, > WTO etc. did not change their mind. They are waitng. If somebody > will ask > them to write a report what they have done in their field of > competence for > IG they will write the report, probably not more than five to ten > pages. If > nobody asks them, they will do nothing. But who has a mandate to > ask for > such a report? > > What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad > to IGF > 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? > Any > direction? > > Best regards > > Wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 22 20:20:29 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:20:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: <2576AD5F-0036-4692-95AF-D14736C520AB@dannybutt.net> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> <2576AD5F-0036-4692-95AF-D14736C520AB@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <462BFBCD.3030204@cavebear.com> Danny Butt wrote: You ask good questions. Let me try to give a couple of observations that are in themselves too simplistic to rise to the level of answers. > 1) If we accept that Internet Governance is a policy issue with a > complex scope and few urgent levers, there seems to me to be no great > pressure to come to the agreement Karl seeks on "What Internet > Governance includes or doesn't include." The reason that I mentioned "doesn't include" is that I look at this issue as one of allocation of authority and power. And I share the fear expressed by writers of the 18th century, many of whom were not of North American origin, of excessive concentrations of such authority. I do not think that the 21st century internet is immune from such concentrations. This is not to say that there should be "no governance" - but rather that structures of governance should be carefully designed to limit their powers and to genetically embed into them systems that constrain the growth of powers. We could all benefit by re-reading many of the 18th century works on these matters. A while back I suggested that it might be wise for internet governance to begin by hewing close to matters that have a firm base in technology and a lesser base in social or economic matters. The reason for this was not that such issues should be avoided, but rather that my own preference is to begin in small, constrained contexts in which mistakes will naturally tend to be less extensive and can be made obvious because the technology just won't do what governance demands. Once we've learned how to create appropriate institutions in a limited context then, again my own feeling, is that it would then be sensible to expand governance to issues that have greater ramifications. > I have yet to see this group agree convincingly on who or what we are > supposed to be accountable to as "civil society". I push hard for the individual voice because I want there to be an escape valve. I do recognize that the lone individual amplifies his/her voice by combining with others. There is difficulty in measuring the weight to give any such aggregation of people. My answer has always been that internet governance should look past the aggregation (whether civil society or corporate) and ask the people who that aggregation claims as members or employees or "stakeholders". --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 avri at psg.com Mon Apr 23 01:12:57 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:12:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Can governmental powers be limited? In-Reply-To: <37350BBB-02CA-4736-A2CC-B1BC39CD74CE@maxwell.syr.edu> References: <37350BBB-02CA-4736-A2CC-B1BC39CD74CE@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4EDE60E8-A929-4673-BDEA-C62585C899C2@psg.com> On 22 apr 2007, at 17.19, John Mathiason wrote: > I am afraid that if governments are foxes, they are already in > charge of the henhouse. That is just it. While they may be in control of most henhouses, they do not yet control this one. True, the US gov't does maintain gating control, but I believe that the response to that is not to add more government control, but to move away from any government control. > The issue is not that (unless, as I said in an earlier e-mail, we > can convince them to repeal the Treaty of Westphalia or invest some > other institution with the task of ensuring order and justice in > human transactions). Globalization is already obviating many of the notions of Westphalian sovereignty. I do not understand why civil society would want to argue for more nationalist control of resources. Governments have proven themselves, time and again, to be totally incapable of dealing with resource issues in anything other then power of the strongest. > This responsibility for order which is one reason that the US > Declaration of Independence stated "We hold these truths to be self- > evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by > their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are > Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these > rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just > powers from the consent of the governed..." Putting aside the need to believe in a creator to accept any of that, history has shown us the falsehood of that last sentence. How could anyone who has watched the US government over the past years, possibly quote the US DoI as an argument for the justice of government interference in the Internet? The only shred of relevance in the US DoI that i can see is that if the governed do not capitulate and give their consent, then they cannot be governed, only coerced. So why would we wish to capitulate to governments? Bad enough we have to deal with the supremacy of industry, so much worse to deal with government. I see the movement toward government control of IG as a step backward. Complete control by industry is a problem, but the solution is not to go backwards in history and give the reins to governments. > > The issue, then, is what just powers should be exercised by > governments regarding the Internet From my point of view, none. We must accept that they have control over the networks that lie totally within their national borders, and that the struggle for a free network within most countries still has a long ways to go. But I see no reason to acquiesce to any sort of Inter-Governmental control over the Internet itself. > and how should the consent of the governed be reflected. I believe that governments rarely reflect the consent of the governed, though they do reflect the acquiescence of the coerced. Again I ask, why would civil society want to subject the Internet to control by governments? I am not arguing that governements should not be allowed an advisory role, but I do not see any reason to subject a transnational entity to Westaphalian sovereignty. > Here we have the dilemma that State behavior is essentially self- > regulating and that States determine the rules. However, there is > (and always has been, but clearly increasing in our era) influence > on the rules agreed by non-State actors. Only as beggars at the feast. > Some could argue that the strong role given to multi-stakeholder > processes at WSIS was the most lasting result of that conference. Multi-stakeholder processes, (note: i have always included individuals in my definition of stakeholders - the only problem I have is how to include them scalably) where the exception at WSIS. As i remember it was a constant struggle to even get permission to speak or be in the room when deliberations were ongoing. It will be a perpetual struggle to wrest any sort of role from governments. Take a look at the amount of CS participation in the WISI ECOSOC based follow-up process or the ITU, before putting too much faith in the good will of governments. > The debate around a Framework Convention turns on how and to what > an extent States can agree on the self-limiting rules that will > provide for an orderly, open and secure Internet. That will be something novel. I believe states will only limit themselves when forced to. > > We will certainly lay out these considerations, along with the > points made by Milton, in our promised paper. I look forward to it. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Apr 23 01:21:24 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:21:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Can governmental powers be limited? In-Reply-To: <4EDE60E8-A929-4673-BDEA-C62585C899C2@psg.com> References: <37350BBB-02CA-4736-A2CC-B1BC39CD74CE@maxwell.syr.edu> <4EDE60E8-A929-4673-BDEA-C62585C899C2@psg.com> Message-ID: On 4/23/07, Avri Doria wrote: > That will be something novel. I believe states will only limit > themselves when forced to. Yes, to all of the above. Avri For President!! -- 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 dan at musicunbound.com Mon Apr 23 01:26:07 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:26:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: <462BFBCD.3030204@cavebear.com> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> <2576AD5F-0036-4692-95AF-D14736C520AB@dannybutt.net> <462BFBCD.3030204@cavebear.com> Message-ID: At 5:20 PM -0700 4/22/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Danny Butt wrote: >> 1) If we accept that Internet Governance is a policy issue with a >> complex scope and few urgent levers, there seems to me to be no great >> pressure to come to the agreement Karl seeks on "What Internet >> Governance includes or doesn't include." > >The reason that I mentioned "doesn't include" is that I look at this >issue as one of allocation of authority and power. > >And I share the fear expressed by writers of the 18th century, many of >whom were not of North American origin, of excessive concentrations of >such authority. I do not think that the 21st century internet is immune >from such concentrations. > >This is not to say that there should be "no governance" - but rather >that structures of governance should be carefully designed to limit >their powers and to genetically embed into them systems that constrain >the growth of powers. We could all benefit by re-reading many of the >18th century works on these matters. One of the most important structural developments since the 18th century was the rise of massively-concentrated private wealth as corporations evolved from feudal extensions of monarchies to private engines of concentrated investment (thanks in much part to the innovation of limited liability). It is a fallacy to assume that reducing or removing "public governance" removes governance per se. Every power vacuum will attract some form of governance, and if it is not accountable to the public via some democratic representative structure, it will be accountable only to more narrow private powers, either monarchy, authoritarian, or nowadays commercial megaliths. There simply *will be* governance of one kind or another in practice, no matter what we do, because there will always be concentrations of collective power of one sort or another that emerge in any political environment. The task is to increase and broaden accountability as much as we can, if one believes in a progressive mission of a fair society for all. This is generally accomplished with formal structures of representation, separation and balance of power, transparency and verifiability in the operation of representative functions, enforcement with enough power to make the trains run but with enough external/balanced oversight to resist corruption, and so forth. Needless to say, we have not perfected this model, maybe we never will. But in the best case we can learn from past mistakes and improve what we have over time, if we indeed have a constituency with some degree of active participation (democracy is not a spectator sport, but the tools of participation must be presented in order for a constituency to engage actively). In the end, what matters more than whether an institution is "public" or "private" is precisely these structures of accountability and how effectively designed and implemented they are in any governance context. So please note, while I've noted that ICANN is a private corporation and not a "government", that is not the primary criticism of the institution. The primary criticism is its lack of formal and effective structures of broad accountability. (It may also be the case that such accountability is rarer in corporate institutions than in public democratic institutions, but these tendencies are of course not absolute and exceptions exist in all domains.) If in fact it were possible to reshape ICANN into an effectively accountable governance structure, then that would be a plausible path to consider. But the structures of governance that ICANN currently has are so far away from effective accountability that it currently seems unlikely that it could be "fixed" enough to provide effective accountability for political domains. Whatever seems most likely to improve accountability in practice (by broadening it and making it more effective), that is what I would favor, myself. Sometimes accountability can be improved (or at least a door opened for subsequent potential improvement) by reducing the jurisdiction of an unaccountable institution. Sometimes accountability can be improved by restructuring existing institutions to reflect more of the structural tools for accountability that we already know can be effective. Sometimes accountability can be improved by shifting jurisdiction to institutions with better structural accountability, or by building new institutions with good structural accountability. I would offer that this might be a useful framework for discussions about IG: - what is the proper domain of IG overall, and what existing institutions have what role in it today (and do they currently extend beyond that domain) - what is the status of accountability of existing institutions involved - what potentials (and precedents) are there for improving accountability of existing institutions, or shifting jurisdiction out of unaccountable institutions (and hopefully into more accountable institutions, but perhaps the former can happen without the latter) - what potentials (and precedents) are there for creating new institutions with better accountability In the ideal, participants would identify what kinds of institutions best perform what functions, and seek to design an overall system where each institution does what it is well-designed to do and has no authority for functions it is not well-designed to perform. This seems to be generally where the FC ideas are aiming as far as I can tell in my short time focusing more on these issues recently, so I look forward to seeing the paper that John et al. are working on. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Apr 23 01:46:00 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:46:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Can governmental powers be limited? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22 apr 2007, at 17.09, Milton Mueller wrote: > I've changed the heading. good if i had read more of the threads before answering i might have done it myself. > >>>> avri at psg.com 04/22/07 4:32 PM >>> >> i have heard this argued before but never understood it. >> it is like saying that putting the fox in charge of the hens >> will limit their power over the hens. governments, those in >> power, have always sought to expand their power over people >> and have ever attempted to minimize the actual influence >> of democracy. > > I recognize the risk of involving governments, but they are already > involved, and becoming more so, so we have no choice about taking that > risk. Yes, like the camel with its nose in the tent, they are in the process of forcing themselves into the process - and if we let them, we will eventually be the ones out in the sand storm. But they do not control it yet, and I just don't see the logic in handing it to them. > > What you are saying is that no government has ever been constrained by > law. Isn't that obviously false? I am saying that no government is ever voluntarily constrained by law. And even when laws are created, they will break them with impunity if allowed to. History shows that governments only allow themselves to be constrained when forced to do so. > > Think of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or > the many examples of European privacy/data protection laws being > used to > stop governmental actions. Recently another attempt to impose content > regulation on the internet was struck down by the supreme court. > That is > governmental power being used against itself; checks and balances. > Where > did those constraints come from? They came from legally binding > governmental agreements (laws). But these things are achieved with great difficulty and are constantly being chipped away at. As I recall it took a revolution to get those amendments, and even then without a cranky individual or two who refused to sign off on the constitution of an incipient state without them, they would not exist. Do you think you could get the current US government to grant it populations such freedoms? (well maybe you could still get the second amendment - gun sales are still supreme) Yes, people have been forcing governments to legislate protection against the governments. And in cases where a government is already in the dominant position there is no choice but to try. But in this case, while there may be the beginnings of government influence, they do not control things yet. I fear that the FC, or any other Inter- government agreement, is capitulation for peace in our time. > > I think in the context of an international negotiation, one that > allows > nonstate actors to participate directly, there is some chance of > imposing direct, strategically placed limits on the possibility of > state > intervention, and getting governments themselves to recognize and > (usually) respect that limitation. Again as beggars at the banquet, they will grant you a few crumbs. > > Again, I am fully aware of the risks of such an approach. But please > tell me, if we don't establish formal limits that governments > themselves > agree to and ratify, how do YOU expect to constrain state > interventions? I do not see them as being in the position of international interference in the core of the Internet now. They are trying and yes, they are gaining ground. But we do not stop them by surrendering to their demands for control. > If you have a better way, I am totally open to it. Really; there's no > "not invented here" syndrome, I just want the result. I think we are already on that path. E.g. ICANN for all its flaws does offer a start and a model of both what works and what doesn't work. And I believe it is better to build/fix on this start then it is to surrender to governments or to try and start something completely new in the same space. I also still have faith that the IGF, with its open structures and completely malleable possibilities can be effectively used to motivate many of the needed changes in existing IG structures and can be used to kick off new processes in other IG areas once we know what they are. And I believe we should be building other bottom up coalitions as necessary. and yes, I believe we should allow representatives from governments and businesses to participate in these coalitions as equals. Basically I think we should build on all that we have instead of throwing it all out and begging governments in a FC to give us a voice. I think it is important to realize an extension to the principle of subsidiarity (which Adam reminded us of in his note). Not only should control be divested to the smallest authority possible, but that often that authority is the individual or affinity groups of individuals. The goal should be for as much of governance as possible to be self governance by the individuals on the network and by the bottom groups they themselves create. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 23 02:01:43 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:31:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070423060214.C8D7B5C58@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi all The discussion on what makes for the legitimate 'constituency' for IG has been very interesting. I think that 'process' discussions on IG need to take this issue seriously, because it indicates and demonstrates the major faultlines in matching the understanding of IG issues by the incumbents, with that of the majority of the world. This issue also demonstrates the power of dominant vocabulary, and that of 'discourse shaping', in political relationships. I have been intrigued by the two terms - 'Internet community' and 'individual user' - which seem to form the basis - logical and ideological ( I know I am repeating this) - of the present IG dispensation. However, most discussions try to ignore this issue, and I cant understand the reason and the basis of it.... We cant speak about participation and accountability etc without recognizing the basic constituencies which we are implying here. I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - what is the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade people directly involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC's - a major player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which is all the people of the world). Without clarifying this, to me it is meaningless to speak about 'Internet community'. Unless the 'insiders' very well understand what is meant here, and they have no patience to describe it to the 'outsiders'. The second term is the 'individual user', which like Internet community, as Michael also has pointed out, occurs often in official IG docs, and is therefore important to clarify. A user based governance structure, as against public interest, and 'social contract'/ citizenship kind, is appropriate for some contexts. For example is appropriate for governing the game of cricket internationally, where the players, fans etc as 'users' are the constituency of the governance system. Such a system was adequate for the early Internet - which was a mutual platform of communication between a set of users. We need to understand that Internet has come a big way since, and is redefining almost every social structure - at global and local levels - in a major way. And each and every person in the world is impacted... the governance systems have not kept up with this change, and mostly refuse to acknowledge this fact. A good part of it is just the natural tendency of people and 'interests' not to give up the power they have. And it is not just about USG, it is also about ICANN, the 'internet community' and such. The definition of 'individual internet user' as the constituency of IG - which certainly is a progression over an 'internet community' constituency - is very problematic. Especially since (1) Internet phenomenon is growing in leaps and bounds by the day, and almost all social systems and structures are impacted, and more will be impacted, and more intensively. Therefore the non-user interest is as important as of the user, if not more. (2) As has been widely acknowledged, the access to use of Internet in various ways gives its users a lot of advantages over non-users in innumerable ways. This sets up a power equation between users and non-users (lets not be completely insensitive to an outer world which is possessed with terms like 'digital divide'), and to that extent the interests of users and present non-users may conflict in many obvious and not-so-obvious ways. So, before we do anything else, about the fairness, appropriateness, accountability etc of IG systems we need to address the basic question. What, and who, are the legitimate constituency of IG (as against what and who presently does)? Without deliberating on this question we may be no different than those who spoke about reforming the formal processes of an 18th century democracy without considering the question of who are excluded from, and included in, in its citizenry - for instance, slaves, and women. And we can be as satisfied and smug that we are promoting democracy and public interest as those 'reformers' would have been. (Remember, in that case as well the logic of 'they cant understand the issues well enough to be able to participate' was used, which I see used in discussing the participation of the laity in IG in many emails on this list itself, and this is quite funny, to say the least.) The 'Internet user' term not only excludes most people from their legitimate right to influence IG, but even among the users, since 'use' is the principal qualifier, it may mean to valorize a more intense user over a low volume/ quality user (and in my understanding of the present IG system, it does mean so, eg, see the preponderance of corporate/ commercial interests). That to me gets implied on preferring this term rather than accepting all people of the world as the legitimate constituency for IG. And in all ways that present IG system works out accentuates this special, and often exclusive, privilege, of some people/ groups/ interests over others. Can we, in the IGC, expressly recognize 'all people of the world, in their various individual and social expressions, in equal representation' as the legitimate constituency of IG? And also make an express statement that IGC sees itself as seeking to represent the interests of this constituency (and not the internet community or the individual internet user, due to the above said definitional issues). I think we need to include it in our charter. In doing so (the recognition of the legitimate constituency for IG, as against the current situation) the IGC will be making an important contribution to IG. We can submit this definition to all IG bodies, including ICANN, to which they should be forced to respond, and make amends as necessary. (Before that, we may need to discuss the concepts of 'internet community', and 'individual internet user' - which are the existing constituent terms the for IG system - among us.) In recognizing the above constituency as the legitimate IG constituency, we DO NOT hand it over to the governments, which I know is the principal fear operating in many minds. Governments have been one form of representing this constituency. There can be and are other forms. For instance, a global civil society has been in existence much before Internet and IG came around. With Internet and the information society, this form of representation, and new forms built over it, becomes even more important. The concept of 'citizenship' has been evolving in terms of global citizenship, in decentralization and (community) self-governance reforms in many countries, in gender discourse etc, and is often in tension with, and in opposition to, a strict, nation state based articulation of citizenship. 'Internet governance and citizenship' debates need to align with these, as also influence them. Keeping a distance from this 'real world', especially when this 'keeping distance' is also seen to be operating in protection of some vested interests, has not done the IG civil society any good. And to reaffirm the principal point of this email, we can't make progress if we are not ready to debate about and explicitly recognize the constituency we are working for, and, trying to represent. 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: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 2:03 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > Then one final response and we can close it off. > > I don't believe I made any material shift, though perhaps we were not > understanding each other initially. > > The core issue of "matey-ness" is precisely the structural complaint about > ICANN's entrance into political domains in the first place, above and > beyond the original technical mandate. I don't see how this could > effectively be improved under the existing structure of ICANN. An MoU is > hardly enough to provide genuine political accountability to any > broad-based constituency. > > So frankly, the best course of action from my point of view would be to > rein in ICANN jurisdiction to non-political matters and get rid of any > need > for political representation whatsoever inside ICANN in the first place. > Then there is no problem of mates, either yours or mine. > > But given that this is not likely to happen quickly if at all (perhaps the > argument will be made by some that there has to be some other political > body to transfer political functions to, but I don't think this at all > necessary in order for ICANN to recuse itself from political > jurisdiction), > the idea is that whatever mates there are inside ICANN will be working > toward their self-selected agendas, and the reality is that the imperfect > system is all that is available at the moment, from the inside. > > I understand how the term might be interpreted as ambiguous, but you're > getting into a pretty arcane (and IMHO spurious) semantic debate. There > would presumably be two ways to parse the term "individual Internet user": > > (1) any "entity" directly using the Internet for "individual use" > (yours?) > (2) an *individual natural person* using the Internet in any direct > manner > (mine) > > Bone of contention: is "individuality" applied to the person or to the > use? > > On the face of it, #2 makes much more common sense to me, in the present > context of political representation for natural persons, however matey and > flawed it may be. ALAC is intended to represent the "at-large community" > and "community" implies "natural persons" to me. The #1 interpretation > seems forced, at best. > > I suppose that there may be no more formal definition of this term, but > I'm > still on a learning curve here so I wouldn't know that for certain. I was > presenting the common sense interpretation, which I assume would be the > preferred one in the absence of any other formal clarification. > > Perhaps in the spirit of "originalism" we ought to track down the actual > people who wrote that phrase and ask them what *they* meant by it. :-) > > Or perhaps the current policy making process inside ICANN can determine > this, in which case I'm sure there will be a substantial constituency for > the #2 interpretation. I would hope that it would be large enough to form > a majority. > > Dan > > > > At 12:31 PM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >(I don't want to belabour this so I'll make my point and close the issue > >as far as my contributions, with the following... > > > >Dan, > > > >You've shifted ground here quite materially... I started this discussion > >by rather innocently asking if there was a formally articulated > >definition for what I considered to be the ambiguous (and potentially > >contentious) term "individual Internet user". That term appears in the > >documents and seems to be a term with some formal significance in the > >ICANN etc. context. > > > >The term used is not as you suggest, "natural persons", which actually I > >probably wouldn't have any problem with since it would I think, > >immediately require (or at least strongly suggest) the need for some > >serious attention being paid to how to achieve "representation" from > >those "natural persons" from whom representation is being sought or to > >whom the opportunity for representation is being offered. > > > >Rather the term used was "individual Internet users" which to my mind > >and nothing I've seen in the discussion so far disabuses me of that > >observation, evokes little more as a definition than ... "me an' my > >mates". > > > >And why does this matter? Well what happens if I'm not one of your > >mates, and I don't really want to be matey or my concern is that being > >"mate-worthy" by your or your mates' definition isn't what should be the > >determiner of who gets to speak and on what issues and in what > >structures in what may be a (or even god forbid, the) major determiner > >of political representation in the future. > > > >MG > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] > >Sent: April 20, 2007 11:49 AM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > > > > > >At 7:03 AM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >>Dan, > >> > >>You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is > >>some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my > >>"agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and > >>significance of this form of political representation is likely to > >>increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it > > > >>continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby > >>and socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to > >>pay... > > > >I definitely concur on wanting to avoid the clubby thing. So, one goal > >here seems to be to make sure the representational process is > >appropriately broad, capturing every natural person who needs to be > >represented without going overboard into the realm of devices. > > > > > > > >>So its important to get some of these things on the table and try to > >>get them right while there is still some (probably remote) possibility > >>of doing that... > >> > >>In this context then we are talking about "political representation" > >>which according to what you have indicated below: > >> 1. consists of "natural persons" whose only realistic mode of > >>identification/verification is via a means which doesn't seem (at least > > > >>to me) to offer any way to determine whether this "natural person" > >>representative is "natural", a sensor, or a dog (q.v. the New > >>Yorker)... > > > >I don't know exactly what modes of ID/verification are available in this > >context. I suppose strictly speaking you haven't yet verified that I am > >not a robot/avatar, unless this exchange qualifies as an instance of the > >Turing Test... However, I am personally acquainted with several others > >on this list, including Robin Gross, Robert Guerra, and Wendy Seltzer. > >;-) > > > > > > > >> 2. is assigned some form of Internet "citizenship" as a result > >of this > >>status but so far one without any definition of what the attendant > >>rights or responsibilities of that citizenship might be apart from the > >>right to make what would appear to be one way complaints to/about ICANN > > > >>(shades of The Castle--Kafka) > > > >I'm still learning about ICANN's representational processes, such as > >they are, but it appears the primary role of the various advisory groups > >and constituencies is precisely to voice opinions about policies and > >practices at ICANN. If many of those opinions are complaints, it is > >probably because there isn't so much time as to constantly compliment > >the things it does right, plus the fact that there is quite obviously > >room for improvement (and one form of improvement may be recusal from > >certain domains of activity). I wouldn't suppose that anyone at ICANN > >thinks it is perfect just yet, even its greatest proponents. Please > >correct me if I'm wrong. > >:-) > > > > > > > >> 3. is based on a form of assigned status/prescribed role (i.e. > >that of > >>the "individual user") which refuses to take account of how that use is > > > >>actually undertaken in the real world (in many cases collaboratively, > >>through dyads, by communities etc.etc.) > >> > >>(Its you who are introducing the nature of definition of "political > >>standing" (Internet use) and then rather than accepting the > >>implications of this (giving politcal standing to who or what is > >>actually undertaking the use), you are interposing what seems to be an > >>ideological bias in insisting that the "users" must be "individuals", > >>when in fact in many instances the "user" is not an "individual" at all > > > >>(except possibly through the for now, artifact of individual > >>keyboarding). > > > >I would contend that my "bias" is not ideological, it is merely > >contextual. > > > >The context (as I understand it) is primarily to design a > >representational process for natural persons. Thus, natural persons are > >the fundamental element of representation here. This is where we start, > >this is our "base set" or "universe/domain" (cf. Norbert's recent > >comments). > > > >We then move on to "which particular policy domain" within the > >natural-person universe: that of Internet policy as it affects those > >natural persons. So we are talking about the subset of all natural > >persons who are somehow involved in using the Internet, however that may > >be. > > > >The *nature* of that "use" seems totally irrelevant to me with regard to > >the question of *what kind of entity* is represented -- it is merely a > >qualifier applied to the original universe/set. Any use that involves > >any natural person and the Internet seems enough to me to qualify the > >natural person as an Internet "user". I see utterly no reason that the > >nature of the use should enter the picture in this particular context > >(the narrow question of standing for representation). The idea here is > >to cast a wide net, to capture *any natural persons who have some direct > >interest in Internet policy* (I suppose: "who are not already captured > >in some other ICANN constituency or advisory group" ... context, > >again). > > > >You may consider this to be "ideological" but I consider it to be > >sensible. At some point, the full universe of natural persons could > >eventually enter the set of representation, because society as a whole > >has an interest in Internet policy as the Internet permeates society > >ever more deeply over time. But for now, it's fair enough to confine > >the set to those natural persons with some direct involvement with the > >Internet, even if only sporadic, collective, etc. Some of those people > >will eventually grow to have more consistent access or more individual > >use, but perhaps only if the right policies are enacted with regard to > >the Internet, so the interest here is not only current but potential. > >Nevertheless, perhaps for now we can step back from the full potential > >which is to represent *all natural persons on the planet* with regard to > >Internet policy. > > > >(Note: Karl's warning about legal persons is well-taken. I am reluctant > >about that idea, but given the realities of current legal paradigms it > >may have to be dealt with somehow. Of course, they could get their own > >separate process of representation without folding into ALAC or NCUC.) > > > > > > > >> 4. I agree with your statements concerning the nature of the > >>relationship between citizenship and poltical representation, the > >>problem is that there really isn't any relationship between the first > >>part of your argument and your second except your evident belief that > >>there is one. > > > >I hope my comments directly above clarify that. > > > > > > > >>All this to say that I don't think that one can build any useful > >>structure of "political representation" on the basis of really vague > >>and ultimately undefinable notions of "individual user" (which seems to > > > >>be an attempt to conflate the notion of "individual user" with Internet > > > >>citizenship). > >> > >>However, that being said, continuing forward and having representation > >>being done by "self-selected individual Internet activists" is probably > > > >>no worse than any other and doesn't preclude the development of some > >>more robust and ultimately democratic structures alongside the current > >>admittedly extremely formative processes. > > > >Maybe it would be better if ICANN didn't even try to do this sort of > >thing in the first place, and left all of the political considerations > >to other forums. I agree that the representational structure currently > >at large at ICANN is clubby and imperfect, and I don't see how that > >could ever be fixed under any model similar to the current one, as ICANN > >is still a private corporation with only the MoU to tie it tenuously to > >any form of genuine political representation in the first place. > > > >So I do agree with your last sentence: Given the current ICANN > >structure, there is no obvious way to create a truly representative > >structure of political representation inside ICANN, and it will > >definitely be self-selecting in many ways (the activists on the > >corporate side are equally self-selected, for example). > > > >So, I see two parallel tracks (as apparently several others here do as > >well, even yourself): > > > > * Inside: use what structure of representation there is currently at > >ICANN to advocate for workable policies and push back against unworkable > >policies, especially in terms of removing political domains from ICANN's > >consideration in the first place. > > > > * Outside: try to put together a genuinely representative political > >structure to deal with the political issues (i.e., IGF, perhaps this > >Framework Convention idea, etc.). > > > >I see more agreement here than disagreement. I hope you understand my > >stance with regard to "Internet users" better now. No need to make > >things more complicated than necessary, as Wendy suggested earlier. > > > >Best, > >Dan > > > > > >> > >>Best, > >> > >>MG > >> > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] > >>Sent: April 19, 2007 8:20 PM > >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > >> > >> > >>At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >>>Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding > >>>the Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance > >>>basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we > > > >>>know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars -- > >>>literally who knows what...) > >> > >>No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not > >>machines). I guess you would have to identify natural persons through > >>some method other than purely net-based functions. But really, there > >>would have to be some process of political representation, because you > >>can't have 6 billion people effectively participating in policy making > >>for a single policy domain. You'd never get through the email. :-) > >> > >> > >> > >> No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules > >>>as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship. > >> > >>Uh, yes exactly: "normal" citizenship. Where did you get the idea that > > > >>it would be anything else? I certainly said nothing of the sort, and I > > > >>don't believe that anything I said implies that. This is precisely the > > > >>point. > >> > >> > >> > >>>Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples > > > >>>which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were > >>>users only because of and through the fact of their relationship to > >>>the > >> > >>>other (and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the > >>>child in the one instance and the other members of the community in > >>>the > >> > >>>other case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users" > >>>makes little or no sense since the "individual user" in those > >>>instances > >> > >>>is defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative. > >> > >>I wholly disagree that "use" and "user" define the same entities. If > >>an individual person is making use of the Internet, even totally in > >>collaboration with others, how is that person not involved in using the > > > >>Internet? The use determines whether the person is in or out of the > >>domain, but the political standing is still given to the individual > >>person, because individual people enter into political representational > > > >>processes. > >> > >> > >> > >>>And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis > >>>of participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to > >>>take fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would > >>>probably argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are > >>>being made and thus the basis of the participation that they would in > >>>fact wish to > >> > >>>make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual". > >> > >>The policy must certainly take into account the nature of use. The > >>political standing need not. The point is about individual standing, > >>not type of use. All users should have individual political standing, > >>regardless of the nature of their use. > >> > >> > >> > >>>And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against) > >>>"organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing > >>>highly culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain > > > >>>probably diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long > >>>term > >> > >>>more significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and > >>>universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in > >>>Internet policy making". > >> > >>It's not a "culturally specific notion of individualism" -- it is a > >>context specific definition, relevant to the context of identifying > >>"citizenship" standing in a process of human political representation. > >>In politics, natural persons have standing. (Maybe "legal persons" > >>also have standing, but I am not aware that any avatars, robots or > >>other non-sentient systems are legal persons, etc. As Wendy said, when > > > >>we get there, we can deal with it then. So far there is no "Star Trek > >>Lt. Commander Data" to prompt the legal clarification.) > >> > >>Dan > >> > >>PS -- I have to confess, I don't fully understand the confusion here, > >>unless there is an unspoken agenda that I am not yet aware of. > >> > >> > >> > >>>MG > >>> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] > >>>Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM > >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > >>> > >>> > >>>Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when > >>>working collaboratively, I would think. They each individually have > >>>an interest in their use (both collective and individual) of the > >>>Internet. > >>> > >>>Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts"). Even > >>>when use is collective, users are individuals. > >>> > >>>For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual > >>>users. And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an > >>>individual account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the > > > >>>Internet, that does not preclude the person from being an individual > >>>user. > >>> > >>>This is a qualitative question, not quantitative. The goal is not to > >>>estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the > >>>functional components of the Internet system. > >>> > >>>The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate > >>>in policy making processes, surrounding the Internet. > >>> > >>>Context shapes categorization. > >>> > >>>Dan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >>>>In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a > >>>>homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the > >>>>family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of > >>>>acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging > >>>>a > >> > >>>>well for the collective benefit of the community. > >>>> > >>>>MG > >>>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > >>>>Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM > >>>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid > >>>>> then > >>>> > >>>>> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in > >>>>> fact is more or less without content as it could either mean > >>>>> anyone, > >> > >>>>> since > >>> > >>>>> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet > >>>>> surfer (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any > >>>>> judgements > >>> > >>>>> in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of > >>>>> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of > >>>>representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to > >>>>participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as > >>>>an > >>> > >>>>ISOC chapter to have a say. > >>>> > >>>>I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are > >>>>you perhaps confusing users with email accounts? > >>>> > >>>>jeanette > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>(individuals as collectives > >>>>> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of > > > >>>>> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as > >>>>> collections > >>> > >>>>> of individuals etc.etc.). > >>>>> > >>>>> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is > >>>>> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion > >>>>> of > >> > >>>>> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and > >>>>> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some > >>>>> other > >> > >>>>> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet > >>>>> governance be formulated. > >>>>> > >>>>> MG > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>>>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of > >>>>> Jacob > >>>> > >>>>> Malthouse > >>>>> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM > >>>>> To: NA Discuss > >>>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: http://alac.icann.org/ > >>>>> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for > >>>>> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet > >>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate > >>>>> to > >>>> > >>>>> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" > >>>>> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with > > > >>>>> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain > >>>>> name > >> > >>>>> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting > >>>>> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and > >>>>> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. > >>>>> > >>>>> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ > >>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil > >>>>> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting > >>>>> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops > >>>>> and > >>> > >>>>> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication > >>>>> and > >>> > >>>>> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of > >>>>> ICANN Board members. > >>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>To be removed from the list, 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 > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, 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:2676,46290b8f273386332510249! > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Apr 23 02:40:52 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:40:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <20070423060214.C8D7B5C58@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070423060214.C8D7B5C58@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - what > is the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade people > directly involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC’s – a major > player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current > Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which is > all the people of the world). The last option is too broad to be meaningful. My understanding of the Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. In saying this I don't disagree that the interests of non-users need to be taken into account in certain IG issue areas that impact them, particularly development. This favours the inclusion of all stakeholders including civil society and governments rather than just Internet users, in fora relevant to those issues, such as the IGF. But it does not count for the inclusion of non-users in all IG fora, because there are many issue areas that will be simply irrelevant to them. I can't imagine why non-users would generally need to be consulted by the IETF, for example. By the same token, Internet users have no need to be represented in development fora. > *Can we, in the IGC, expressly recognize ‘all people of the world, in > their various individual and social expressions, in equal > representation’ as the legitimate constituency of IG? *And also make an > express statement that IGC sees itself as seeking to represent the > interests of this constituency (and not the internet community or the > individual internet user, due to the above said definitional issues). I'm not sure that I could support that as a blanket statement. The stakeholders impacted by an IG issue, and therefore entitled to be heard in respect of it, will vary from one case to another. However in many, perhaps most issue areas, existing Internet users will be the most directly affected and thus have the strongest claim to be heard. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Apr 23 04:16:24 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:16:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 4/22/07 10:44 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > years). I've seen many an ICT policy issue come and go, and believe me > the global governance arrangements around Internet and other ICTs are > extremely meaty and no flash in the pan. Maybe to you it was no more > than a passing wave to be caught, but not me. >>>> jovank at diplomacy.edu 04/22/07 12:37 PM >>> > You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments > worldwide > (if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most > important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003, > when IG > was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. > > Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral damage" > of > the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In the US, When I first read Jovan's message, I like Milton thought, how the hell could he say this? International policy debates and action on IG significantly predated WSIS, didn't stop when WSIS ended, and will continue far into the future. And the issues that divide governments and other stakeholders internationally, not just on names and numbers but the whole host of IG topics---IPR, security, civil liberties, e-commerce, etc--can't be reduced to anti-Bush/American/war sentiment. But perhaps there's a simple way to square the two views. What WSIS did was temporarily push IG up the agendas of general foreign policy, so we got Condi Rice writing letters and so on, and foreign ministries and people from the UN missions here in Geneva who'd never worked on IG per se suddenly were spending time and energy on it. Now that the 'threat' of a 'UN takeover of core resources' and other WSIS-related buzz has subsided and the focus has shifted back to the internal processes of the various specialized IG mechanisms, the issues have moved back down the bureaucratic chain within governments to the agencies/ministries that are normally tasked with global ICT policy. They continue to negotiate with their counterparts in the relevant forums, but without the nominal prospect of something big happening, there's less buzz and the UN mission people are back in business as usual mode. So I could agree with Jovan if we reformulated "IG is no longer on the radars of governments worldwide" as "IG has for the time being moved from being 'high politics' attracting generalists in foreign ministries and agitating the press and others back to being 'low politics.' involving specialists in ministries of communication, the US Dept. of Commerce, etc." Still on the radar, but different. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 23 04:50:36 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:20:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people In-Reply-To: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Jeremy Our differences come from a basically different way we look at the Internet - its reality, and impact on the world around us today. A recent EU document called ICTs as 'constitutive' of the present day reality (more so, emerging) but you still seem to see it as a relatively neutral platform of communication among a set of users who are adequate to be represented on IG structures. > > player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current > > Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which is > > all the people of the world). > > The last option is too broad to be meaningful. WTO and WIPO, as much as convention on climate change etc etc, notwithstanding over-representation of some sectional interests, are still able to proceed on the basic plank that their specific governance system impact all people of the world, and all of them are (equally) its constituency... Why cant IG do it as well. Why is the 'last option' too broad to be meaningful for IG... WTO could also say, it is about traders and companies in different countries, and NOT all people. Anybody in the WTO arena would consider it a naïve view. To give some extreme illustrations I can point to literature which analyzes how WTO activities impact gender distribution of domestic roles in villages of, say, Bangladesh. And how, consequently, poor women groups have been articulating opinions in and about WTO. Nobody asks them what are they doing there since they are not direct 'users' of the trade system. >My understanding of the > Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. Good we got into this discussion, because too often you and I agree on many things on the IGC list :) but this shows how we disagree at more basic levels. To illustrate by personal example, I myself have great interest in IG as you can see. I almost entirely speak for the interests for the present non-users (and some indirect users). So, if non-users aren’t an equally legitimate constituency in IG, by your reckoning I just shouldn’t be here. At the very least, this proves we have strong difference about what we all are doing in IG fora. > But it does not count for the inclusion of non-users in all IG fora, > because there are many issue areas that will be simply irrelevant to > them. I can't imagine why non-users would generally need to be > consulted by the IETF, for example. The biggest confusion (and energy sapper) on this list is this going back and forth between technical admin functions, and public policy issues around IG. And our charter puts it very clearly that we are here basically about the public policy issues. And in case of public policy issues around IG I think it is easier to see equal legitimacy of users and (present) non-users (who are also indirect 'users') > By the same token, Internet users > have no need to be represented in development fora. The ease with which you construct two different worlds (even if hypothetically)- one of 'internet users' and other of 'development' is in fact quite disturbing. > I'm not sure that I could support that as a blanket statement. The > stakeholders impacted by an IG issue, and therefore entitled to be heard > in respect of it, will vary from one case to another. However in many, > perhaps most issue areas, existing Internet users will be the most > directly affected and thus have the strongest claim to be heard. You are sticking to the users based governance systems which I argued is appropriate in some contexts but not in that of internet related public polices, and have not engaged with the limitation of such a system vis a vis public interest/ citizenship/ social contract based systems, which, I argued, are more appropriate to Internet related issues that are so fundamentally transforming our world. It is not difficult to see how difference between user and non-user interests work out. To give a simplistic example, most users on Internet today use roman characters. Most non-users don’t use roman characters. ICANN is often accused of going slow on multilingual DNs. The WSIS system where non-users had relatively better representation brought this (among others) issue in greater focus. Consequently ICANN is moving faster on multi-lingual DNs. (I am only using this issue as an example, and not starting a discussion on the facts of the issue here.) So, you tell me whether the issue whether multilingual DNs are admitted or not affect present non-users. This is only one small illustration, everything that we do about internet governance - the very nature and principles of such governance, issues of content, of public domain versus propriety interests, of security issues... just everything affects all people of the world. And it is important see all of them as equal constituents of any legitimate Internet governance/ policy system. It is partly because of this 'Internet user' terminology that ICANN is able to self-justify itself on accountability etc because it itself tries to develop representation structures based on the 'user' logic, and is able to justify shying away from the IGC where all kinds of people come up to question ICANN. (not saying that it is an adequate justification, but that this kind of thinking of a user based governance system works in ICANN's mind when it justifies staying away from more broadly representative IGF kind of arenas.) 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: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:11 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the > people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) > > Parminder wrote: > > I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - what > > is the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade people > > directly involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC’s – a major > > player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current > > Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which is > > all the people of the world). > > The last option is too broad to be meaningful. My understanding of the > Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. > > In saying this I don't disagree that the interests of non-users need to > be taken into account in certain IG issue areas that impact them, > particularly development. This favours the inclusion of all > stakeholders including civil society and governments rather than just > Internet users, in fora relevant to those issues, such as the IGF. > > But it does not count for the inclusion of non-users in all IG fora, > because there are many issue areas that will be simply irrelevant to > them. I can't imagine why non-users would generally need to be > consulted by the IETF, for example. By the same token, Internet users > have no need to be represented in development fora. > > > *Can we, in the IGC, expressly recognize ‘all people of the world, in > > their various individual and social expressions, in equal > > representation’ as the legitimate constituency of IG? *And also make an > > express statement that IGC sees itself as seeking to represent the > > interests of this constituency (and not the internet community or the > > individual internet user, due to the above said definitional issues). > > I'm not sure that I could support that as a blanket statement. The > stakeholders impacted by an IG issue, and therefore entitled to be heard > in respect of it, will vary from one case to another. However in many, > perhaps most issue areas, existing Internet users will be the most > directly affected and thus have the strongest claim to be heard. > > -- > 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Apr 23 05:24:21 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:24:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Milton, Too many threads, too little time... On 4/22/07 10:54 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > OK, Adam. I'll bite. > > As a first proposition, I would reiterate something I said ten days ago, > and which received a couple expressions of support (and no direct > opposition I can recall): > >> 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?" I responded a couple weeks ago when Parminder included this in a three part proposal, didn't know the language originated with you. I think it's too broadly formulated as is, and that a plenary session on this would go all over the place. But if you can elaborate something something more internally differentiated and tractable, then the mAG would have a more plausible proposal to reject, and you'd have the basis for a good workshop proposal. In a similar vein, we might want to consider including for rejection another call for a discussion on the IGF's mandate. Below for reference are what Vittorio included on this in the statement for the February consultation, and the longer bit I drafted pre-Athens before we decided that a caucus statement to an actual forum meeting would be inappropriate. Anyone still interested in this, or no? BD -------- Feb. 2007 Consultation submission We think that this 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, commas (f) and (i) require 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. Fall 2006 draft The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance processes. These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. But while governments and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, they also cannot be performed by annual conferences that largely consist of presentations by invited speakers. We therefore would welcome an opportunity for open dialogue with other participants on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 23 06:08:58 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:38:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070423100906.B17F75D62@smtp2.electricembers.net> Bill/ Milton If IGC is at all going to propose themes for plenary sessions during May consultation, there are three possibilities. One, go by the inanely broad themes like access, openness etc. Two, go with clear public policy issues that most people seem to be concerned with today in the IG arena, but still keep the themes broad enough for there to be a chance of their acceptance (or at least not being rejected on the simple argument that it is just too specific a position for a plenary). I had proposed three such themes in an earlier email that is enclosed. These are (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 I very much agree that a fourth one on the 'mandate and role of IGF' should also be included. Third option is as Bill suggests, making the theme issue even more specific. I understand that would be like listing the plenary themes specifically in terms of, say, the 'enhanced cooperation' issue. I will welcome such a thing. But I think that would allow MAG to too easily reject the proposal. With the theme mentioned in a broader way, there still is a small chance. Or at least we can argue for it righteously, as far as it goes. Another point, I think at these consultations we need only to give our preferences for plenary themes (among other things) with some justification. and it isnt the time to write out an actual proposal - as Milton and also Bill speaks about. Or am I getting it wrong. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:54 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and > advisory group meeting please > > Hi Milton, > > Too many threads, too little time... > > On 4/22/07 10:54 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > > > OK, Adam. I'll bite. > > > > As a first proposition, I would reiterate something I said ten days ago, > > and which received a couple expressions of support (and no direct > > opposition I can recall): > > > >> 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?" > > I responded a couple weeks ago when Parminder included this in a three > part > proposal, didn't know the language originated with you. I think it's too > broadly formulated as is, and that a plenary session on this would go all > over the place. But if you can elaborate something something more > internally differentiated and tractable, then the mAG would have a more > plausible proposal to reject, and you'd have the basis for a good workshop > proposal. > > In a similar vein, we might want to consider including for rejection > another > call for a discussion on the IGF's mandate. Below for reference are what > Vittorio included on this in the statement for the February consultation, > and the longer bit I drafted pre-Athens before we decided that a caucus > statement to an actual forum meeting would be inappropriate. Anyone still > interested in this, or no? > > BD > -------- > > Feb. 2007 Consultation submission > > We think that this 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, commas (f) and (i) require 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. > > Fall 2006 draft > > The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any > existing > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and > other > institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of > information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; > strengthen > and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future > Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing > countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance > in > developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the > embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder > participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance > processes. > > These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be > performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. But while > governments > and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, they also cannot be > performed by annual conferences that largely consist of presentations by > invited speakers. We therefore would welcome an opportunity for open > dialogue with other participants on how the IGF could fulfill these and > other elements of its mandate. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] who does "public policy" then? Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:23:05 +0530 Size: 23787 URL: From jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Apr 23 06:15:02 2007 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:15:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] A few reflections on the Framework Convention In-Reply-To: <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <0b1501c78590$42e5f4e0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Quite an interesting exchange on the Framework Convention! Sorry for posting this message out of the discussion sync. Here are a few points. I share Bill's concern about using analogies with other regimes (mainly climate change and tobacco). Analogies are usually tricky. They highlight commonalities and hide differences. One useful logical exercise could be to make an "analogy map" showing both commonalities and differences. I won't repeat commonalities which were already mentioned by John, Miltion, Lee and others. Instead, I will mention a few differences or specificities of IG. 1. What should the FC regulate? The FC shares the destiny of the field it should regulate - Internet Governance. It is difficult to define. Other framework conventions have a clearly defined regulatory area (issue to be addressed). For example, the Climate Change FC does not regulate the environment in general. Article 2 clearly defines the single issue to be addressed: ".... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system....." The framework convention approach is used for specific purposes - e.g. to avoid controversial issues in the first iteration (building trust), to allow more time to negotiate technically complex issues. The conventions are not vague about the subject of negotiations. One could think about an FC on spam or Internet infrastructure, but not on IG in general. It seems that the main argument for the IG FC is driven by form/procedure, not by the issues to be addressed. This was not the case with climate change and tobacco/smoking conventions. One possible way to make a reality check is to draft the basic elements of the FC on IG (we can use a WIKI for drafting purposes). Once faced with "paper" we can see if the FC will be "worth the paper it is written on." 2. Is the FC on IG the only way to integrate IG into international public law (e.g. relations among countries)? There is a wide spectrum of possible techniques apart from treaties/conventions. Various "soft law" techniques have been extensively discussed. Even in the realm of "hard law" one can argue that international customary rule guarantees national states rights over country domains. We can find many examples to support the following two criterions for establishing international customary rules: - on-going practice (the re-delegation process has put many countries in charge of country domains); - opinion iuris (awareness that practice is legally binding) can be supported by one of the US-government principles from June 2005 (unilateral declarations are a source of international law as well) as well as by the WSIS final documents. What is the practical relevance of the international customary law? If a country's right over country domain is infringed, the country can bring the case to the International Court of Justice and prove the existence of the customary law rule. (In order not to oversimplify, I have to stress that the establishment of the ICJ jurisdiction requires some pre-requisites - country's readiness to accept ICJ's jurisdiction, etc.). As a matter of fact, one can argue that one of the most controversial issue of the IG debate - national control of country domain - has been already settled (quietly, with necessary "face saving" mechanisms). Some UN declaration may help in reinforcing this customary rule, but the FC on IG would be overkill. 3. Multistakeholderism The major difference between negotiations regarding Internet Governance (narrow definition) and other global negotiations, such as climate change negotiations, is that, while in other negotiations, inter-governmental regimes gradually opened to non-governmental players, in Internet governance negotiations, governments had to enter an already existing non-governmental, ICANN-based regime. I am not sure that the FC can be the most suitable means for reflecting this substantive difference. There are other aspects. time and "ripeness" for negotiations which have been already discussed. This is all for this iteration. I hope it will contribute to more informed discussion. Best, Jovan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Apr 23 06:31:55 2007 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:31:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Triangular and Variable Geometry in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <0b2401c78592$9f55fac0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Dear Wolfgang, I agree that a flexible governance framework is one of the most likely developments in the field of IG. It is the only way to accommodate diversity of issues and players. While states formally stuck to "Westphalia," they accepted the reality of the need to involve other actors through informal practice (you mentioned in a few articles the practice of "revolving doors" and "stop-and-go"). Increasingly prominent views suggest that we are gradually returning to the "pre-Westphalia" tendency of overlapping and sometimes competing authorities. One of signals of challenges to "Westphalia" is the emergence of "variable geometry" governance mechanisms in international affairs. I was surprised to discover numerous examples of "variable geometry." Some of them reflect power and responsibility (Security Council veto powers). Others reflect financial power (IMF/WB). Still others were invented to help weaker countries (WTO, Rio environmental principle of common but differentiated responsibility). Others reflect specific interests (commodity treaties - timber-Brazil). The list can continue. The challenge of IG is to combine "variable geometry" and multistakeholderism. How can we involve different actors in discussion on different issues in different capacities? At times, the "triangular model" may need to be extended (ICANN: governments, business, civil society, international organisations, technologists/Internet community,.). Last February, in Malta, Bertrand and I tried to draft some ideas by applying the TCP/IP analogy to IG. I will try to dig it out. Bertrand, if you have that draft, please contribute. We can organise a half- or one-day discussion on "variable geometry' and IG in late May (before or after the IGF). I have been discussing this issue with a few professors from HEI and the University of Geneva, whom we may invite. Please let me know if there is an interest for this type of discussion. Best, Jovan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 23 07:06:53 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:06:53 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Can governmental powers be limited? References: <37350BBB-02CA-4736-A2CC-B1BC39CD74CE@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list, Another five cents to the stimulating debate: When Montesquieu and others developed the theory of the seperation of power to counter the absolutist power regime of the monarchies at this time, the argument was that the decision making power should be distributed to avoid misuse of absolute power and to have instruments to correct wrong decisions. In the late 1980s, when we changed the German Democratic Republic, there was a discussion about the "measurement of democracy". One proposed method was to meter the distance between the main powers: Parliament, Government, Judiciary and the Press. If you have long distances among the four powers, you have a high level of democracy. The level of democracy goes down if distances are narrowed. And if the parliament follows was the government says and if the courts decide and the press writes what the government wants - as it was the case in the German Democratic Republic - you have a dictatorship. What we can learn from this for Internet Governance? Decentralize power. What we need is a new Montesquieu for the Internet, a more detailed seperation of powers. The Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism (or as Vint has labeled it the "Grand Collaboration") will work only on such a seperation of powers. Nobody has a decisions making capacity for the system as a whole, only for some parts. In some areas governments keep their decision making power, in other parts non-governmental stakeholders decide on their own premises. This is a step in the right direction. But it can go much further down the road. With regard to ICANN, would it make sense to decentralize further the relevant decision making power? Why not to give decision making capacity to SOs? Or to ACs? If decisons are made by GNSO and CNSO (and others, the main challenge for the Board would be stimulate communication amonf the differetn decision making bodies and, where needed "to coordinate". Best 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 23 07:16:08 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:16:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> (veni@veni.com) References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070423111608.2BBAAAD053@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > 1. The IGP (and similar projects, I call them IGPs) exist only because a > discussion on IG exists. [..] > 3. People are building their careers around the Internet Governance; > therefore the subject will not disappear - ever. It's a process, which those > people have interest to continue as long as it is possible. > 4. ICANN is the only working organization in the field; Huh? I very strongly disagree with the claim that "ICANN is the only working organization in the field" of Internet Governance. As far as I can see, that claim is not true for any reasonable definition of "Internet Governance" that I can think of. 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 veni at veni.com Mon Apr 23 08:47:15 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:47:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Framework convention In-Reply-To: <20070423111608.2BBAAAD053@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> <20070423111608.2BBAAAD053@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20070423130945.1BF99335A99@mxr.isoc.bg> Hi, Norbert, At 13:16 4/23/2007 +0200, you wrote: >I very strongly disagree with the claim that "ICANN is the only >working organization in the field" of Internet Governance. > >As far as I can see, that claim is not true for any reasonable >definition of "Internet Governance" that I can think of. Perhaps you haven't seen this one: Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. You can read it at http://wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html best, veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 23 09:42:32 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:42:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ICANN the only IG org??? (was Re: Framework Convention) In-Reply-To: <20070423130945.1BF99335A99@mxr.isoc.bg> (message from Veni Markovski on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:47:15 -0400) References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> <20070423111608.2BBAAAD053@quill.bollow.ch> <20070423130945.1BF99335A99@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070423134232.4C6D9AD057@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > Hi, Norbert, > At 13:16 4/23/2007 +0200, you wrote: > > >I very strongly disagree with the claim that "ICANN is the only > >working organization in the field" of Internet Governance. > > > >As far as I can see, that claim is not true for any reasonable > >definition of "Internet Governance" that I can think of. > > Perhaps you haven't seen this one: > > Internet governance is the development and application by > Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their > respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making > procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. > > You can read it at http://wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html I've been using that definition for a long time. Certainly you can't be claiming that no-one besides ICANN is woking in the field of the development and/or application of "shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet" ??? 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Apr 23 09:46:07 2007 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:46:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Third Estate - Fourth Estate - Fifth Estate? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <37350BBB-02CA-4736-A2CC-B1BC39CD74CE@maxwell.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <0b8d01c785ad$bffe77f0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Dear Wolfgang, There is an interesting evolution from Montesquieu’s trias politica. As usual, he was not as innovative as it has been attributed. The concept of THREE ESTATES already existed in the Middle Ages (the Clergy, the Nobility and the Peasantry) in order to control absolute power (not as absolute as usually perceived). To Burke/Hunt “FOURTH ESTATE” (recently revitalized by Archer’s novel) consisting of the three estates + press . To The concept of “FIFTH ESTATE” which was recently proposed by Dr. Nayef Al-Rodham from the Geneva Center of Security Policy. He analyzed policy aspects of blogs and provided quite convincing arguments that blogs can be considered the “Fifth Estate”. His book contains an in-depth analysis of the international policy and security aspects of blog development. I think that the PDF-version will be available soon (the book is currently accessible at http//www.gcsp.ch). If you find this concept interesting we can try to organise a discussion with Dr. Al-Rodham in late May. The book also contains some reflections about bloggers as a possible policy constituency (link to other discussion threads on Internet users/community). In sum, checks and balances must be in-built, but I think that we have to move beyond the good old “trinity’. Best, Jovan -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 13:07 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; John Mathiason; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller Subject: AW: [governance] Can governmental powers be limited? Dear list, Another five cents to the stimulating debate: When Montesquieu and others developed the theory of the seperation of power to counter the absolutist power regime of the monarchies at this time, the argument was that the decision making power should be distributed to avoid misuse of absolute power and to have instruments to correct wrong decisions. In the late 1980s, when we changed the German Democratic Republic, there was a discussion about the "measurement of democracy". One proposed method was to meter the distance between the main powers: Parliament, Government, Judiciary and the Press. If you have long distances among the four powers, you have a high level of democracy. The level of democracy goes down if distances are narrowed. And if the parliament follows was the government says and if the courts decide and the press writes what the government wants - as it was the case in the German Democratic Republic - you have a dictatorship. What we can learn from this for Internet Governance? Decentralize power. What we need is a new Montesquieu for the Internet, a more detailed seperation of powers. The Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism (or as Vint has labeled it the "Grand Collaboration") will work only on such a seperation of powers. Nobody has a decisions making capacity for the system as a whole, only for some parts. In some areas governments keep their decision making power, in other parts non-governmental stakeholders decide on their own premises. This is a step in the right direction. But it can go much further down the road. With regard to ICANN, would it make sense to decentralize further the relevant decision making power? Why not to give decision making capacity to SOs? Or to ACs? If decisons are made by GNSO and CNSO (and others, the main challenge for the Board would be stimulate communication amonf the differetn decision making bodies and, where needed "to coordinate". Best 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 23 09:49:13 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:49:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please Message-ID: Parminder: Forgive me for missing the original email. Your three proposals are good ideas, they would need a bit more work but I agree that what IGC needs to do now is put forward simple recommendations to the MAG and the IGF Secretariat, and _not_ get bogged down in wordsmithing and long explanations which only detract from the main thrust. For example, people who don't want to talk explicitly about ICANN in the Forum will oppose #2) no matter how it is written and what it says, so let's not waste a lot of time debating how it is phrased or elaborated. One thing I would point out is that one of your proposals (3), corresponds to the general "access" theme. I would reformulate it as follows: "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access." If Bill can come up with an equally concise description of his "conformity to Geneva WSIS principles" idea then we can add a fourth. >>> parminder at itforchange.net 4/23/2007 6:08:58 AM >>> (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 I very much agree that a fourth one on the 'mandate and role of IGF' should also be included. Third option is as Bill suggests, making the theme issue even more specific. I understand that would be like listing the plenary themes specifically in terms of, say, the 'enhanced cooperation' issue. I will welcome such a thing. But I think that would allow MAG to too easily reject the proposal. With the theme mentioned in a broader way, there still is a small chance. Or at least we can argue for it righteously, as far as it goes. Another point, I think at these consultations we need only to give our preferences for plenary themes (among other things) with some justification. and it isnt the time to write out an actual proposal - as Milton and also Bill speaks about. Or am I getting it wrong. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:54 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and > advisory group meeting please > > Hi Milton, > > Too many threads, too little time... > > On 4/22/07 10:54 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > > > OK, Adam. I'll bite. > > > > As a first proposition, I would reiterate something I said ten days ago, > > and which received a couple expressions of support (and no direct > > opposition I can recall): > > > >> 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?" > > I responded a couple weeks ago when Parminder included this in a three > part > proposal, didn't know the language originated with you. I think it's too > broadly formulated as is, and that a plenary session on this would go all > over the place. But if you can elaborate something something more > internally differentiated and tractable, then the mAG would have a more > plausible proposal to reject, and you'd have the basis for a good workshop > proposal. > > In a similar vein, we might want to consider including for rejection > another > call for a discussion on the IGF's mandate. Below for reference are what > Vittorio included on this in the statement for the February consultation, > and the longer bit I drafted pre-Athens before we decided that a caucus > statement to an actual forum meeting would be inappropriate. Anyone still > interested in this, or no? > > BD > -------- > > Feb. 2007 Consultation submission > > We think that this 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, commas (f) and (i) require 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. > > Fall 2006 draft > > The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any > existing > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and > other > institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of > information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; > strengthen > and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future > Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing > countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance > in > developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the > embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder > participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance > processes. > > These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be > performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. But while > governments > and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, they also cannot be > performed by annual conferences that largely consist of presentations by > invited speakers. We therefore would welcome an opportunity for open > dialogue with other participants on how the IGF could fulfill these and > other elements of its mandate. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Apr 23 10:05:52 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:05:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Triangular and Variable Geometry in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <0b2401c78592$9f55fac0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> References: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> <0b2401c78592$9f55fac0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Message-ID: <954259bd0704230705i503afb89o872d961a20255fd6@mail.gmail.com> Jovan, you wrote : "Last February, in Malta, Bertrand and I tried to draft some ideas by applying the TCP/IP analogy to IG. I will try to dig it out. Bertrand, if you have that draft, please contribute." Thanks for remembring the discussion in Malta on that idea. Unfortunately I do not have the notes handy. Will try to dig them out but might be complicated. Still, I have been thinking a bit further since then on that track. The notion of an Internet Governance Protocol (or set of protocols) could allow distributed and heterogeneous Governance frameworks to interoperate as a unified Global Internet Governance Architecture. It would serve the same purpose as the TCP/IP protocol that allowed heterogeneous networks to operate as a single one, the Internet, or the HTTP and HTML Protocols that allowed, in the very terms of Tim Berners Lee : "every information syctem to look like it is part of an imaginary information system anyone can read". Would be very happy to explore it further with you and others that might be interested. A more general remark : moving beyond the "Westphalian" approach requires what could be called a political paradigm shift (expression taken as an analogy with Thomas Kuhn's scientific paradigm shifts in his famous "The structure of scientific revolutions"). In the present case, from equal absolute sovereignty of nation-states to multi-stakeholder governance. Interestingly enough, some scientific paradigm shifts are exclusive (like the Copernican paradigm fully displaced the Ptolemaic one) but others are what I would call "extending" ones : relativity or quantum physics extended under specific conditions the traditional newtonian mechanics. The latter remains valid in everyday applications, much slower than the speed of light or much larger than the atomic scale. The importance of the analogy is that the political paradigm shift towards multi-stakeholder governance is likely to be of the second form : existing governance frameworks (including national structures) remain fully valid for traditional issues that are geography-bounded; but in order to address issues - like Internet Governance - that are particularly transnational, multi-stakeholder, multi-level and non linear, the multi-stakeholder paradigm will progressively enhance the present tools and introduce means to involve other actors than the governments. This includes, as Avri and Karl have mentionned, individuals, who should have the right to participate, in an appropriate manner, in the governance processes dealing with the issues they are concerned with or impacted by. Finally, the Global Internet Governance Architecture, however it may structure itself in the end, is likely to ultimately emerge from the progressive acceptance by a growing number of structures and organizations of a common operational protocol. Like the Internet and the World Wide Web did. Rather a peaceful evolution than a violent revolution, but ultimately a tidal wave nonetheless. I just hope we all succeed in designing the system so that evry boat (ie : every category of stakeholder) gets in the end a better opportunity than today to have a positve influence and jointly solve the challenges we all face. What is at stake is not certain categories of stakeholder to the exclusion of the others - or one other - but ther respective roles and responsibilities each can play in addressing the technical, social, economic and political dimensions of a given issue. Best Bertrand On 4/23/07, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > Dear Wolfgang, > > I agree that a flexible governance framework is one of the most likely > developments in the field of IG. It is the only way to accommodate > diversity > of issues and players. While states formally stuck to "Westphalia," they > accepted the reality of the need to involve other actors through informal > practice (you mentioned in a few articles the practice of "revolving > doors" > and "stop-and-go"). Increasingly prominent views suggest that we are > gradually returning to the "pre-Westphalia" tendency of overlapping and > sometimes competing authorities. > > One of signals of challenges to "Westphalia" is the emergence of "variable > geometry" governance mechanisms in international affairs. I was surprised > to > discover numerous examples of "variable geometry." Some of them reflect > power and responsibility (Security Council veto powers). Others reflect > financial power (IMF/WB). Still others were invented to help weaker > countries (WTO, Rio environmental principle of common but differentiated > responsibility). Others reflect specific interests (commodity treaties - > timber-Brazil). The list can continue. > > The challenge of IG is to combine "variable geometry" and > multistakeholderism. How can we involve different actors in discussion on > different issues in different capacities? At times, the "triangular model" > may need to be extended (ICANN: governments, business, civil society, > international organisations, technologists/Internet community,.). > > Last February, in Malta, Bertrand and I tried to draft some ideas by > applying the TCP/IP analogy to IG. I will try to dig it out. Bertrand, if > you have that draft, please contribute. > > We can organise a half- or one-day discussion on "variable geometry' and > IG > in late May (before or after the IGF). I have been discussing this issue > with a few professors from HEI and the University of Geneva, whom we may > invite. Please let me know if there is an interest for this type of > discussion. > > > Best, Jovan > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 Mon Apr 23 10:53:56 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:53:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] A few reflections on the Framework Convention In-Reply-To: <0b1501c78590$42e5f4e0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> References: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> <0b1501c78590$42e5f4e0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Message-ID: <954259bd0704230753y53d5e7a3je63266d0d6855c05@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Following the discussion on the Framework Convention and recalling the workshope in Athens on that subject, one of the problems people raise is the term Convention - as it seems to imply a traditional intergovernmental discussion and this runs contrary to the multi-stakeholder approach that has been sanctionned by the WSIS in Tunis. In any case, there is no apparent benefit in making the notion of a Convention a prerequisite for moving forward : it is a perfectly legitimate option to formalize an Internet Governance Framework, but one among many. Other terms may apply (Agreement, MOU, Charter, Bill of rights, Covenant, etc...) and we could even create one. On the other hand, the term framework is a nice general term, at least for the time being, encompassing very different aspects of how Internet Governance should be organized. It accomodates those who want highly formalized or even centralized structures and those who would like a distibuted system with simple rules.It basically deals with the Principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures for Internet Governance itself, ie its institutional architecture. In that respect, one can argue that and Internet Governance Framework already exists, defined by history, documents and practices, including (without priority order) : - the WSIS documents, including all their relevant paragraphs on Internet Governance - a few principles, norms and rules, sometimes implicit sometimes explicit (as Don MacLean outlined in one of his presentations; see : http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/events/details.cfm?id=4) - the three main existing organizations : including ICANN, ITU and now the new IGF, with their respective bylaws, mandates and charters) - plus numerous other organizations dealing with Internet -related issues, intergovernmental (WIPO, UNESCO) or not (IETF, W3C, etc...) - decision-making procedures within each of those organizations, including Policy Development Processes and various Process Documents .... One of the key questions in that context is not the absence of a framework, but how to improve it, including the coordination of the activities of international and intergovernmental organizations concerned with Internet Governance issues. Finally, as Wolfgang and I have often mentionned, 2010 is an interesting time horizon, milestone or checkpoint, however you want to qualify it : - the ICANN JPA will end in 2009 - the ITU's next plenipotentiary is in 2010 - and the IGF will review its first five years So the key question is not to design a new framework from scratch. It is simply to examine the two following questions : 1) how the present framework should evolve in the coming years ? 2) how this architecture should be formalized (convention ? agreement ? MoU(s) ? Protocol ? etc..) "The Internet Governance Framework in 2010" seems a natural and legitimate topic for the IGF, as para 72i of its mandates requests that the IGF "Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." Maybe this is part of the way forward. Hope it helps. Nice discussion thread anyway. Best Bertrand On 4/23/07, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > Quite an interesting exchange on the Framework Convention! Sorry for > posting > this message out of the discussion sync. Here are a few points. > > > I share Bill's concern about using analogies with other regimes (mainly > climate change and tobacco). Analogies are usually tricky. They highlight > commonalities and hide differences. One useful logical exercise could be > to > make an "analogy map" showing both commonalities and differences. I won't > repeat commonalities which were already mentioned by John, Miltion, Lee > and > others. Instead, I will mention a few differences or specificities of IG. > > > > 1. What should the FC regulate? > > The FC shares the destiny of the field it should regulate - Internet > Governance. It is difficult to define. Other framework conventions have a > clearly defined regulatory area (issue to be addressed). For example, the > Climate Change FC does not regulate the environment in general. Article 2 > clearly defines the single issue to be addressed: > > ".... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at > a > level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the > climate system....." > > > The framework convention approach is used for specific purposes - e.g. to > avoid controversial issues in the first iteration (building trust), to > allow more time to negotiate technically complex issues. The conventions > are > not vague about the subject of negotiations. One could think about an FC > on > spam or Internet infrastructure, but not on IG in general. It seems that > the > main argument for the IG FC is driven by form/procedure, not by the issues > to be addressed. This was not the case with climate change and > tobacco/smoking conventions. One possible way to make a reality check is > to > draft the basic elements of the FC on IG (we can use a WIKI for drafting > purposes). Once faced with "paper" we can see if the FC will be "worth the > paper it is written on." > > > > 2. Is the FC on IG the only way to integrate IG into international public > law (e.g. relations among countries)? > > There is a wide spectrum of possible techniques apart from > treaties/conventions. Various "soft law" techniques have been extensively > discussed. Even in the realm of "hard law" one can argue that > international > customary rule guarantees national states rights over country domains. We > can find many examples to support the following two criterions for > establishing international customary rules: > > - on-going practice (the re-delegation process has put many countries in > charge of country domains); > > - opinion iuris (awareness that practice is legally binding) can be > supported by one of the US-government principles from June 2005 > (unilateral > declarations are a source of international law as well) as well as by the > WSIS final documents. > > What is the practical relevance of the international customary law? If a > country's right over country domain is infringed, the country can bring > the > case to the International Court of Justice and prove the existence of the > customary law rule. (In order not to oversimplify, I have to stress that > the > establishment of the ICJ jurisdiction requires some pre-requisites - > country's readiness to accept ICJ's jurisdiction, etc.). > > As a matter of fact, one can argue that one of the most controversial > issue > of the IG debate - national control of country domain - has been already > settled (quietly, with necessary "face saving" mechanisms). Some UN > declaration may help in reinforcing this customary rule, but the FC on IG > would be overkill. > > > > 3. Multistakeholderism > > The major difference between negotiations regarding Internet Governance > (narrow definition) and other global negotiations, such as climate change > negotiations, is that, while in other negotiations, inter-governmental > regimes gradually opened to non-governmental players, in Internet > governance > negotiations, governments had to enter an already existing > non-governmental, > ICANN-based regime. I am not sure that the FC can be the most suitable > means > for reflecting this substantive difference. > > > There are other aspects. time and "ripeness" for negotiations which have > been already discussed. > > This is all for this iteration. I hope it will contribute to more informed > discussion. Best, Jovan > > > 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Mon Apr 23 10:54:37 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:54:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <1559470906@web.de> Wolfgang, Sorry, but again you are circling around the final question. Just to say "If the LIC is divided, more discussion is needed." is not helpful in an operational sense. Sometimes people simply do not agree, so you have to decice if a) nothing happens or b) one of the players is actually somewhat superior to the others. If you agree that a) Geo-TLD have public policy implications and b) the WSIS has delivered a kind of division of labor which notes the special responsibility of public authorities for public policy, then - in line with the GAC Principles you mentioned - the relevant local authority does actually have the final say. Michael _______________________________________________________________ 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 avri at psg.com Mon Apr 23 11:01:48 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:01:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people In-Reply-To: <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <225446F0-0E0F-4D44-94EE-2E5B5AE0EC9E@psg.com> Hi, On 23 apr 2007, at 04.50, Parminder wrote: > >> My understanding of the >> Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. > > Good we got into this discussion, because too often you and I agree > on many > things on the IGC list :) but this shows how we disagree at more basic > levels. To illustrate by personal example, I myself have great > interest in > IG as you can see. I almost entirely speak for the interests for > the present > non-users (and some indirect users). So, if non-users aren’t an > equally > legitimate constituency in IG, by your reckoning I just shouldn’t > be here. > At the very least, this proves we have strong difference about what > we all > are doing in IG fora. i don't understand this. and disagree with both of you, i think. i think there are many communities of interest and trying to abstract them all into one Internet Community is not necessarily helpful. there are several levels of affinity: - those professionals and amateurs who are involved in the development, care and feeding of the Internet - this is, I believe, the original referent of Internet Community - those who currently use the Internet - i think of these as the Internet User Community - those whom the Internet does not serve yet. i am not sure what the right name for these people is, but they are perhaps the Future Internet Users community or as you say the non, or indirect, user community. Depending on the subject at hand, for example internet resources, we may have other groupings, e.g. the registrants who have name and address assignments. Each of these grouping has a different perspective on the network. I do not mnimize the view of one versus the other and believe they are all stakeholders in the IG process, each from their own perspective and in their own role - one cannot expect someone who uses the Internet daily to have the same perspective as someone who has never even heard of the Internet. I think everyone on this list belongs, at least to the Internet User Community and some belong to the Internet Community. I don't think any of us qualify for the third group, and while we may try to represent their interests from our privileged position (personally, i certainly try to for nomadic peoples who live in remote communications challenged areas) but we do not have their perspective and can not be said to be in the same affinity group except at such a level of abstraction - i.e. we are all people talking about the Internet - that it provides little 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 avri at psg.com Mon Apr 23 11:09:25 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:09:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] A few reflections on the Framework Convention In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704230753y53d5e7a3je63266d0d6855c05@mail.gmail.com> References: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> <0b1501c78590$42e5f4e0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> <954259bd0704230753y53d5e7a3je63266d0d6855c05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <65596070-08BF-4B51-999B-85ACD5268463@psg.com> hi, On 23 apr 2007, at 10.53, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: ... lots omitted ... > "The Internet Governance Framework in 2010" seems a natural and > legitimate topic for the IGF, as para 72i of its mandates requests > that the IGF "Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the > embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." > Maybe this is part of the way forward. i think this is a good approach. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Apr 23 11:49:46 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:49:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Third Estate - Fourth Estate - Fifth Estate? In-Reply-To: <0b8d01c785ad$bffe77f0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> References: <37350BBB-02CA-4736-A2CC-B1BC39CD74CE@maxwell.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0b8d01c785ad$bffe77f0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Message-ID: <954259bd0704230849r5b0db1f4l89db1debbb038094@mail.gmail.com> Jovan, 1) *On the three estates* Just one note : after the french revolution, fortunately, the three estates disappeared to be replaced by one single community : the citizens. This was actually the major transformation. I would say that in a certain way, the three separate constituencies at the beggining of WSIS have been granted a common unifying label of "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder approach pioeered by the IGF : no more privileges or separate categories for the open dialogue forum. This is why there is an equal footing in IGF. This is not contradictory with "different roles and responsibilities". And here is why. As we are delving into french political history, you may recall that the "French Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen" starts with the important following first article : "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common utility." This could be kept in mind when we deal with the "respective rights and responsibilities of the different categories of stakeholders" in the WSIS documents. Because nothing prevents an Internet Governance structure (the IGF for instance) to be based on an "equal right of all stakeholders to participate in the governance processe dealing with the issues they are concerned with or impacted by"; and at the same time, establish that "different rights and responsibilities can be established only to serve the global public interest". Therefore, nothing prevents in the future the Internet Governance Framework we will collectively design from establishing different roles and responsibilities, if they are beneficial for the global public interest. But as Steve Crocker said in the ICANN meeting in Lisbon, everything in here is 100% man-made and under human decision : the resources, the rules, the principles, and the structures. 2) *On the Fourth estate* Interestingly, in France, the press is qualified as "le quatrième pouvoir", as related to the three branches of representative democracy (legislative, executive and judiciary) rather than as a "fouth estate" in relation with the three estates of the nobility, the clergy and the commons, which are not valid any more. The englishand french articles in Wikipedia are interesting to compare in that respect. 3) *On the blogosphere as fifth estate* The blogosphere is, of course, a sort of fifth estate, or rather, as I said above, a fifth "pouvoir", in addition to the four previous ones. But more than anything, the development of blogs, community sites and social networking tools has created a global Internet Community of more than a billion people with very dense interlinking. This is the embryo of a global polity rather than a separate constituency and influential power. The Internet has evolved into a complete social, economic and political space. All it lacks is the governance framework to organize this international community as a Polity. That is, among other things, what Internet Governance is all about. Not only the governance "of" the Internet (the infrastructure and the domain names) or the governance "on" the Internet (the various uses and misuses) but also a governance made possible by the Internet and the communication tools it provides; in other words a governance for the Internet Age and a Global Community. Best Bertrand On 4/23/07, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > Dear Wolfgang, > > There is an interesting evolution from > > Montesquieu's trias politica. As usual, he was not as innovative as it has > been attributed. The concept of THREE ESTATES already existed in the > Middle > Ages (the Clergy, the Nobility and the Peasantry) in order to control > absolute power (not as absolute as usually perceived). > > > To > > Burke/Hunt "FOURTH ESTATE" (recently revitalized by Archer's novel) > consisting of the three estates + press…. > > > To > > The concept of "FIFTH ESTATE" which was recently proposed by Dr. Nayef > Al-Rodham from the Geneva Center of Security Policy. He analyzed policy > aspects of blogs and provided quite convincing arguments that blogs can be > considered the "Fifth Estate". His book contains an in-depth analysis of > the > international policy and security aspects of blog development. I think > that > the PDF-version will be available soon (the book is currently accessible > at > http//www.gcsp.ch). If you find this concept interesting we can try to > organise a discussion with Dr. Al-Rodham in late May. The book also > contains > some reflections about bloggers as a possible policy constituency (link to > other discussion threads on Internet users/community). > > In sum, checks and balances must be in-built, but I think that we have to > move beyond the good old "trinity'. > > > Best, Jovan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 13:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; John Mathiason; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > Milton Mueller > Subject: AW: [governance] Can governmental powers be limited? > > Dear list, > > Another five cents to the stimulating debate: > > When Montesquieu and others developed the theory of the seperation of > power > to counter the absolutist power regime of the monarchies at this time, the > argument was that the decision making power should be distributed to avoid > misuse of absolute power and to have instruments to correct wrong > decisions. > > > In the late 1980s, when we changed the German Democratic Republic, there > was > a discussion about the "measurement of democracy". One proposed method was > to meter the distance between the main powers: Parliament, Government, > Judiciary and the Press. If you have long distances among the four powers, > you have a high level of democracy. The level of democracy goes down if > distances are narrowed. And if the parliament follows was the government > says and if the courts decide and the press writes what the government > wants > - as it was the case in the German Democratic Republic - you have a > dictatorship. > > What we can learn from this for Internet Governance? Decentralize power. > > What we need is a new Montesquieu for the Internet, a more detailed > seperation of powers. The Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism (or as Vint has > labeled it the "Grand Collaboration") will work only on such a seperation > of > powers. Nobody has a decisions making capacity for the system as a whole, > only for some parts. In some areas governments keep their decision making > power, in other parts non-governmental stakeholders decide on their own > premises. This is a step in the right direction. But it can go much > further > down the road. With regard to ICANN, would it make sense to decentralize > further the relevant decision making power? Why not to give decision > making > capacity to SOs? Or to ACs? If decisons are made by GNSO and CNSO (and > others, the main challenge for the Board would be stimulate communication > amonf the differetn decision making bodies and, where needed "to > coordinate". > > Best > > Wolfgang > > > ____________________ 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Mon Apr 23 12:06:45 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:06:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: New TLDs Message-ID: <1559616222@web.de> Dear Bertrand, Having a German academic background, I feel a somewhat natural symphathy for rules and categories. But the problem with TLD is that even within specific categories you will find some very distinct under-categories. To give you an example regarding City TLD: In Germany, some city names are protected as trademarks, some are not. So completely different rules would have to be aplied to proposals for .solingen or .buxtehude. With regard to the development of evaluation rules: Don't you think that for a specific set of possible TLD, Geo-TLD, the new GAC Principles do already contain some quite important and clear evaluation criteria (e.g. support of the relevant local authority)? Michael _______________________________________________________________ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 23 12:24:52 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:54:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people In-Reply-To: <225446F0-0E0F-4D44-94EE-2E5B5AE0EC9E@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070423162553.CC86EC9481@smtp1.electricembers.net> Avri > i think there are many communities of interest and trying to abstract > them all into one Internet Community is not necessarily helpful. > there are several levels of affinity: > > - those professionals and amateurs who are involved in the > development, care and feeding of the Internet - this is, I believe, > the original referent of Internet Community > > - those who currently use the Internet - i think of these as the > Internet User Community > > - those whom the Internet does not serve yet. i am not sure what the > right name for these people is, but they are perhaps the Future > Internet Users community or as you say the non, or indirect, user > community. Though I have some problems with this division of internet policy stakeholdership, even if we provosionally go by it, I have atleast two questions. (1)In public policy determination does Internet community get any special rights over and above those of internet users. (2) where and how are non-users represented, for instance in ICANN. Both these questions have great relevance on the issue of whether ICANN should or should not be discussed at IGF. 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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 8:32 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the > people > > Hi, > > On 23 apr 2007, at 04.50, Parminder wrote: > > > > >> My understanding of the > >> Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. > > > > Good we got into this discussion, because too often you and I agree > > on many > > things on the IGC list :) but this shows how we disagree at more basic > > levels. To illustrate by personal example, I myself have great > > interest in > > IG as you can see. I almost entirely speak for the interests for > > the present > > non-users (and some indirect users). So, if non-users aren't an > > equally > > legitimate constituency in IG, by your reckoning I just shouldn't > > be here. > > At the very least, this proves we have strong difference about what > > we all > > are doing in IG fora. > > > i don't understand this. and disagree with both of you, i think. > > i think there are many communities of interest and trying to abstract > them all into one Internet Community is not necessarily helpful. > there are several levels of affinity: > > - those professionals and amateurs who are involved in the > development, care and feeding of the Internet - this is, I believe, > the original referent of Internet Community > > - those who currently use the Internet - i think of these as the > Internet User Community > > - those whom the Internet does not serve yet. i am not sure what the > right name for these people is, but they are perhaps the Future > Internet Users community or as you say the non, or indirect, user > community. > > Depending on the subject at hand, for example internet resources, we > may have other groupings, e.g. the registrants who have name and > address assignments. > > Each of these grouping has a different perspective on the network. I > do not mnimize the view of one versus the other and believe they are > all stakeholders in the IG process, each from their own perspective > and in their own role - one cannot expect someone who uses the > Internet daily to have the same perspective as someone who has never > even heard of the Internet. > > I think everyone on this list belongs, at least to the Internet User > Community and some belong to the Internet Community. I don't think > any of us qualify for the third group, and while we may try to > represent their interests from our privileged position (personally, i > certainly try to for nomadic peoples who live in remote > communications challenged areas) but we do not have their perspective > and can not be said to be in the same affinity group except at such a > level of abstraction - i.e. we are all people talking about the > Internet - that it provides little 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 -------------- 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 23 12:46:35 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:46:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people In-Reply-To: <225446F0-0E0F-4D44-94EE-2E5B5AE0EC9E@psg.com> References: <20070423085039.963515D2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> <225446F0-0E0F-4D44-94EE-2E5B5AE0EC9E@psg.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0704230946u7f916a1fl9f31dbecc7145c4a@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, To push Avir's comments a bit further, this touches upon the delicate issue of representativity and accountability in multi-stakeholder processes. (Note : what is below was written before Parminder's last post but it applies to it as well). What Parminder rightly raises is the need to take into account in any policy discussion the potential impact on the present non-users and their interests. And I do not think that anybody opposes that, including Jeremy. The key question is how and to pick Parminder's comments : who "represents" these interests ? As Avri rightly said, the very fact that somebody intervenes on this list (not only an Internet list, but one would say a rather specialized one :-) means that, by definition, he/she is not a non-user. This person cannot claim to represent the non-users in the representative democracy sense, unless there is some sort of organization that has been set up exclusively for the purpose of representing non-Internet users and can transparently demonstrate a list of members. And even if such an organization existed, with thousands of members, it could only claim representing those thousands and not the 4 or 5 billion not yet online. Without addressing the question of how to consult that community on a five day's notice on a possible statement in a future IGF consultation ....;-) But does represntative democracy need to be the model ? I believe Parminder's approach in that debate should be analyzed differently. In multi-stakeholder governance processes and policy developments, stakeholders, and particularly NGOs or individuals do not "represent" constituencies or groups of individuals in the representative democracy sense of the term. *Such advocates do not "represent" (ie speak "in place" or on behalf of) somebody esle; they speak "in favor" of them. They represent viewpoints and interests, not people* so as to make sure that all facets of an issue are taken into account. They give everybody a voice, not a vote. They actually contribute to the definition of the best global interest on that issue. This is why single individuals that can really contribute should be not only allowed but welcomed into those processes. They may be disproportionately useful as wompared with their "representativity". And of course, measures should be taken to avoid that they are not disproportionately detrimental to the process :-) All in all, this is the core of the notion of stakeholdership : policy development processes, when they deal with highly transversal, multi-layer and non linear processes absolutely need to take into account all potential impacts early on. And this is why the processes should be open to all actors who have a direct stake in the issue or who want to contribute to highlight the importance of a certain aspect. Advocacy NGOs can bring a useful contribution in that respect, even if through a single person with wide knowledge of the issue. And this relates to accountability and transparency in at least two ways : - when somebody intends to formally speak "in the name" of someone or some group, transparency requires that this "mandate" is clear and that instructions to that purpose have actually been given; - when somebody participates in a formal decision, particularly through voting, chains of accountability must be in place in each organization or constituency. But in the present decision-shaping processes on the contrary, all contributions should be encouraged, on an equal footing, measured only by their capacity to help define a better public interest. So Parminder plays a perfectly legitimate role when he raises the question of how to take into account the non-users. Because it is a key public policy dimension of a lot of the issues we address. This would be less the case if he implied that he represents 5 billion people and others only specific interests. But I know he doesn't ;-) Best Bertrand On 4/23/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > On 23 apr 2007, at 04.50, Parminder wrote: > > > > >> My understanding of the > >> Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. > > > > Good we got into this discussion, because too often you and I agree > > on many > > things on the IGC list :) but this shows how we disagree at more basic > > levels. To illustrate by personal example, I myself have great > > interest in > > IG as you can see. I almost entirely speak for the interests for > > the present > > non-users (and some indirect users). So, if non-users aren't an > > equally > > legitimate constituency in IG, by your reckoning I just shouldn't > > be here. > > At the very least, this proves we have strong difference about what > > we all > > are doing in IG fora. > > > i don't understand this. and disagree with both of you, i think. > > i think there are many communities of interest and trying to abstract > them all into one Internet Community is not necessarily helpful. > there are several levels of affinity: > > - those professionals and amateurs who are involved in the > development, care and feeding of the Internet - this is, I believe, > the original referent of Internet Community > > - those who currently use the Internet - i think of these as the > Internet User Community > > - those whom the Internet does not serve yet. i am not sure what the > right name for these people is, but they are perhaps the Future > Internet Users community or as you say the non, or indirect, user > community. > > Depending on the subject at hand, for example internet resources, we > may have other groupings, e.g. the registrants who have name and > address assignments. > > Each of these grouping has a different perspective on the network. I > do not mnimize the view of one versus the other and believe they are > all stakeholders in the IG process, each from their own perspective > and in their own role - one cannot expect someone who uses the > Internet daily to have the same perspective as someone who has never > even heard of the Internet. > > I think everyone on this list belongs, at least to the Internet User > Community and some belong to the Internet Community. I don't think > any of us qualify for the third group, and while we may try to > represent their interests from our privileged position (personally, i > certainly try to for nomadic peoples who live in remote > communications challenged areas) but we do not have their perspective > and can not be said to be in the same affinity group except at such a > level of abstraction - i.e. we are all people talking about the > Internet - that it provides little 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 Mon Apr 23 12:49:45 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:49:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: New TLDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd0704230949v1771d8abhbb4f8739e505f700@mail.gmail.com> On 4/18/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >This demonstrates that TLDs cannot be treated with > >the same freedom as (second-level) domain names, > >just allowing any submission on a first come-first serve basis. > > What, Bertrand, "demonstates" that? Was there a logical proof in your > message that I missed, or some kind of technical impossibility shown? a) At the risk of creating a dangerous precedent of sincerity, I must recognize you are right. Wrote too fast. The two ideas I wanted to put forward were indeed separate. They were : 1) there is presently no consensus for unrestricted creation of TLDs, in a simple "first come first served" manner; 2) if creation remains controlled, a single category such as "sponsored TLDs" is not going to be enough, as the example of .xxx and the various cases imagined by Wolfgang illustrate. Different criteria will have to be designed. Once again, I fully respect your "position de principe". It has coherence and as I said : "defending that position is perfectly legitimate, respectable and even useful". So consider my comments in general as an effort of constructive interaction and not as "casting my policy opinions as demonstrations". This was written too quickly and you caught the logical error. b) Thinking further though, the reason why I inconsciously made a connection is probably the following : the more people (like Wolfgang or Michael did) devote time to exploring specific delicate cases related to the creation of TLDs or give examples of potentially contentious strings (like you did yourself with the .f... or .abortion or . gay, etc...), the more people will think the issue is complex and has to be handled with care. Psychological dynamics are therefore likely to evolve against the simple (non-)rule that happened by accident for second level names. The parallel you make between people who would like to restrict registration of second-level domains and those who want to restrict creation of TLDs is not a true symmetry. As you note, in one case, the rule is freedom, in the other the rule is control. Opening up control is a different issue than introducing control in the absence of it. In any case, a form of convergence has happened in second-level domains : even with the first come first serve rule, additional principles for dispute resolutions have been established that in reality impose restrictions on the registration of domain names. Like it or not, this is where the consensus has moved towards. And so there is probably little chance, on this basis, for the complete freedom in new gTLDs you advocate. Hence my argument encouraging those who want a broad increase in the number of TLDs to explore the road of category-specific criteria that could strealmine applications and reduce the barrier cost. c) In a certain way, I could in turn note your final sentence : "freedom happens by accident, always" and consider it is in contradiction with your request to the community to make a very conscious choice in favor of "complete freedom" in the case of TLDs. But this would be cheap (although fun !) rethoric on rapidly written texts. I prefer to help this discussion move forward. Freedom can also happen by choice rather than accident and, to recall Steve Crocker's remarkable statement in Lisbon, we are here 100% in control of the resource creation and the rules that apply to them. This is public policy at the best it can be. It is about public interest and value creation, not only economic value, but also social value creation, and the optimal balance between both. It is about political choices. And the choice is fully ours. d) On substance, I do think there is a benefit in maintaining some differences between TLDs and second-level names, because of the higher visibility of the former and their potential structuring value for users and the whole domain name space. TLDs in particular can be envisaged as a controlled vocabulary, progressively expanded to facilitate identification of communities online. As you may note, I did not say there "are" differences between TLDs and second-level names. I wrote "I believe there is benefit in maintaining" some differences. Because it is a choice for all of us to make. Not a fact of life. And my formulation is indeed what I think is in the global public interest. But I may be wrong or convinced otherwise and only the debate will tell where the ultimate balance lies. Likewise there would be more coherence in saying that "TLD space should just be a market" than in saying "TLD space is a market". Because it is just one possible option, one element of the puzzle. Not a fact. As I accepted the criticism of having inadvertantly "cast my policy opinions as demonstrations", please accept that what is sometimes presented as facts (TLD space is simply a market, creation of new TLDs is a freedom of expression issue) is rather facets of the issue and often the expression of personal - even if legitimate - policy preferences. Distinguishing facts from opinions and choices that are in our responsibility is the foundation for sound debate. e) In any case, this exchange will certainly not close the debate. This is why I mentionned in the last point 5) of my post the need for an open discussion on that. Otherwise, we'll just reproduce the misunderstanding on .xxx and generate the same frustrations and angers. I know views are still very diverse within the gNSO, but we shouldn't launch a new round of calls for submission without some deeper interaction betwen actors, particularly between gNSO, ALAC and GAC members. Looking forward to it. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 23 13:30:35 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:00:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704230946u7f916a1fl9f31dbecc7145c4a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070423173100.B1116C94A8@smtp1.electricembers.net> Thanks, Bertrand, for clarifying my position : ). I had taken note of Avri comments about lack of ‘representative-ness’ in speaking for non-users but I did not labor an explanation because these issues are well established in theoretical discourses about civil society. In practical terms, to pick an issue that IGC is very fond of, using strict representative-ness yardstick of ‘being subject to the conditions’ before one speaks about and for them, FoE should only be spoken of by people who themselves have considerable limitations placed on their FoE. Else, there is great fear you may be distorting the ‘real’ and ‘felt’ perspectives that those subject to FoE restrictions have . ..How does this sit with FoE advocates. 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 23, 2007 10:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people Dear all, To push Avir's comments a bit further, this touches upon the delicate issue of representativity and accountability in multi-stakeholder processes. (Note : what is below was written before Parminder's last post but it applies to it as well). What Parminder rightly raises is the need to take into account in any policy discussion the potential impact on the present non-users and their interests. And I do not think that anybody opposes that, including Jeremy. The key question is how and to pick Parminder's comments : who "represents" these interests ? As Avri rightly said, the very fact that somebody intervenes on this list (not only an Internet list, but one would say a rather specialized one :-) means that, by definition, he/she is not a non-user. This person cannot claim to represent the non-users in the representative democracy sense, unless there is some sort of organization that has been set up exclusively for the purpose of representing non-Internet users and can transparently demonstrate a list of members. And even if such an organization existed, with thousands of members, it could only claim representing those thousands and not the 4 or 5 billion not yet online. Without addressing the question of how to consult that community on a five day's notice on a possible statement in a future IGF consultation ....;-) But does represntative democracy need to be the model ? I believe Parminder's approach in that debate should be analyzed differently. In multi-stakeholder governance processes and policy developments, stakeholders, and particularly NGOs or individuals do not "represent" constituencies or groups of individuals in the representative democracy sense of the term. Such advocates do not "represent" (ie speak "in place" or on behalf of) somebody esle; they speak "in favor" of them. They represent viewpoints and interests, not people so as to make sure that all facets of an issue are taken into account. They give everybody a voice, not a vote. They actually contribute to the definition of the best global interest on that issue. This is why single individuals that can really contribute should be not only allowed but welcomed into those processes. They may be disproportionately useful as wompared with their "representativity". And of course, measures should be taken to avoid that they are not disproportionately detrimental to the process :-) All in all, this is the core of the notion of stakeholdership : policy development processes, when they deal with highly transversal, multi-layer and non linear processes absolutely need to take into account all potential impacts early on. And this is why the processes should be open to all actors who have a direct stake in the issue or who want to contribute to highlight the importance of a certain aspect. Advocacy NGOs can bring a useful contribution in that respect, even if through a single person with wide knowledge of the issue. And this relates to accountability and transparency in at least two ways : - when somebody intends to formally speak "in the name" of someone or some group, transparency requires that this "mandate" is clear and that instructions to that purpose have actually been given; - when somebody participates in a formal decision, particularly through voting, chains of accountability must be in place in each organization or constituency. But in the present decision-shaping processes on the contrary, all contributions should be encouraged, on an equal footing, measured only by their capacity to help define a better public interest. So Parminder plays a perfectly legitimate role when he raises the question of how to take into account the non-users. Because it is a key public policy dimension of a lot of the issues we address. This would be less the case if he implied that he represents 5 billion people and others only specific interests. But I know he doesn't ;-) Best Bertrand On 4/23/07, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, On 23 apr 2007, at 04.50, Parminder wrote: > >> My understanding of the >> Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. > > Good we got into this discussion, because too often you and I agree > on many > things on the IGC list :) but this shows how we disagree at more basic > levels. To illustrate by personal example, I myself have great > interest in > IG as you can see. I almost entirely speak for the interests for > the present > non-users (and some indirect users). So, if non-users aren't an > equally > legitimate constituency in IG, by your reckoning I just shouldn't > be here. > At the very least, this proves we have strong difference about what > we all > are doing in IG fora. i don't understand this. and disagree with both of you, i think. i think there are many communities of interest and trying to abstract them all into one Internet Community is not necessarily helpful. there are several levels of affinity: - those professionals and amateurs who are involved in the development, care and feeding of the Internet - this is, I believe, the original referent of Internet Community - those who currently use the Internet - i think of these as the Internet User Community - those whom the Internet does not serve yet. i am not sure what the right name for these people is, but they are perhaps the Future Internet Users community or as you say the non, or indirect, user community. Depending on the subject at hand, for example internet resources, we may have other groupings, e.g. the registrants who have name and address assignments. Each of these grouping has a different perspective on the network. I do not mnimize the view of one versus the other and believe they are all stakeholders in the IG process, each from their own perspective and in their own role - one cannot expect someone who uses the Internet daily to have the same perspective as someone who has never even heard of the Internet. I think everyone on this list belongs, at least to the Internet User Community and some belong to the Internet Community. I don't think any of us qualify for the third group, and while we may try to represent their interests from our privileged position (personally, i certainly try to for nomadic peoples who live in remote communications challenged areas) but we do not have their perspective and can not be said to be in the same affinity group except at such a level of abstraction - i.e. we are all people talking about the Internet - that it provides little 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 avri at psg.com Mon Apr 23 13:52:25 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:52:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people In-Reply-To: <225446F0-0E0F-4D44-94EE-2E5B5AE0EC9E@psg.com> Message-ID: Hi, On 23 apr 2007, at 12.24, Parminder wrote: ... stuff deleted to keep message shorter for the sake of those who pay too much for their bytes. > > > Though I have some problems with this division of internet policy > stakeholdership, even if we provosionally go by it, I have atleast > two questions. > > > > (1)In public policy determination does Internet community get any > special rights over and above those of internet users. special rights? no. are there different things that one group may have a stronger role in, i expect yes. e.g. the internet community has a greater knowledge of what is possible and what currently is the case. the user community and the emerging user community has a greater knowledge of what is needed. when it comes to policy, they should, in my opinion have an equal voice from their different perspectives, and should, again in my opinion, honor each other's special vantage point. > (2) where and how are non-users represented, for instance in ICANN. currently, that is one of the flaws, again from my perspective, in ICANN that needs to be remedied. there is an effort to include their interests in the recruitment by the nomcom of outsiders to sit on the board, the supporting organizations and the ALAC, but i don't think it goes far enough in terms of making them stakeholders with constituency representation. and while things are beginning to open up somewhat, it is going very slowly and in an ad hoc manner and has not yet reached a point of anything close to parity with the business interests or even the government interests. > > > Both these questions have great relevance on the issue of whether > ICANN should or should not be discussed at IGF. personally, i think anything related to IG should be within the purview of the IGF. i think, again personally, that if something is a problem from any perspective, then it can be discussed and can be the object of a dynamic coalition. 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 donjmac at sympatico.ca Mon Apr 23 14:25:12 2007 From: donjmac at sympatico.ca (Don MacLean) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:25:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] A few reflections on the Framework Convention In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704230753y53d5e7a3je63266d0d6855c05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003401c785d4$bc3ace80$0c02a8c0@DONALDJAMES> Dear all, A very interesting discussion indeed – everything from political philosophy to political invective! Since Bertrand kindly provided a link to the summary of a presentation I made at the Oxford Internet Institute a year ago on the theme of “Where Now? A Rough Guide to Internet Governance Post-WSIS”, I thought it might be helpful to provide the attached version of the presentation slides. It includes detailed talking points, which may be helpful in understanding the bullets. I’ve also attached a position paper prepared for a May 2005 OII forum on “The Struggle Over Internet Governance: Searching for Common Ground”. It proposes going in a similar direction to the one Jovan and Bertrand have suggested – namely, towards an IG protocol modeled on the Internet itself. Bill Dutton and Malcolm Peltu’s report of this event, entitled “Connecting the Pieces: The Emerging Internet Governance Mosaic”, may also be of interest – particularly the intriguing notion that IG is characterized by an “ecology of governance games”. It’s available in pdf at http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/publications.cfm. Hope all of this helps feed this thought-provoking discussion! Don MacLean -----Original Message----- From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: April 23, 2007 10:54 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jovan Kurbalija Subject: Re: [governance] A few reflections on the Framework Convention Dear all, Following the discussion on the Framework Convention and recalling the workshope in Athens on that subject, one of the problems people raise is the term Convention - as it seems to imply a traditional intergovernmental discussion and this runs contrary to the multi-stakeholder approach that has been sanctionned by the WSIS in Tunis. In any case, there is no apparent benefit in making the notion of a Convention a prerequisite for moving forward : it is a perfectly legitimate option to formalize an Internet Governance Framework, but one among many. Other terms may apply (Agreement, MOU, Charter, Bill of rights, Covenant, etc...) and we could even create one. On the other hand, the term framework is a nice general term, at least for the time being, encompassing very different aspects of how Internet Governance should be organized. It accomodates those who want highly formalized or even centralized structures and those who would like a distibuted system with simple rules.It basically deals with the Principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures for Internet Governance itself, ie its institutional architecture. In that respect, one can argue that and Internet Governance Framework already exists, defined by history, documents and practices, including (without priority order) : - the WSIS documents, including all their relevant paragraphs on Internet Governance - a few principles, norms and rules, sometimes implicit sometimes explicit (as Don MacLean outlined in one of his presentations; see : http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/events/details.cfm?id=4 ) - the three main existing organizations : including ICANN, ITU and now the new IGF, with their respective bylaws, mandates and charters) - plus numerous other organizations dealing with Internet -related issues, intergovernmental (WIPO, UNESCO) or not (IETF, W3C, etc...) - decision-making procedures within each of those organizations, including Policy Development Processes and various Process Documents .... One of the key questions in that context is not the absence of a framework, but how to improve it, including the coordination of the activities of international and intergovernmental organizations concerned with Internet Governance issues. Finally, as Wolfgang and I have often mentionned, 2010 is an interesting time horizon, milestone or checkpoint, however you want to qualify it : - the ICANN JPA will end in 2009 - the ITU's next plenipotentiary is in 2010 - and the IGF will review its first five years So the key question is not to design a new framework from scratch. It is simply to examine the two following questions : 1) how the present framework should evolve in the coming years ? 2) how this architecture should be formalized (convention ? agreement ? MoU(s) ? Protocol ? etc..) "The Internet Governance Framework in 2010" seems a natural and legitimate topic for the IGF, as para 72i of its mandates requests that the IGF "Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." Maybe this is part of the way forward. Hope it helps. Nice discussion thread anyway. Best Bertrand On 4/23/07, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: Quite an interesting exchange on the Framework Convention! Sorry for posting this message out of the discussion sync. Here are a few points. I share Bill's concern about using analogies with other regimes (mainly climate change and tobacco). Analogies are usually tricky. They highlight commonalities and hide differences. One useful logical exercise could be to make an "analogy map" showing both commonalities and differences. I won't repeat commonalities which were already mentioned by John, Miltion, Lee and others. Instead, I will mention a few differences or specificities of IG. 1. What should the FC regulate? The FC shares the destiny of the field it should regulate - Internet Governance. It is difficult to define. Other framework conventions have a clearly defined regulatory area (issue to be addressed). For example, the Climate Change FC does not regulate the environment in general. Article 2 clearly defines the single issue to be addressed: ".... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system....." The framework convention approach is used for specific purposes - e.g. to avoid controversial issues in the first iteration (building trust), to allow more time to negotiate technically complex issues. The conventions are not vague about the subject of negotiations. One could think about an FC on spam or Internet infrastructure, but not on IG in general. It seems that the main argument for the IG FC is driven by form/procedure, not by the issues to be addressed. This was not the case with climate change and tobacco/smoking conventions. One possible way to make a reality check is to draft the basic elements of the FC on IG (we can use a WIKI for drafting purposes). Once faced with "paper" we can see if the FC will be "worth the paper it is written on." 2. Is the FC on IG the only way to integrate IG into international public law (e.g. relations among countries)? There is a wide spectrum of possible techniques apart from treaties/conventions. Various "soft law" techniques have been extensively discussed. Even in the realm of "hard law" one can argue that international customary rule guarantees national states rights over country domains. We can find many examples to support the following two criterions for establishing international customary rules: - on-going practice (the re-delegation process has put many countries in charge of country domains); - opinion iuris (awareness that practice is legally binding) can be supported by one of the US-government principles from June 2005 (unilateral declarations are a source of international law as well) as well as by the WSIS final documents. What is the practical relevance of the international customary law? If a country's right over country domain is infringed, the country can bring the case to the International Court of Justice and prove the existence of the customary law rule. (In order not to oversimplify, I have to stress that the establishment of the ICJ jurisdiction requires some pre-requisites - country's readiness to accept ICJ's jurisdiction, etc.). As a matter of fact, one can argue that one of the most controversial issue of the IG debate - national control of country domain - has been already settled (quietly, with necessary "face saving" mechanisms). Some UN declaration may help in reinforcing this customary rule, but the FC on IG would be overkill. 3. Multistakeholderism The major difference between negotiations regarding Internet Governance (narrow definition) and other global negotiations, such as climate change negotiations, is that, while in other negotiations, inter-governmental regimes gradually opened to non-governmental players, in Internet governance negotiations, governments had to enter an already existing non-governmental, ICANN-based regime. I am not sure that the FC can be the most suitable means for reflecting this substantive difference. There are other aspects. time and "ripeness" for negotiations which have been already discussed. This is all for this iteration. I hope it will contribute to more informed discussion. Best, Jovan 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Where Now with notes.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 651776 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: oii_position paper.doc Type: application/msword Size: 59392 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Apr 23 14:37:06 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:37:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20070423060214.C8D7B5C58@smtp2.electricembers.net> <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: At 2:40 PM +0800 4/23/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >Parminder wrote: >> I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - what >> is the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade people >> directly involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC's - a major >> player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current >> Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which is >> all the people of the world). > >The last option is too broad to be meaningful. My understanding of the >Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. I think it may be useful to distinguish what constituency is pertinent to what policy contexts. With regard to "Internet Governance" as the context, if we split this into (at least) technical and political domains, it would seem to me that perhaps only the "Internet community" or "Internet users" might have direct interests in technical matters, but "all people of the world" do have an interest in political matters, because the political impacts extend well beyond the technical infrastructure of the Internet. This seems to be one element of architectural confusion at ICANN, for example. If the representative structure (such as it is) is designed around merely technical matters, but the policy domain has crept outward to extend to political matters, then there is a systematic mismatch between the representative structure and the policy domain. When it comes to political matters involving the Internet, it is pretty clear to me that all people of the world have a stake in that, because the Internet has risen to the level of importance of a "public utility" in the last ten years or so. It has the potential to significantly affect the lives of every individual on the planet, and so all individuals are legitimate stakeholders in the political process, either directly or indirectly. So in an IG context in the broad political sense, politics is tautologically involved, and representation should extend to all. What the proper institutional structure should be to handle the mix of technical and political domains is a separate matter. (I would suggest that it makes sense to separate the technical jurisdiction from broader political jurisdiction with separate institutions, and let ICANN continue as a technical institution, which its design fits much better than the political domain.) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 23 17:17:29 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Re: New TLDs In-Reply-To: <1559616222@web.de> References: <1559616222@web.de> Message-ID: Michael, thanks for bringing these complications to the fore. To further complicate the picture about geographic names, your email strikes a nerve. Why would .buxtehude have a better reason to be assigned to a geographic entity than to the much better known Diderik or Dietrich Buxthude, whom Bach admired, and whom many more thousands of people - like me - find a provider of a music so essential that it is a vital fluid in our lives? As with many other subjects this list has been discussing, this one has long been in development in ICANN's GNSO and in other specialized fora. Fortunately ICANN's process for new gTLDs is in progress, as you and Bertrand correctly acknowledge, and would be susceptible to further input and discussion of this kind. Expanding the accumulated understanding that has occurred there with fresh, never-yet-considered views will always be healthy. The fora exist and are open; one would guess that the present leadership of the NCUC of ICANN would come out and expose its openness and transparency in this discussion to further invite new membership. That ICANN's GAC is increasingly active and interested, and organized to attend these concrete matters without leaving the level of principle-based advice, is concomitant with the Joint Working Group between the GAC and the Board, and the more-detailed discussions with the specific interested parties. It is thus far more developed than the by-surprise approach some governments exerted on the .xxx discussion; as many of you may remember, this was considered well near a dereliction of duty by a few even before the final stage of WSIS. That call to duty had a positive response in the much improved GAC relationship that is now developing. There may be different opinions, we know, on the importance, relevance, and opportunity of the above facts - but I hope that, as facts, they are useful to guide discussions. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Michael Leibrandt wrote: > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:06:45 +0200 > From: Michael Leibrandt > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > Michael Leibrandt > To: bdelachapelle at gmail.com, governance at lists.cpsr.org, > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > Cc: LMcKnigh at syr.edu, Mueller at syr.edu, expression at ipjustice.org, > goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au > Subject: [governance] Re: New TLDs > > Dear Bertrand, > > Having a German academic background, I feel a somewhat natural symphathy for rules and categories. But the problem with TLD is that even within specific categories you will find some very distinct under-categories. To give you an example regarding City TLD: In Germany, some city names are protected as trademarks, some are not. So completely different rules would have to be aplied to proposals for .solingen or .buxtehude. > > With regard to the development of evaluation rules: Don't you think that for a specific set of possible TLD, Geo-TLD, the new GAC Principles do already contain some quite important and clear evaluation criteria (e.g. support of the relevant local authority)? > > Michael > _______________________________________________________________ > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 23 19:43:22 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:43:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D322@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a0601c784fc$8be2cc70$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> Message-ID: <462D449A.1000009@rits.org.br> Jovan, what an excellent overview! It helps explain why most civil society organizations are getting further away from the IG debate as well. There remain the dwindling "usual suspects", some of which (usually the same ones!) from time to time launch flames and pick up fights... We need to rethink this, as method and even as etiquette, and I hoped the process leading to IGF Rio would help. But who would want to get involved when reading the infighting of the very few who supposedly are keeping high the flag of the IG debate? On ICANN, it is interesting to notice that the board seems to finally be putting on the table the discussion on internationalization, at the suggestion of an internal committee. Let us see how seriously they will pick this up. frt rgds --c.a. Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments worldwide > (if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most > important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003, when IG > was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. > > Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral damage" of > the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In the US, > there is strong political opposition to the Iraq war and a gradual move back > to multilateralism (even in the field of environment!). > > Beside the suspicion about the US foreign policy, the second reason for > initiating the IG-debate was the story that "a country can be removed from > the Internet by the US government." It was a powerful trigger and it created > concern among diplomats and policy-makers. It was the most frequent question > I was asked by diplomats in Geneva. The story led to a crisis (at least in > perception). > > After that... you know what has happened.... WGIG... discussion became > substantive... there was an extensive learning process.... Ultimately, it > became clear that the theoretical possibility of removing a country's domain > from the root zone file is not real possibility for various reasons, > including decentralized root-servers and the possibility of creating > parallel roots, etc. > > In fact, the power over the root server is an example of the paradox of > power. The possibility of removing a country from the Internet can hardly be > described as a power, since, effectively, it can never be used. The central > element of power is forcing another side to act in the way the holder of > power wants. The use of US power over the root could create a different > outcome--that countries and regions establish their own Internets. The US > would then be a bigger loser than the other players in a possible > disintegration of the Internet. The US would face the loss of the > predominance of US-promoted values on the Internet, English as the Internet > lingua franca, and the global market for US-based Internet companies > (Google, e-Bay, Yahoo,...). > > All in all, the two elements that shaped discussion back in 2003 do not > exist any more (strong suspicion about US foreign policy, misperception of > the possibility of removing countries from the Internet). > > Today? It is not very likely that the IG-debate will gain momentum. The > reason is simple... there is no crisis. The Internet was created to survive > a major “crisis” (nuclear war). The potential major failure of the Internet, > which could trigger a strong policy reaction, is not likely to happen. > Moreover, in the most recent crises (9/11, London terrorist attack, > Tsunami), the Internet has proven itself the most reliable communication > structure. The latest example of Internet robustness was the cut of the > Asian telecom cable. While it slowed down Internet traffic and attracted a > bit journalistic attention at Christmas, it did not create a major crisis. > > Without a crisis-driven process (fertile context for simplifications and > stereotypes), ICANN and the US government have a unique chance to introduce > a new and innovative global governance model, which should address a few > open issues including involvement of other governments and internalization > of ICANN’s status. They are no longer under "siege" as they were during the > WSIS. It should provide them with more space for creative and > forward-looking solutions. A promising sign was ICANN’s presidential debate > on the future of ICANN. A potential problem is that there is no external > pressure for reform. This list and GIGANet should help in discussing and > proposing some policy solutions. In my “batch-processing” of latest > messages, I will also reflect on the Framework Convention and > Triangle/Variable Geometry of IG. > > Best, Jovan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 09:03 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Ian Peter > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention > > Alejandro: > > Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of > organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not > comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a > discussion here. > > Wolfgang: > > The challenger in the WSIS process were members of the governmental > stakeholder group. The EU wanted to have a new cooperation model with > governments on the top ("on the level of principle"). Brazil wanted to have > an Internet Convention. South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, India and > until PrepCom3 also the government of the Peoples Republic of China wanted > to have an "Intergovernmental Internet Council". The ITU wanted to overtake > some functions from ICANN and to play a greater (probably leading) role. > WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNCTAD, ILO and other IGOs which have a stake in IG in > its broader understanding (like multiligualism in UNESCO or IPR in WIPO) had > a wait and see position with no big ambitions. The USG, supported by a broad > range of private sector members and some civil society groups, opposed a > broader role for governments. > > The result was the agreement to start a proces of enhanced cooperation (both > on the intergovernmental level as well as among governmnetal and > non-governmental stakeholders) but neither the form, the content, the > procedure nor the final objective of the process was defined. Janis > Karkelins, president of PrepCom of WSIS II and now the GAC chair, said three > weeks after Tunis during the ICANN meeting in Vancouver that he does not > understand what the governments (representing the heads of states of about > 180 countries) decided in detail and he speculated that obviously even the > governments have no clue what they want to do. When Nitin Desai started > informal consultations on enhanced cooperation in May 2006, he told > governments (and others) that they have to come with ideas how to bring > butter to the sandwich. But nothing happend (in the public). There is > (public) silence. > > No initiative from the EU. The only word came from Madame Reding when she > applauded the JPA as a right step towards a new cooperation model. In May > 2007 there is a meeting of the "High Level Internet Governace Working Group" > of the EU and there had been consultatitons with the USG under the German EU > presidency. But these meetings are closed shops. No agenda, no communique. > > > Brazil has given up obviously its idea of an Inernet Convention? Or do they > plan something for the Rio 2007 IGF? What about the supporters for the > "Intergovernmental Internet Council" (look into the WGIG report)? Silence > from South Africa to India to Iran. Did they give up? The Chinese government > was happy with the Tunis Agenda which recognized "national soveriegnty" of > the national domain name space. An own Internet root with TLD Root Zone > files with Chinese characters (where the authorization of the publication of > these zone files is done by the MII and not by the DOC) would obviously > qualify for "national domain name space". So why the Chinese government > should become active? They got what they wanted to have. They will also wait > and see. (BTW does somebody know whether ICANN will have its fall 2007 > meeting in Taipeh and does somebody know what the position of the Chinese > government, which more or less ignores up today the GAC, is in this > question?) > > The ITU has started just recently a consultatiton with its members on > enhanced coopweration according to reolsution 102 from Antalya. But the New > ITU SG has made clear in his very first statements that he will not continue > to push for ITU leadership in IG as Mr. Utsumi did. ITU under Toure wants to > become the leader in Cybersecurity and Infrastructure, two important > elements of IG in the broader understanding. And it will make contributions > to iDNS, NGNs, ENUM, IPv6 etc. but not in competition to ICANN. But Toure, > at the end of the day, is the voice of the member states. So lets wait and > see whether the cancellation of his planned visit to the ICANN meeting in > Lisbon in March 2007 was indeed for "technical reasons" only. WIPO, UNESCO, > WTO etc. did not change their mind. They are waitng. If somebody will ask > them to write a report what they have done in their field of competence for > IG they will write the report, probably not more than five to ten pages. If > nobody asks them, they will do nothing. But who has a mandate to ask for > such a report? > > What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF > 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any > direction? > > Best regards > > Wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 24 00:16:14 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:46:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070424041625.91A525C55@smtp2.electricembers.net> > For example, people who don't want to talk explicitly about ICANN in > the Forum will oppose #2) no matter how it is written and what it says, On the contrary, I think that all those who have participated in the 'ICANN at IGF' discussion on either side, have indicated that though they may having varying misgivings on the issue, in the end they have no_REAL_problem in ICANN being discussed at IGF. I am quite hopeful that we will be able to include ICANN on our IGF agenda proposal, and that there is no real opposition to this. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:19 PM > To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > Parminder: > Forgive me for missing the original email. > > Your three proposals are good ideas, they would need a bit more work > but I agree that what IGC needs to do now is put forward simple > recommendations to the MAG and the IGF Secretariat, and _not_ get bogged > down in wordsmithing and long explanations which only detract from the > main thrust. > > For example, people who don't want to talk explicitly about ICANN in > the Forum will oppose #2) no matter how it is written and what it says, > so let's not waste a lot of time debating how it is phrased or > elaborated. > > One thing I would point out is that one of your proposals (3), > corresponds to the general "access" theme. > I would reformulate it as follows: > > "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary > session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance > policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access > to the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to > identify and explore the specific institutional mechanisms, resource > allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms > that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access." > > If Bill can come up with an equally concise description of his > "conformity to Geneva WSIS principles" idea then we can add a fourth. > > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 4/23/2007 6:08:58 AM >>> > (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 > > I very much agree that a fourth one on the 'mandate and role of IGF' > should > also be included. > > > Third option is as Bill suggests, making the theme issue even more > specific. > I understand that would be like listing the plenary themes specifically > in > terms of, say, the 'enhanced cooperation' issue. I will welcome such a > thing. But I think that would allow MAG to too easily reject the > proposal. > With the theme mentioned in a broader way, there still is a small > chance. Or > at least we can argue for it righteously, as far as it goes. > > Another point, I think at these consultations we need only to give our > preferences for plenary themes (among other things) with some > justification. > and it isnt the time to write out an actual proposal - as Milton and > also > Bill speaks about. Or am I getting it wrong. > > Parminder > > > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:54 PM > > To: Governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation > and > > advisory group meeting please > > > > Hi Milton, > > > > Too many threads, too little time... > > > > On 4/22/07 10:54 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > > > > > OK, Adam. I'll bite. > > > > > > As a first proposition, I would reiterate something I said ten days > ago, > > > and which received a couple expressions of support (and no direct > > > opposition I can recall): > > > > > >> 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?" > > > > I responded a couple weeks ago when Parminder included this in a > three > > part > > proposal, didn't know the language originated with you. I think it's > too > > broadly formulated as is, and that a plenary session on this would go > all > > over the place. But if you can elaborate something something more > > internally differentiated and tractable, then the mAG would have a > more > > plausible proposal to reject, and you'd have the basis for a good > workshop > > proposal. > > > > In a similar vein, we might want to consider including for rejection > > another > > call for a discussion on the IGF's mandate. Below for reference are > what > > Vittorio included on this in the statement for the February > consultation, > > and the longer bit I drafted pre-Athens before we decided that a > caucus > > statement to an actual forum meeting would be inappropriate. Anyone > still > > interested in this, or no? > > > > BD > > -------- > > > > Feb. 2007 Consultation submission > > > > We think that this 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, commas (f) and (i) require 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. > > > > Fall 2006 draft > > > > The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, > facilitate > > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > > international > > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any > > existing > > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations > and > > other > > institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange > of > > information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of > the > > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; > > strengthen > > and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future > > Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing > > countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of > the > > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > > recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet > governance > > in > > developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, > the > > embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder > > participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance > > processes. > > > > These are all critically important, value-adding functions that > cannot be > > performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. But while > > governments > > and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, they also cannot be > > performed by annual conferences that largely consist of presentations > by > > invited speakers. We therefore would welcome an opportunity for > open > > dialogue with other participants on how the IGF could fulfill these > and > > other elements of its mandate. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 karl at cavebear.com Tue Apr 24 00:21:50 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:21:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Another view on TLDs In-Reply-To: References: <1559616222@web.de> Message-ID: <462D85DE.8010400@cavebear.com> Some discussion has passed that has assumed that internet governance ought to encompass the semantic examination of character sequences that form DNS top level domains and of the purposes of the advocates of that sequence. Why? Except for IDN encoding and certain conventions (e.g. hyphens may not be leading characters), such examinations contribute nothing to the technical stability of the internet (as measured by the efficient, rapid, and accurate transformation of DNS query packets into DNS response packets without prejudice for or against any query source or query target.) Such examination merely burdens the *internet* governance oversight of TLDs with broad cultural, economic, and social components. And we have seen how those components combine to create a kind of thick concrete that quickly turns to stone around bodies exercising such oversight. So, again I raise the concern that there is a great tendency to bite off more than we can chew - that *internet* governance should constrain itself to matters of a technical nature, at least until there are a few success stories under our belts. By way of analogy - the systems that oversee the safety of aircraft and seacraft tend to confine themselves to matters that pertain to the air or sea worthiness of the craft - that oversight barely goes to the color scheme of the interior (e.g. safety requires adequate lighting) and rarely goes to the business plans of the owners. Internet governance should follow that pattern - it should strictly confine itself to the job that needs to be done. --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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 24 00:49:18 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:49:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/22/07, Milton Mueller > > > So where do things stand now? > > The root server issue (as IGP predicted at the last IGF) is now > reinvented and renewed thanks to the prospect of DNSSEC implementation. It's only renewed in the minds of IGP stff me thinks! > (See our serial blog at http://blog.internetgovernance.org) Wishing doesn't make it so. ICANN's new > TLD process fuses freedom of expression, economic regulation, process > and multilingual issues. The deregulation of domain name registry prices > raises classical issues in regulation, with a somewhat new twist given > the global scope, ICANN's lack of any legal foundation (or competence) > in that area. Whois/privacy is still unresolved. There is an impending > fight over address scarcity in IPv4 and the difficult transition to > IPv6. There is no fight. There are orderly discussions going on in multiple fora in multiple regions in a bottom up fashion. > The beat goes on. It does. In fact this week is a very busy week for these orderly discussions. http://www.arin.net/announcements/20070423.html http://www.afrinic.net/meeting/afrinic-6/index.htm I don't see any IGP folk on the participants list for either of these meetings, or participating on the mailing lists where these things are discussed. Being involved at the top (ICANN) isn't going to help shape policies on these issues. You have to get down in the trenches to have any meaningful input. Hope to see you all there soon. > > In addition, there are a host of non-ICANN related Internet governance > issues, from net neutrality to WIPO treaties to continued efforts to > regulate internet content. Each of them as deep and involved as the > ICANN issue. deeper, really, witness: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18273916/ -- 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Apr 24 00:49:45 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:49:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please Message-ID: Agreed, ICANN will be discussed at IGF. Only question is the agenda for the discussion. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 4/24/2007 12:16 AM >>> > For example, people who don't want to talk explicitly about ICANN in > the Forum will oppose #2) no matter how it is written and what it says, On the contrary, I think that all those who have participated in the 'ICANN at IGF' discussion on either side, have indicated that though they may having varying misgivings on the issue, in the end they have no_REAL_problem in ICANN being discussed at IGF. I am quite hopeful that we will be able to include ICANN on our IGF agenda proposal, and that there is no real opposition to this. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:19 PM > To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > Parminder: > Forgive me for missing the original email. > > Your three proposals are good ideas, they would need a bit more work > but I agree that what IGC needs to do now is put forward simple > recommendations to the MAG and the IGF Secretariat, and _not_ get bogged > down in wordsmithing and long explanations which only detract from the > main thrust. > > For example, people who don't want to talk explicitly about ICANN in > the Forum will oppose #2) no matter how it is written and what it says, > so let's not waste a lot of time debating how it is phrased or > elaborated. > > One thing I would point out is that one of your proposals (3), > corresponds to the general "access" theme. > I would reformulate it as follows: > > "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary > session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance > policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access > to the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to > identify and explore the specific institutional mechanisms, resource > allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms > that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access." > > If Bill can come up with an equally concise description of his > "conformity to Geneva WSIS principles" idea then we can add a fourth. > > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 4/23/2007 6:08:58 AM >>> > (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 > > I very much agree that a fourth one on the 'mandate and role of IGF' > should > also be included. > > > Third option is as Bill suggests, making the theme issue even more > specific. > I understand that would be like listing the plenary themes specifically > in > terms of, say, the 'enhanced cooperation' issue. I will welcome such a > thing. But I think that would allow MAG to too easily reject the > proposal. > With the theme mentioned in a broader way, there still is a small > chance. Or > at least we can argue for it righteously, as far as it goes. > > Another point, I think at these consultations we need only to give our > preferences for plenary themes (among other things) with some > justification. > and it isnt the time to write out an actual proposal - as Milton and > also > Bill speaks about. Or am I getting it wrong. > > Parminder > > > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:54 PM > > To: Governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation > and > > advisory group meeting please > > > > Hi Milton, > > > > Too many threads, too little time... > > > > On 4/22/07 10:54 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > > > > > OK, Adam. I'll bite. > > > > > > As a first proposition, I would reiterate something I said ten days > ago, > > > and which received a couple expressions of support (and no direct > > > opposition I can recall): > > > > > >> 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?" > > > > I responded a couple weeks ago when Parminder included this in a > three > > part > > proposal, didn't know the language originated with you. I think it's > too > > broadly formulated as is, and that a plenary session on this would go > all > > over the place. But if you can elaborate something something more > > internally differentiated and tractable, then the mAG would have a > more > > plausible proposal to reject, and you'd have the basis for a good > workshop > > proposal. > > > > In a similar vein, we might want to consider including for rejection > > another > > call for a discussion on the IGF's mandate. Below for reference are > what > > Vittorio included on this in the statement for the February > consultation, > > and the longer bit I drafted pre-Athens before we decided that a > caucus > > statement to an actual forum meeting would be inappropriate. Anyone > still > > interested in this, or no? > > > > BD > > -------- > > > > Feb. 2007 Consultation submission > > > > We think that this 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, commas (f) and (i) require 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. > > > > Fall 2006 draft > > > > The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, > facilitate > > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > > international > > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any > > existing > > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations > and > > other > > institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange > of > > information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of > the > > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; > > strengthen > > and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future > > Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing > > countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of > the > > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > > recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet > governance > > in > > developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, > the > > embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder > > participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance > > processes. > > > > These are all critically important, value-adding functions that > cannot be > > performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. But while > > governments > > and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, they also cannot be > > performed by annual conferences that largely consist of presentations > by > > invited speakers. We therefore would welcome an opportunity for > open > > dialogue with other participants on how the IGF could fulfill these > and > > other elements of its mandate. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 24 03:48:15 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:18:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <462C54F4.3030808@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070424074847.67E6A5C4B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Dear Jeremy, For the last several years in India, one of the most furious debates has been the nature of several development projects. The most famous of them being the Sardar Sarovar Dam over the river Narmada. The 'users' for the dam were millions of farmers in Gujarat state (irrigation) and citizens of that state (drinking water and hydro electric power). Many people in Gujarat were strong supporters of the dam. The dam resulted in the submergence of large tracts of land in Madhya Pradesh, a neighboring state. Most areas was forest lands, inhabited by poor tribals. The Governments decided in their 'wisdom' that the submergence of such land and the 'resettlement' and 'rehabilitation' of thousands of poor tribals was 'worth' the supply of water and electricity. There are several such 'development' projects in India (Steel Plant in Orissa, Automobile factory in West Bengal ....) where there are 'users' who benefit from the project and several others who have no apparent 'use' for the project. These groups who are 'impacted' by the project have as much stake as those who stand to benefit / are participating in the project. Now for an example relating to the internet - as the 'e-choupal' project of ITC (http://www.echoupal.com/) claims the space of intermediaries in the agriculture market space, should the issues of governance of such spaces be the concern of only the farmers and ITC. Or are the impacted 'mandi (market) traders' concerns also to be taken into account? Are the customers for those product, who are also impacted by this change also be consulted? As also the people (in the Government and outside) who quality assure the produce and the processes? If e-choupal reinforces or aggravates existing gender and caste divisions, are women and the affected caste members not people whose needs must inform governance of the space in which operates. And is this space an 'internet' space or a 'development' space? It is difficult for me to visualise that over time, there will be any individual who will be free of the impact of the internet, in positive and negative ways, for both those 'participating' as 'users' and those 'excluded' from it. Whether you look at the internet as a media space, or as a communication space or as an information space. Whether it is a forum for delivering business or Government services. Whether for building 'virtual' communities etc etc. In all these avatars, the rules of our living are being re-written in many ways that we are often still trying to figure out. The number of people totally untouched by any of these manifestations is declining rapidly and this group will become extinct, it is a question of 'when' and not 'if'. And given that the 'non-users' at any time, will tend to be amongst relatively disadvantaged people in the world, it becomes even more important to factor in their interests into IG. Equity is a cornerstone of governance in any democracy. In fact, the 'ICTD' sector has been significantly spawned off by the belief that internet hugely impacts development. In this sense it is difficult to not think of the people of the world as the constitutency for IG. All are equally stakeholders to the possibilities of the information society that we "are building". The current 'users' who are still in a minority (microscopic minority in many countries) represent the most previleged section of humanity on many considerations and can at best be 'trustees' for the rest and cannot abrogate any special previleges to themselves. I would interpret "However in many, perhaps most issue areas, existing Internet users will be the most directly affected and thus have the strongest claim to be heard" in this light. Hence to repeat what I have said earlier on this list .."the internet community consists of people who are impacted by the internet, not merely those who logon to it..." Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:11 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) Parminder wrote: > I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - > what is the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade people > directly involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC's - a major > player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current > Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which > is all the people of the world). The last option is too broad to be meaningful. My understanding of the Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. In saying this I don't disagree that the interests of non-users need to be taken into account in certain IG issue areas that impact them, particularly development. This favours the inclusion of all stakeholders including civil society and governments rather than just Internet users, in fora relevant to those issues, such as the IGF. But it does not count for the inclusion of non-users in all IG fora, because there are many issue areas that will be simply irrelevant to them. I can't imagine why non-users would generally need to be consulted by the IETF, for example. By the same token, Internet users have no need to be represented in development fora. > *Can we, in the IGC, expressly recognize 'all people of the world, in > their various individual and social expressions, in equal > representation' as the legitimate constituency of IG? *And also make > an express statement that IGC sees itself as seeking to represent the > interests of this constituency (and not the internet community or the > individual internet user, due to the above said definitional issues). I'm not sure that I could support that as a blanket statement. The stakeholders impacted by an IG issue, and therefore entitled to be heard in respect of it, will vary from one case to another. However in many, perhaps most issue areas, existing Internet users will be the most directly affected and thus have the strongest claim to be heard. -- 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 guru at itforchange.net Tue Apr 24 03:48:15 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:18:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070424074844.6817AE06AF@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear Avri "i think there are many communities of interest and trying to abstract them all into one Internet Community is not necessarily helpful" ... I think this is a very interesting statement and agree with you .... Sharing some thoughts that this line triggered. It is well theorised that in many cases the 'community' in question can be a heteregenous one with tenous common interests/links. (Read "Community Participation and Literacy Beyond Semantics" by Sadhna Saxena http://www.sagepub.com/booksProdTOC.nav?prodId=Book226090). I agree with you that the 'internet community' is a loose organization of many communities, some with closer internal links than as 'internet' community. This is very much the case with the 'village community' a new space that Indian Development policies created in the mid fifties. The village in India, was never one single interest unit, it usually had caste, class and religious communities within, who had stronger bonding. However, for socio-economic development, a village had advantages in being visualised as a community, least from a delivery of development services. In hindsight, it became clear that in most cases, the traditional elite of the 'village community', the village headman and upper caste men, picked up the leadership of the 'village community' as well, and the traditionally marginalized sections within the village continued to be 'invisible' in the village community also. And the marginalized who should have been the special focus of development, continued to remain marginalized. Hence, in many subsequent programs, it has been recognised that in such 'loose' communities, the traditional marginalized should be specially focussed on / sought after. (For e.g. the Mahila Samakhya program, a womens empowerment program in India, focuses on 'dalit' (lower caste) women). As I mentioned in my mail to Jeremy, equity is the cornerstone of goveranance in democracy. Democracy has no meaning if marginalized sections are not enabled to participate. Hence while the interests of different communities within 'internet community' may vary in nature and extent, these need to be negotiated amongst the groups and not assumed. Specially, in 'loose' communities such as the internet community, the interests of the 'traditionally' marginalized (who we can see, continue to be the digitally disadvantaged as well) need to get focus and protection. In this sense, Parminders point about internet community and internet users is compelling .... That the small group of internet users, and ICANN cannot really be making decisions on internet governance, excluding the vast majority, who while not logging onto the internet, are affected by it. Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:22 PM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people Hi, On 23 apr 2007, at 12.24, Parminder wrote: ... stuff deleted to keep message shorter for the sake of those who pay too much for their bytes. > > > Though I have some problems with this division of internet policy stakeholdership, even if we provosionally go by it, I have atleast > two questions. > > > > (1)In public policy determination does Internet community get any special rights over and above those of internet users. special rights? no. are there different things that one group may have a stronger role in, i expect yes. e.g. the internet community has a greater knowledge of what is possible and what currently is the case. the user community and the emerging user community has a greater knowledge of what is needed. when it comes to policy, they should, in my opinion have an equal voice from their different perspectives, and should, again in my opinion, honor each other's special vantage point. > (2) where and how are non-users represented, for instance in ICANN. currently, that is one of the flaws, again from my perspective, in ICANN that needs to be remedied. there is an effort to include their interests in the recruitment by the nomcom of outsiders to sit on the board, the supporting organizations and the ALAC, but i don't think it goes far enough in terms of making them stakeholders with constituency representation. and while things are beginning to open up somewhat, it is going very slowly and in an ad hoc manner and has not yet reached a point of anything close to parity with the business interests or even the government interests. > > > Both these questions have great relevance on the issue of whether > ICANN should or should not be discussed at IGF. personally, i think anything related to IG should be within the purview of the IGF. i think, again personally, that if something is a problem from any perspective, then it can be discussed and can be the object of a dynamic coalition. 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 guru at itforchange.net Tue Apr 24 03:48:57 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:18:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070424074907.829ECE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> I think Dan has made a useful distinction between 'using' internet / technical aspects and the 'impact' aspects that concern all; as well as a useful suggestion as well on the role of ICANN and the political in IG. It seems possible from his arguments that the 'technical' aspects of internet governance have to be in line with the 'political' ones. ICANN "attempting to breach into political governance spaces" in its current institutional form appears an attempt of tail wagging the dog. Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) At 2:40 PM +0800 4/23/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >Parminder wrote: >> I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - >> what is the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade >> people directly involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC's - a >> major player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the >> current Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the >> Internet (which is all the people of the world). > >The last option is too broad to be meaningful. My understanding of the >Internet community is simply the community of Internet users. I think it may be useful to distinguish what constituency is pertinent to what policy contexts. With regard to "Internet Governance" as the context, if we split this into (at least) technical and political domains, it would seem to me that perhaps only the "Internet community" or "Internet users" might have direct interests in technical matters, but "all people of the world" do have an interest in political matters, because the political impacts extend well beyond the technical infrastructure of the Internet. This seems to be one element of architectural confusion at ICANN, for example. If the representative structure (such as it is) is designed around merely technical matters, but the policy domain has crept outward to extend to political matters, then there is a systematic mismatch between the representative structure and the policy domain. When it comes to political matters involving the Internet, it is pretty clear to me that all people of the world have a stake in that, because the Internet has risen to the level of importance of a "public utility" in the last ten years or so. It has the potential to significantly affect the lives of every individual on the planet, and so all individuals are legitimate stakeholders in the political process, either directly or indirectly. So in an IG context in the broad political sense, politics is tautologically involved, and representation should extend to all. What the proper institutional structure should be to handle the mix of technical and political domains is a separate matter. (I would suggest that it makes sense to separate the technical jurisdiction from broader political jurisdiction with separate institutions, and let ICANN continue as a technical institution, which its design fits much better than the political domain.) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Apr 24 04:15:03 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:15:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: New TLDs In-Reply-To: <1559616222@web.de> References: <1559616222@web.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0704240115t6e16009ey3f3dc046418c7429@mail.gmail.com> On 4/23/07, Michael Leibrandt wrote: > > Dear Bertrand, > > Having a German academic background, I feel a somewhat natural symphathy > for rules and categories. But the problem with TLD is that even within > specific categories you will find some very distinct under-categories. To > give you an example regarding City TLD: In Germany, some city names are > protected as trademarks, some are not. So completely different rules would > have to be aplied to proposals for .solingen or .buxtehude. Interesting case. Did not know. But probably does not mean completely different rules, just that a large range of criteria will be taken into account. With regard to the development of evaluation rules: Don't you think that for > a specific set of possible TLD, Geo-TLD, the new GAC Principles do already > contain some quite important and clear evaluation criteria (e.g. support > of the relevant local authority)? I would say yes, "some"criteria, but the whole set is not complete yet. Best Bertrand Michael > _______________________________________________________________ > SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und > kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 > > -- ____________________ 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Apr 24 04:26:50 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:26:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: New TLDs References: <1559616222@web.de> <954259bd0704240115t6e16009ey3f3dc046418c7429@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D34B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> If GEO-TLDs (or cityTLDs) are an accepted category, you can find individual solutions for individual cases. Buxtehude (the composer and the city, as mentioned by Alejandro (he loves German music and should sit in the Board of .leipzig/Bach has lived here for decades) is only one example. Gets more comllciated if the name of a region is used as a trademark (Cognac, Champagne). The WIPO Report from 1999 has wonderful examples. And confusion can be everywhere. CA is California but .ca is Canada. But again, to stop this and say it is too cpomplex we stop it at the bginning, is not the answer. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 24.04.2007 10:15 An: Michael Leibrandt Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; LMcKnigh at syr.edu; Mueller at syr.edu; expression at ipjustice.org; goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au Betreff: Re: New TLDs On 4/23/07, Michael Leibrandt wrote: Dear Bertrand, Having a German academic background, I feel a somewhat natural symphathy for rules and categories. But the problem with TLD is that even within specific categories you will find some very distinct under-categories. To give you an example regarding City TLD: In Germany, some city names are protected as trademarks, some are not. So completely different rules would have to be aplied to proposals for .solingen or .buxtehude. Interesting case. Did not know. But probably does not mean completely different rules, just that a large range of criteria will be taken into account. With regard to the development of evaluation rules: Don't you think that for a specific set of possible TLD, Geo-TLD, the new GAC Principles do already contain some quite important and clear evaluation criteria ( e.g. support of the relevant local authority)? I would say yes, "some"criteria, but the whole set is not complete yet. Best Bertrand Michael _______________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 -- ____________________ 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") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Tue Apr 24 04:57:26 2007 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:57:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) and (Dis)Continuity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <015001c7864e$958f5c40$6600a8c0@JOVAN> Thank you, Milton and Bill, for making explicit some of the tacit parts of my message. Of course history did not start yesterday, nor will it end tomorrow (hopefully). Believe me, I can prove this, coming from a region which generates more history than it can consume (sometimes it "exports" history, as it did back in 1914). All issues have history. Some "IG themes" can be traced back to earlier than 1981. Recently, I have been consulting the League of Nations archive. You have it all there.... question of obscene publications, censorship, new media and content (at that time radio), media and political life, etc. Also, if we go back to the early days of ITU and, since then, the ongoing debate of private vs. public (Bill knows a lot about it) .... or Marconi and standardization/monopoly or ...... There is an almost continuous historical recycling of debates and disputes. One of the most skilful diplomats following the WSIS/WGIG in Geneva told me that he was recycling arguments from the IG-debate in the 1990s (essentially replacing "civil society" with the name of his country). BTW - is anyone aware of any research on recycling of international policy debates? History helps to put things into context, but it can also block us, forcing us to dig into our trenches and follow the logic of "I know how they will react". This is especially the case when we have "lived" the history. Again, I can confirm this from my personal experience. During the 1990s, I was involved in opposing a bad guy from the Balkans. It made an impact on my life. Every fight leaves scars. One of my "scars" is a lack of objectivity to appreciate changes in circumstances and contexts in the Balkans. I tend to fit new developments into already established molds (more emotional than objective). There is no formula to identify historical continuity and discontinuity. The only thing we can do is to be aware of it. My message on the IG Debate aimed at identifying a few changes in the overall context that may influence continuity/discontinuity in the IG debate (not the end of the debate). There are many elements to argue for the "discontinuity" phase. Back to history...... here is one of my favorite quotes from Ibn Khaldun (sometimes unfairly called the "Arab Machiavelli"): "Scholars are of all people those least fitted for politics and its ways. The reason for this is that they are accustomed to intellectual speculation, the search for concepts, and the abstraction from sense data and clarification in the mind. All their operations aim at attaining the universal aspect of things not those particular to their material content, or to a person, generation, nation, or particular class of men.. In fact, no social phenomenon should be judged by analogy with other phenomena, for if it is similar to them in certain respects it may yet differ from them in many others... The ordinary sound man of mediocre intelligence, whose mind is unaccustomed to such speculation, judges each case on its own merits." If we step back and reflect on people, discussions and processes in the IG debate we can see how relevant Ibn Khaldun is today (almost 1000 years later). Yes, I consider myself a "scholar" (though not officially accepted in the club). Best, Jovan -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:16 To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) Hi, On 4/22/07 10:44 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > years). I've seen many an ICT policy issue come and go, and believe me > the global governance arrangements around Internet and other ICTs are > extremely meaty and no flash in the pan. Maybe to you it was no more > than a passing wave to be caught, but not me. >>>> jovank at diplomacy.edu 04/22/07 12:37 PM >>> > You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments > worldwide > (if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most > important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003, > when IG > was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. > > Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral damage" > of > the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In the US, When I first read Jovan's message, I like Milton thought, how the hell could he say this? International policy debates and action on IG significantly predated WSIS, didn't stop when WSIS ended, and will continue far into the future. And the issues that divide governments and other stakeholders internationally, not just on names and numbers but the whole host of IG topics---IPR, security, civil liberties, e-commerce, etc--can't be reduced to anti-Bush/American/war sentiment. But perhaps there's a simple way to square the two views. What WSIS did was temporarily push IG up the agendas of general foreign policy, so we got Condi Rice writing letters and so on, and foreign ministries and people from the UN missions here in Geneva who'd never worked on IG per se suddenly were spending time and energy on it. Now that the 'threat' of a 'UN takeover of core resources' and other WSIS-related buzz has subsided and the focus has shifted back to the internal processes of the various specialized IG mechanisms, the issues have moved back down the bureaucratic chain within governments to the agencies/ministries that are normally tasked with global ICT policy. They continue to negotiate with their counterparts in the relevant forums, but without the nominal prospect of something big happening, there's less buzz and the UN mission people are back in business as usual mode. So I could agree with Jovan if we reformulated "IG is no longer on the radars of governments worldwide" as "IG has for the time being moved from being 'high politics' attracting generalists in foreign ministries and agitating the press and others back to being 'low politics.' involving specialists in ministries of communication, the US Dept. of Commerce, etc." Still on the radar, but different. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 24 05:11:53 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) and (Dis)Continuity Message-ID: <831593.4847.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The excellent George Monbiot writes in today's Guardian "The demand for a world parliament is at last acquiring some serious political muscle." This "campaign for a UN parliamentary assembly is being launched this week on five continents. It is backed by nearly 400 MPs from 70 countries, a long and eclectic list of artists and intellectuals". Later on George writes "Global governance is a tyranny speaking the language of democracy." The full article is available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2063921,00.html Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Jovan Kurbalija To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, 24 April, 2007 6:57:26 PM Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) and (Dis)Continuity Thank you, Milton and Bill, for making explicit some of the tacit parts of my message. Of course history did not start yesterday, nor will it end tomorrow (hopefully). Believe me, I can prove this, coming from a region which generates more history than it can consume (sometimes it "exports" history, as it did back in 1914). All issues have history. Some "IG themes" can be traced back to earlier than 1981. Recently, I have been consulting the League of Nations archive. You have it all there.... question of obscene publications, censorship, new media and content (at that time radio), media and political life, etc. Also, if we go back to the early days of ITU and, since then, the ongoing debate of private vs. public (Bill knows a lot about it) .... or Marconi and standardization/monopoly or ...... There is an almost continuous historical recycling of debates and disputes. One of the most skilful diplomats following the WSIS/WGIG in Geneva told me that he was recycling arguments from the IG-debate in the 1990s (essentially replacing "civil society" with the name of his country). BTW - is anyone aware of any research on recycling of international policy debates? History helps to put things into context, but it can also block us, forcing us to dig into our trenches and follow the logic of "I know how they will react". This is especially the case when we have "lived" the history. Again, I can confirm this from my personal experience. During the 1990s, I was involved in opposing a bad guy from the Balkans. It made an impact on my life. Every fight leaves scars. One of my "scars" is a lack of objectivity to appreciate changes in circumstances and contexts in the Balkans. I tend to fit new developments into already established molds (more emotional than objective). There is no formula to identify historical continuity and discontinuity. The only thing we can do is to be aware of it. My message on the IG Debate aimed at identifying a few changes in the overall context that may influence continuity/discontinuity in the IG debate (not the end of the debate). There are many elements to argue for the "discontinuity" phase. Back to history...... here is one of my favorite quotes from Ibn Khaldun (sometimes unfairly called the "Arab Machiavelli"): "Scholars are of all people those least fitted for politics and its ways. The reason for this is that they are accustomed to intellectual speculation, the search for concepts, and the abstraction from sense data and clarification in the mind. All their operations aim at attaining the universal aspect of things not those particular to their material content, or to a person, generation, nation, or particular class of men.. In fact, no social phenomenon should be judged by analogy with other phenomena, for if it is similar to them in certain respects it may yet differ from them in many others... The ordinary sound man of mediocre intelligence, whose mind is unaccustomed to such speculation, judges each case on its own merits." If we step back and reflect on people, discussions and processes in the IG debate we can see how relevant Ibn Khaldun is today (almost 1000 years later). Yes, I consider myself a "scholar" (though not officially accepted in the club). Best, Jovan -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:16 To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) Hi, On 4/22/07 10:44 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > years). I've seen many an ICT policy issue come and go, and believe me > the global governance arrangements around Internet and other ICTs are > extremely meaty and no flash in the pan. Maybe to you it was no more > than a passing wave to be caught, but not me. >>>> jovank at diplomacy.edu 04/22/07 12:37 PM >>> > You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments > worldwide > (if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most > important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003, > when IG > was put on the WSIS agenda, and 2007. > > Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral damage" > of > the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In the US, When I first read Jovan's message, I like Milton thought, how the hell could he say this? International policy debates and action on IG significantly predated WSIS, didn't stop when WSIS ended, and will continue far into the future. And the issues that divide governments and other stakeholders internationally, not just on names and numbers but the whole host of IG topics---IPR, security, civil liberties, e-commerce, etc--can't be reduced to anti-Bush/American/war sentiment. But perhaps there's a simple way to square the two views. What WSIS did was temporarily push IG up the agendas of general foreign policy, so we got Condi Rice writing letters and so on, and foreign ministries and people from the UN missions here in Geneva who'd never worked on IG per se suddenly were spending time and energy on it. Now that the 'threat' of a 'UN takeover of core resources' and other WSIS-related buzz has subsided and the focus has shifted back to the internal processes of the various specialized IG mechanisms, the issues have moved back down the bureaucratic chain within governments to the agencies/ministries that are normally tasked with global ICT policy. They continue to negotiate with their counterparts in the relevant forums, but without the nominal prospect of something big happening, there's less buzz and the UN mission people are back in business as usual mode. So I could agree with Jovan if we reformulated "IG is no longer on the radars of governments worldwide" as "IG has for the time being moved from being 'high politics' attracting generalists in foreign ministries and agitating the press and others back to being 'low politics.' involving specialists in ministries of communication, the US Dept. of Commerce, etc." Still on the radar, but different. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Apr 24 05:16:53 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:16:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <1559470906@web.de> References: <1559470906@web.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0704240216n4066acesaba5a926434318db@mail.gmail.com> Hi Michael, Irrespective of the issue (any TLD or any other subject) and for the sake of clarity, "having a final say" can take many forms, including : - *compulsory formal agreement* : nothing is possible without the expressed support of the actor that has the final say (this means that mere silence is a veto) - *final decision in case there is a conflict*, for instance between two actors (this is final say in the sense of arbitration) - *right of formal veto* (this means silence is approval) This entails very different consequences in the day-to-day application of the principle. Best Bertrand On 4/23/07, Michael Leibrandt wrote: > > Wolfgang, > > Sorry, but again you are circling around the final question. Just to say > > "If the LIC is divided, more discussion is needed." > > is not helpful in an operational sense. Sometimes people simply do not > agree, so you have to decice if a) nothing happens or b) one of the players > is actually somewhat superior to the others. If you agree that a) Geo-TLD > have public policy implications and b) the WSIS has delivered a kind of > division of labor which notes the special responsibility of public > authorities for public policy, then - in line with the GAC Principles you > mentioned - the relevant local authority does actually have the final say. > > Michael > > > ____________________ > 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Apr 24 06:22:01 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:22:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <20070424074847.67E6A5C4B@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070424074847.67E6A5C4B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <462DDA49.5060606@Malcolm.id.au> Guru at ITfC wrote: > In this sense it is difficult to not think of the people of the world as the > constitutency for IG. All are equally stakeholders to the possibilities of > the information society that we "are building". The current 'users' who are > still in a minority (microscopic minority in many countries) represent the > most previleged section of humanity on many considerations and can at best > be 'trustees' for the rest and cannot abrogate any special previleges to > themselves. I would interpret "However in many, perhaps most issue areas, > existing Internet users will be the most directly affected and thus have the > strongest claim to be heard" in this light. I don't dissent from the thrust of what you and Parminder have said in your responses. All I am saying, and I apologise if I didn't say it clearly, is that in the discussion of any IG issue, all impacted stakeholders should be empowered to collaborate in policy development, but that exactly *which* stakeholders are so impacted will vary from one issue to another, and therefore the weight that should legitimately be accorded to their input will vary accordingly. The question of what weight should be accorded to those potentially affected *in the future* is not an uncommon one. In environmental law, in particular, consideration is given to the interests of future generations. This is closely analogous to the approach to be taken in IG in respect of non-users. However, should non-users be consulted on all IG issues, including those that are never likely to affect them and about which they and those who speak for them have no knowledge or experience? Whilst Parminder may have taken issue with my example of participation in the IETF, standards development is just as much a part of IG as technical coordination and public policy development. I agree that standards development is a sphere of governance that concerns him, and his constituents, and probably us all, less than other spheres that more often and directly engage public policy issues. But this does mean that *in general*, the IETF can legitimately give less weight to the input of non-users, by failing to specifically provide for the solicitation of their views in its processes (with some exceptions, eg. multilingualism). Which leads on the two basic approaches that an IG organisation can take in dealing with the fact that some people are more directly and more often engaged by the issues within its remit than others. The first approach is to make a rough guess as to who is and is not engaged by the issues that you are discussing, divide them into stakeholder groups, and institutionalise their representation within the organisation in the way that ICANN has (or by holding meetings in locations, or using technologies, that exclude stakeholders with no legitimate interest). The problems with this approach are: (a) You might be wrong; how do you know who will be impacted by the issues you are considering? And Karl's concern: how can you legitimately box people into stakeholder groups? (b) The process by which the decision is made may not be open, transparent, or subject to input by all those potentially affected. (Hello, ICANN!) (c) It is inflexible, in that novel issues may arise that impact upon new stakeholders, and the organisation has no way in which their input may be formally received without restructuring itself. The second way of dealing with the fact that some people have more at stake than others in particular IG issue areas is by making the organisation completely open to all stakeholders who wish to participate, but by determining the weight that their contributions are to be accorded by subjecting their views to a process of reasoned public deliberation. This is my (forlorn) vision for the IGF. Since writing the above I've just read Bertrand's latest post, and it would be superfluous for me to cover the same ground here, but I think the above analysis adds to it slightly by illustrating the distinction between *representative* democracy (the first case given above) and *deliberative* democracy (the second case, about which I write a lot more in my thesis). -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Apr 24 08:12:00 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:12:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <462DDA49.5060606@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20070424074847.67E6A5C4B@smtp2.electricembers.net> <462DDA49.5060606@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <954259bd0704240512m71795045o7311775179854c17@mail.gmail.com> Just in addition to Jeremy's comments. 1) the respective roles and weights of stakeholders are likely to vary with : - the issues : according to the respective weights of the technical, social, economic and political dimensions of them - the venue where they are addressed, at least at first : IG will still use different legacy structures and some are more governmental, private sector, technical, CS oriented etc...: clear application with ICANN, ITU, IGF, and others, even if they are supposed to progressively converge towards some sort of comparable multi-stakeholder format; - and the stage of the discussion : maybe more open in the agenda-setting and decision-shaping phases than in the decision-taking ones. 2) Separating stakeholders into distinct and fixed constituencies is bringing back the notion of "estates" in a different way. It has huge separation and boundary effects. I would argue that it is one of the major problems ICANN is facing, with what I have often described as the "silo" effect that prevents all facets of an issue to be examined early on. This simply prevents the formation of consensus. The stakeholder constituencies also remind me of the "families" approach in the Civil Society during WSIS that was used to create the "CS Bureau". No doubt the Caucuses worked much better. The notion of stakeholdership allows networks of stakeholders to form - even temporarily - on an issue by issue basis. This is a much more flexible way, actually probably the only one that is scalable. WSIS has not superseded the notion of separate categories of actors with the common term of stakeholders for us to envisage the future solution to be the reintroduction of different, separate categories in an infinite regression. But that does not of course prevent actors to gather by affinities to prepare their contributions, exchange wiews and plan. 3) What is said above is mostly applicable to decision-shaping, consensus-driven policy development processes. The question of the final decision-taking is a different one. When consensus is achieved (including rough conssensus), there is no problem : decision-taking is a mere rubber-stamping. Likewise for proposed standards : decision-taking is individual and the standard takes off if htere is a sufficient critical mass of actors endorsing it. The delicate situation is when rough consensus is not achieved (ie : some actors still strongly oppose) and decision still has to be taken because of external factors. That is the kind of situation where representation may kick back in. But then, this raises the question of how to create multi-stakeholder decision-making structures that are trusted and diverse enough to make decisions when they apply in general. This is a problem that will have to be addressed. But let's keep in mind that the normal procedure is consensus-building. For that you need facilitators and not boards, issue networks and not separate constituencies, iterative consultation processes and not voting. A fundamental principle of deliberative or participative democracy (whatever that is) coould be "one person, one voice" rather than "one person, one vote" as in representatibve democracy. (Side note : we have here the inverse problem between english and french as we encounter in the free software issue. In french, "one persone, one vote" is translated as "une personne, une voix", which happens to be the same as "one person, one voice". Whereas with free software, we can say "gratuit" (as in free beer) or libre (as in free speech). Interesting multi-lingual issues; like the remark on the difference between fourth estate and fourth branch for the press. Best Bertrand On 4/24/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Guru at ITfC wrote: > > In this sense it is difficult to not think of the people of the world as > the > > constitutency for IG. All are equally stakeholders to the possibilities > of > > the information society that we "are building". The current 'users' who > are > > still in a minority (microscopic minority in many countries) represent > the > > most previleged section of humanity on many considerations and can at > best > > be 'trustees' for the rest and cannot abrogate any special previleges to > > themselves. I would interpret "However in many, perhaps most issue > areas, > > existing Internet users will be the most directly affected and thus have > the > > strongest claim to be heard" in this light. > > I don't dissent from the thrust of what you and Parminder have said in > your responses. All I am saying, and I apologise if I didn't say it > clearly, is that in the discussion of any IG issue, all impacted > stakeholders should be empowered to collaborate in policy development, > but that exactly *which* stakeholders are so impacted will vary from one > issue to another, and therefore the weight that should legitimately be > accorded to their input will vary accordingly. > > The question of what weight should be accorded to those potentially > affected *in the future* is not an uncommon one. In environmental law, > in particular, consideration is given to the interests of future > generations. This is closely analogous to the approach to be taken in > IG in respect of non-users. However, should non-users be consulted on > all IG issues, including those that are never likely to affect them and > about which they and those who speak for them have no knowledge or > experience? > > Whilst Parminder may have taken issue with my example of participation > in the IETF, standards development is just as much a part of IG as > technical coordination and public policy development. I agree that > standards development is a sphere of governance that concerns him, and > his constituents, and probably us all, less than other spheres that more > often and directly engage public policy issues. But this does mean that > *in general*, the IETF can legitimately give less weight to the input of > non-users, by failing to specifically provide for the solicitation of > their views in its processes (with some exceptions, eg. multilingualism). > > Which leads on the two basic approaches that an IG organisation can take > in dealing with the fact that some people are more directly and more > often engaged by the issues within its remit than others. The first > approach is to make a rough guess as to who is and is not engaged by the > issues that you are discussing, divide them into stakeholder groups, and > institutionalise their representation within the organisation in the way > that ICANN has (or by holding meetings in locations, or using > technologies, that exclude stakeholders with no legitimate interest). > The problems with this approach are: > > (a) You might be wrong; how do you know who will be impacted by the > issues you are considering? And Karl's concern: how can you > legitimately box people into stakeholder groups? > > (b) The process by which the decision is made may not be open, > transparent, or subject to input by all those potentially affected. > (Hello, ICANN!) > > (c) It is inflexible, in that novel issues may arise that impact upon > new stakeholders, and the organisation has no way in which their > input may be formally received without restructuring itself. > > The second way of dealing with the fact that some people have more at > stake than others in particular IG issue areas is by making the > organisation completely open to all stakeholders who wish to > participate, but by determining the weight that their contributions are > to be accorded by subjecting their views to a process of reasoned public > deliberation. This is my (forlorn) vision for the IGF. > > Since writing the above I've just read Bertrand's latest post, and it > would be superfluous for me to cover the same ground here, but I think > the above analysis adds to it slightly by illustrating the distinction > between *representative* democracy (the first case given above) and > *deliberative* democracy (the second case, about which I write a lot > more in my thesis). > > -- > 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 > -- ____________________ 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 Tue Apr 24 08:53:28 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:53:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Another view on TLDs In-Reply-To: <462D85DE.8010400@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:21:50 -0700) References: <1559616222@web.de> <462D85DE.8010400@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070424125328.BF0A6AD052@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > By way of analogy - the systems that oversee the safety of aircraft and > seacraft tend to confine themselves to matters that pertain to the air > or sea worthiness of the craft - that oversight barely goes to the color > scheme of the interior (e.g. safety requires adequate lighting) and > rarely goes to the business plans of the owners. > > Internet governance should follow that pattern - it should strictly > confine itself to the job that needs to be done. The difference is that while disagreements on issues like what kinds of content are morally acceptable or unacceptable for non-technical reasons don't cause technical problems for aircraft, such disagreements do cause technical problems for the internet. For example, the introduction of .xxx into the root zones would have sparked, in many countries, efforts aimed at preventing access to websites under .xxx from working correctly in the sense of the technical standards of the internet. 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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu Tue Apr 24 09:26:31 2007 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:26:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28cfc1a40704240626n278466adn43b2579ba81f8b9d@mail.gmail.com> On 4/24/07, McTim wrote: > > On 4/22/07, Milton Mueller > > > > > > > So where do things stand now? > > > > The root server issue (as IGP predicted at the last IGF) is now > > reinvented and renewed thanks to the prospect of DNSSEC implementation. > > > It's only renewed in the minds of IGP stff me thinks! > > > (See our serial blog at http://blog.internetgovernance.org) > > Wishing doesn't make it so. Dear McTim, To be honest, I was suprised to see someone who claims knowledge from allegedly participating in the "right" lists express such an opinion. One does not have to dig very deep in the relevant IETF Working Group lists (Namedroppers, DNSOPS, and other pre 2001 non-IETF lists) to find evidence that DNSSEC, and particularly control over signing the root, is intensely political and could continue to hold up deployment of the technology. In fact, one of the central actors in the technical community shaping the DNS (Paul Vixie) just said as much ( http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.dnsext/10235/focus=10237). So please, do this list a favor, and stop trying to discredit research on this issue. If you want to debate the issue please join it constructively - here, or on our blog , or at the upcoming symposium on Internet governance and security < http://internetgovernance.org/events.html#Symposium_051707> - rather than make misguided attempts to stiffle it. Regards, Brenden Kuerbis Doctoral Student and IGP "staff" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Apr 24 09:31:53 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:31:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] possible DC workshop in Rio In-Reply-To: <46268F2D.8090004@rits.org.br> References: <20070418092351.A65E4C9555@smtp1.electricembers.net> <46268F2D.8090004@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <462E06C9.3010700@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Sorry for the late reply - caught up in work, and the traffic on this list is way too much for me to follow at the moment. Carlos Afonso wrote: > Objective: presentation of proposals by each of the dynamic coalitions, > so that civil society participants know about each coalition's views Keep in mind that the DCs are NOT civil society, but multistakeholder. I also guess they will get an extra slot at the official IGF for presenting their work. So: I can't speak for the privacy coalition on Rio timing yet. We still have to plan our activities for Geneva next month. We will only sort this out there or even later, I am afraid. Anyway: I would of course be happy to briefly present our work, but have a scheduling conflict with the GIGANET meeting which is planned to last until 18:00 at the same day. I could sneak out of there, but would have to make sure it does not conflict with any chairing or presenting duties at GIGANET. The GIGANET programme will be finished by August 15th, according to current plans. Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 24 09:56:45 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:56:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] possible DC workshop in Rio In-Reply-To: <462E06C9.3010700@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <20070418092351.A65E4C9555@smtp1.electricembers.net> <46268F2D.8090004@rits.org.br> <462E06C9.3010700@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <462E0C9D.6050607@wz-berlin.de> Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Sorry for the late reply - caught up in work, and the traffic on this > list is way too much for me to follow at the moment. > > Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Objective: presentation of proposals by each of the dynamic >> coalitions, so that civil society participants know about each >> coalition's views > Keep in mind that the DCs are NOT civil society, but multistakeholder. I > also guess they will get an extra slot at the official IGF for > presenting their work. Ralf is right. The dynamic coalitions will get slots in the forum schedule. A civil society meeting is a good idea but perhaps with a different focus? jeanette > > So: I can't speak for the privacy coalition on Rio timing yet. We still > have to plan our activities for Geneva next month. We will only sort > this out there or even later, I am afraid. > > Anyway: I would of course be happy to briefly present our work, but have > a scheduling conflict with the GIGANET meeting which is planned to last > until 18:00 at the same day. I could sneak out of there, but would have > to make sure it does not conflict with any chairing or presenting duties > at GIGANET. The GIGANET programme will be finished by August 15th, > according to current plans. > > Best, Ralf > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Tue Apr 24 12:16:59 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:16:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] web: The Best and Worst (US) Internet Laws Message-ID: The Best and Worst Internet Laws Date: Apr 20, 2007 By Eric Goldman. "Over the past dozen years, the lure of regulating the Internet has proven irresistible to legislators. For example, in the 109th Congress, almost 1,100 introduced bills referenced the word Internet, and hundreds of Internet laws have been passed by Congress and the states. This legislative activity is now large enough to identify some winners and losers. In the spirit of good fun, Eric Goldman offers an opinionated list of personal votes for the best and worst Internet statutes in the United States." http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.asp?p=717374&rl=1 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 24 12:45:02 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] What is a: necessary/efficient/ultimate Number In-Reply-To: 462BDDC0.1050303@cavebear.com Message-ID: Thank you Karl, Your answer was quite excellent and constructive, as a result I'll compose a few models as a guide for the purpose of conducting a Census (of Internet Operating Persons), after review of the models & approval, will see how much data can be gathered. Once that's complete (when we know what were looking at), We can table ideas on Administrative adjudication. - I always despised Admin Law (U.S.), in a schematic sense it reminds me of some Rube Goldberg system of Goose-Chasing. Layers and Loops (checks & balances�) of 'Bureaucracy' puts the 'B' in BS. Anyway, maybe we can do a little better. Thnx ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 24 13:28:31 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:28:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Another view on TLDs In-Reply-To: <20070424125328.BF0A6AD052@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1559616222@web.de> <462D85DE.8010400@cavebear.com> <20070424125328.BF0A6AD052@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <462E3E3F.3020803@cavebear.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > The difference is that while disagreements on issues like what kinds > of content are morally acceptable or unacceptable for non-technical > reasons don't cause technical problems for aircraft, such > disagreements do cause technical problems for the internet. I disagree. The example you gave (.xxx) caused local cultural problems, not global technical problems. And if we are intending to establish bodies to resolve that kind of cultural difference then we are not engaging in *internet* governance but, instead are establishing world governance (and also, as a second order effect, creating a subtle pressure pushing the internet to reflect only the lowest common denominator cultural values.) You suggest that (in the case of .xxx) that the potential blocking of a TLD by some countries turns TLD semantics into a technical issue. I find that rather a stretch of logic and would argue that such blocking is a local matter that should have no effect on global internet governance, just as international flight rules are not affected because some nations might deny landing rights to aircraft bearing tail logos they find offensive. I would suggest that we take care to hew close to technology and be careful not to characterize social and economic matters as technological matters in order to slip them into the tent. Otherwise there are few limits to what could be done under the heading *internet* governance. For example, perhaps France might ban a TLD for California winegrowers because some growers here use names that the French consider their own. Let us leave local issues as local issues with local solutions. And let us deal with those matters that cross borders only with regard to those aspects that have direct and compelling links to a technical foundation. --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 dan at musicunbound.com Tue Apr 24 14:08:33 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:08:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] Third Estate - Fourth Estate - Fifth Estate? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704230849r5b0db1f4l89db1debbb038094@mail.gmail.com> References: <37350BBB-02CA-4736-A2CC-B1BC39CD74CE@maxwell.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0b8d01c785ad$bffe77f0$2a01a8c0@JOVAN> <954259bd0704230849r5b0db1f4l89db1debbb038094@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 5:49 PM +0200 4/23/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >3) On the blogosphere as fifth estate The blogosphere is, of course, a >sort of fifth estate, or rather, as I said above, a fifth "pouvoir", in >addition to the four previous ones. But more than anything, the >development of blogs, community sites and social networking tools has >created a global Internet Community of more than a billion people with >very dense interlinking. > >This is the embryo of a global polity rather than a separate constituency >and influential power. The Internet has evolved into a complete social, >economic and political space. All it lacks is the governance framework to >organize this international community as a Polity. > >That is, among other things, what Internet Governance is all about. Not >only the governance "of" the Internet (the infrastructure and the domain >names) or the governance "on" the Internet (the various uses and misuses) >but also a governance made possible by the Internet and the communication >tools it provides; in other words a governance for the Internet Age and a >Global Community. I absolutely concur with the last paragraph quoted here, which might be termed a sort of "wiki-governance" model. However, I would submit that your "fifth estate" here is really just the "long tail" of the "fourth estate" (or "pouvoir" if you prefer). As for the Internet evolving into a complete social, economic and political space, I would also suggest that this "space" is not truly distinct from the social, economic and political dimensions of the "brick-and-mortar" world. It is one world, and the Internet is merely a new tool for reflecting it back upon itself (or more generally: for communicating and transacting with itself). Internet society is part of real society, Internet economics are part of real economics, and Internet politics are part of real politics. Internet media are part of real media, there's just a lot more opportunity for participation in a production/distribution role than before. In fact, traditional "real" media are increasingly migrating to the Internet and related digital platforms, so it looks like Internet media will gradually absorb "real media" over time (including telephone and large chunks of postal systems -- this is about not only one-to-many modes but also one-to-one and many-to-many, and the increasing integration of these modes). So, it appears to me that there should ideally be no distinct separation of Internet Governance from other Real Governance. It is *all* real governance, and thus "real governance" platforms should extend themselves to the Internet in a coherent and ultimately integrated manner and not try to shunt it off into some artificial "technical politics" corner -- doing that will not make the real political issues brought about by technological evolution any easier to resolve. I agree that the geographically unrestricted nature of the Internet provides an unprecedented opportunity for a "global polity" to self-structure, and this creates cross-national constituencies that confuse the existing cross-national political status quo (as multinational corporations and a few cross-national NGOs have escaped the cross-national status quo already -- the Internet really just adds more cross-national constituencies to the mix, self-structuring in a way that previously could happen easily only within some sovereign nations that are amenable to such activity). I think it may be increasingly artificial to view this "global polity" as a single homoghenous community. What it really is is a growing *set* of independent global polities. If these global polities are to participate as intact constituencies on the cross-national world scene, they need a real-world political platform with all of the real-world structures of accountability in order to reach its full "wiki-political" potential. Short of a unified cross-national platform, they need real-world political platforms with all of the real-world structures of accountability within the separate nations where they have participants. Then they could coordinate their actions across different national boundaries (as private multinational organizations do, corporations extensively and NGOs perhaps less extensively so far). Some nations will not allow this, but we can't fix all of the world's political problems at once. Dan PS -- As to whether ICANN is currently or potentially qualified as a real-world institution to conduct or enable "real political governance" with "real-world structures of accountability" that evidently remains a matter of dispute. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 24 14:32:40 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:32:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Treading Where Angels... Message-ID: <035301c7869e$f1877690$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> At the risk of treading where angels etc.etc... On a personal note, I find myself in this discussion space often sending out messages to what appears to me to be an empty room... No response, no engagement, no taking up of threads (the most recent on whose a "user" being an exception but that was a migration from another list where the rules of engagement seem rather different... I've been reflecting on this while thinking at a meta level on the current "dialogue" going on on this list and coming to the interesting conclusion that for my part I don't recognize hardly any of the themes or directions being discussed or proposed for discussion concerning Internet Governance as being those that I understand. In fact I don't have any intuitive recognition as to their significance--short, medium or long term. And from experience it appears that the denizens of this list feel the same about the issues that I think are important and that I've tried to introduce into the discussions. Reflecting further on those two "facts" I've come to an interesting observation. It seems to me that what we have on/in "Internet Governance" at the moment are two sets of actors--those with a technical background/interest/orientation who are concerned with Internet Governance as the means to make sure that Internet things work. On the other hand we have those with a primarily policy background/interest/orientation who are concerned with Internet Governance from the perspective of designing the mechanics of the Internet oriented decision making processes that ensure that those decision processes work. What seems notable by their absence are those I would call "informaticians" ie. those who are concerned with what it is that we want to do with the Internet once we have it working the way we want it to work--and in this latter group I would include equally the folks who are concerned with making the Internet work for commerce as those who are concerned with making it work for social change or for community development. This latter group, where I would personally feel myself to be located, sees the technical issues concerning Internet Governance as transitional impediments to be gotten over in pursuit of applications (results). Equally, it sees issues of the mechanics of policy as being "technical" in the sense that how those issues are fixed doesn't really have much impact on what it is you are trying to do as long as it doesn't interfere. (How ICANN operates or doesn't really doesn't matter as long as the various domains do what they are supposed to do which is direct messages from end users to suppliers and from suppliers to end users etc.etc.) That, I think, explains why "Internet Governance" is rather far down on the list of priorities for governments and for most folks who are simply content to use the Internet and leave the sausage factory to other folks to worry about. Now having said this, I want to suggest that in fact informaticians and particularly the informatics perspective should be seen as crucially important in the area of Internet Governance not because of what they/we do but because of how they/we do it. Informatics folks build end to end applications systems/networks that work--that have real goals and real desired outcomes--social, educational, commercial, political--in terms of how people live their lives. Some of them are Internet based, others aren't but that doesn't matter...what does matter and crucially is that the process of designing the system/network and how it is deployed and implemented is how you come to design your business or application itself--that is your business is a function of the shape of the network rather more than the opposite. (and its been this way for at least the last decade in business and increasingly in the range of other informatics applications as well) People joke that Walmart is an end to end logistics management system with a user interface that happens to be a bunch of retail stores--but that isn't a joke, that is the reality! Walmsrt is what it is, because of how its network is constructed (and dare I say that how it is constructed is to a considerable degree both a function of and a determinant of how it is "governed"). Those of you who have stuck with me in this ramble might now see where I'm going... Internet governance matters to my mind, not because we need to solve some (transitional?) technical issues or because we need to get the governance structure right or else...(? or else what, the governance structure will be wrong?... Internet govenance matters because the informatics application that we are working on with and through the Internet is ultimately the degign of the shape of what society, governance, democracy and so on and so on will look (is looking) like into the foreseeable future. If we don't get it right then getting it wrong will be of rather more and dare I say much more significance and do much more damage than relatively minor debates about ICANN transparency or who's your father discussions around the .xxx domain. My suggestion here is that we look on Internet Governance from the perspective of being those who are contributing to the design of a Walmart Co. that is a globally distributed logistics system that just happens to have governance/democracy/the public good as its possible front end/user interface rather than retail stores selling cut rate merchandise. Best to all, MG ------------------------------------ Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training Executive Director gurstein at gmail.com Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St. Vancouver, BC CANADA v6z 2s1 tel: +1-604-602-0624 fax: +1-604-602-0624 http://www.communityinformatics.net Skype ID:mgurst SkypeIn #:+1-604-602-0624 ------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 24 14:51:13 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:51:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Another view on TLDs In-Reply-To: <462E3E3F.3020803@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:28:31 -0700) References: <1559616222@web.de> <462D85DE.8010400@cavebear.com> <20070424125328.BF0A6AD052@quill.bollow.ch> <462E3E3F.3020803@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070424185113.A760EAD052@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > You suggest that (in the case of .xxx) that the potential blocking of a > TLD by some countries turns TLD semantics into a technical issue. I > find that rather a stretch of logic and would argue that such blocking > is a local matter that should have no effect on global internet > governance, just as international flight rules are not affected because > some nations might deny landing rights to aircraft bearing tail logos > they find offensive. Hmm... my main concern about .xxx is that blocking .xxx could turn out to be what could sets political processes in motion down the slippery slope towards content censorship. If the fundamental technical objective of aircraft design is "ensure that unless someone dies for reasons which are totally independent of being abord the aircraft, everyone abord the plane will still be alive when it has landed", I would say that the corresponding fundamental goal of the internet is "if two people A and B are connected to the 'net, and A wants to communicate some data to B, and B wants to receive the data from A, they are able to do so without fear of censorship". I don't really care whether or not we call this goal "technical", or whether violations of this principle are called "technical issues" or not. What I care about is that this ability to communicate without fear of censorship should be considered one of the fundamental objectives of "internet governance". > I would suggest that we take care to hew close to technology and be > careful not to characterize social and economic matters as technological > matters in order to slip them into the tent. Otherwise there are few > limits to what could be done under the heading *internet* governance. I agree with you that not all internet-related social and economic matters should be considered to fall under the "internet governance" heading. For example, even though I certainly admit that gender issues in relation to internet access are definitely important issues in many countries, I do not agree with the idea of discussing those issues under the "internet governance" heading. Clearly, a boundary line needs to be drawn or recognized somewhere. However, in the context of internet governance, the distinction between "technological matters" on one hand, and "social and economic matters" on the other hand (which ICANN has claimed to make and then failed to uphold) is in my opinion not the exactly right place to draw that boundary. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Apr 24 14:51:56 2007 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:51:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] GNSO Committee on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains survey Message-ID: <4C12EDE4-B25B-41BC-A9D4-D5BEED1D637F@acm.org> Hi, One of ICANN's new gTLD working groups has put out a questionnaire. > Background > > The GNSO’s Committee on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains > has formed a working group to examine a variety of issues > surrounding the protection of the rights of others (PRO-WG). > Members of the PRO-WG have assembled this questionnaire to assist > them in gathering facts and opinions regarding two of the PRO-WG > principal tasks. > > Please answer the following questions by ticking the boxes and > provide additional comments where necessary. For anyone interested in participating: https://www.bigpulse.com/692i 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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Apr 24 18:40:34 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:40:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] possible DC workshop in Rio In-Reply-To: <462E06C9.3010700@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <20070418092351.A65E4C9555@smtp1.electricembers.net> <46268F2D.8090004@rits.org.br> <462E06C9.3010700@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <462E8762.2060305@rits.org.br> Ralf, the important thing here is for civil society to have the opportunity to know in advance what the DCs are proposing (knowing obviously they are pluralist) and have some space for a preparatory debate on them -- they are mostly "dead" (hibernating?) right now, but I trust there will be activity as the IGF approaches and they will have some meaningful propositions. I have just learned that Giganet will run until 16:00. The proposal now is to start the civil society meeting at 15:00 to minimize overlap, but please keep in mind I am just checking on this because if I get a positive reaction in general I will approach local organizers seeking support for such a meeting. []s fraternos --c.a. Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Sorry for the late reply - caught up in work, and the traffic on this > list is way too much for me to follow at the moment. > > Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Objective: presentation of proposals by each of the dynamic >> coalitions, so that civil society participants know about each >> coalition's views > Keep in mind that the DCs are NOT civil society, but multistakeholder. I > also guess they will get an extra slot at the official IGF for > presenting their work. > > So: I can't speak for the privacy coalition on Rio timing yet. We still > have to plan our activities for Geneva next month. We will only sort > this out there or even later, I am afraid. > > Anyway: I would of course be happy to briefly present our work, but have > a scheduling conflict with the GIGANET meeting which is planned to last > until 18:00 at the same day. I could sneak out of there, but would have > to make sure it does not conflict with any chairing or presenting duties > at GIGANET. The GIGANET programme will be finished by August 15th, > according to current plans. > > Best, Ralf > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 24 18:45:38 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:45:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] possible DC workshop in Rio In-Reply-To: <462E0C9D.6050607@wz-berlin.de> References: <20070418092351.A65E4C9555@smtp1.electricembers.net> <46268F2D.8090004@rits.org.br> <462E06C9.3010700@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <462E0C9D.6050607@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <462E8892.2020003@rits.org.br> Hi Jeanette, please see my reply to Ralf just posted. Civil society counts on the DCs as the only "alternative" thematic structure, in which they participate as well. Some of us here in BR think it would be great if civil society people (and others as well of course) knew in advance what the proposals are, and have an opportunity for clarifications. The official space on Nov 12-15 will be, unfortunately, more ritualistic than this -- but maybe with more diffusion in advance of what is being proposed we get a better debate. The Nov.11 meeting would be this opportunity. frt rgds --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Ralf Bendrath wrote: >> Sorry for the late reply - caught up in work, and the traffic on this >> list is way too much for me to follow at the moment. >> >> Carlos Afonso wrote: >>> Objective: presentation of proposals by each of the dynamic >>> coalitions, so that civil society participants know about each >>> coalition's views >> Keep in mind that the DCs are NOT civil society, but multistakeholder. >> I also guess they will get an extra slot at the official IGF for >> presenting their work. > > Ralf is right. The dynamic coalitions will get slots in the forum schedule. > A civil society meeting is a good idea but perhaps with a different focus? > jeanette > >> >> So: I can't speak for the privacy coalition on Rio timing yet. We >> still have to plan our activities for Geneva next month. We will only >> sort this out there or even later, I am afraid. >> >> Anyway: I would of course be happy to briefly present our work, but >> have a scheduling conflict with the GIGANET meeting which is planned >> to last until 18:00 at the same day. I could sneak out of there, but >> would have to make sure it does not conflict with any chairing or >> presenting duties at GIGANET. The GIGANET programme will be finished >> by August 15th, according to current plans. >> >> Best, Ralf >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 guru at itforchange.net Wed Apr 25 01:10:58 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:40:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704240512m71795045o7311775179854c17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070425051111.A7ECEE0644@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear Jeremy and Bertrand, Thanks for some very insightful and thought provoking comments .... I do agree with the substance of your arguments. The issue of hearing the voices of people, particularly those who tend not to be heard is a big challenge to governance ... and combinations of representative and participatory democracies that you suggest do seem to be steps out of the 'silo' and 'opaque' processes that we have seen sometimes earlier in this area. while all stakeholders do have a right to participate, how can those with more knowledge/expertise and also those who are more impacted by a process/decision particpation be accorded more 'weight' (in many cases this may begin with even providing an enabling environment for these groups to actually be present!!) is also part of the same challenge. regards Guru On an aside, as Bertrand says ... CS entities cannot be 'representative' of their constituencies, they can only speak in favor of them. This brings us to the moot question of who can represent these constituencies, which will otherwise not be heard... And here, possibly, the existing 'representative structures', such as those of Governments become relevant . While we do need to work at improving government structures, make them more accountable and transparent, we may also need to recognize their importance from this aspect of 'representation'.... this is one of the reasons why some of us often emphasize the need to engage with Governments (especially those from the South) and give 'weightage' to their views in IG processes ... (like the discussions that some of us from CS had with G77+C for the IGC meeting on a unified MAG last may). While we (CS entities from the South) do battle our own Governments on many issues, we do think that at global spaces such as IG, they could have a critical role of ensuring that the voices of the large majorities of people who have not ever heard the term 'IG', are heard. In this sense, 'less Govt the better' is not usually an option for us. _______________________________ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:42 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Guru at ITfC Subject: Re: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC) Just in addition to Jeremy's comments. 1) the respective roles and weights of stakeholders are likely to vary with : - the issues : according to the respective weights of the technical, social, economic and political dimensions of them - the venue where they are addressed, at least at first : IG will still use different legacy structures and some are more governmental, private sector, technical, CS oriented etc...: clear application with ICANN, ITU, IGF, and others, even if they are supposed to progressively converge towards some sort of comparable multi-stakeholder format; - and the stage of the discussion : maybe more open in the agenda-setting and decision-shaping phases than in the decision-taking ones. 2) Separating stakeholders into distinct and fixed constituencies is bringing back the notion of "estates" in a different way. It has huge separation and boundary effects. I would argue that it is one of the major problems ICANN is facing, with what I have often described as the "silo" effect that prevents all facets of an issue to be examined early on. This simply prevents the formation of consensus. The stakeholder constituencies also remind me of the "families" approach in the Civil Society during WSIS that was used to create the "CS Bureau". No doubt the Caucuses worked much better. The notion of stakeholdership allows networks of stakeholders to form - even temporarily - on an issue by issue basis. This is a much more flexible way, actually probably the only one that is scalable. WSIS has not superseded the notion of separate categories of actors with the common term of stakeholders for us to envisage the future solution to be the reintroduction of different, separate categories in an infinite regression. But that does not of course prevent actors to gather by affinities to prepare their contributions, exchange wiews and plan. 3) What is said above is mostly applicable to decision-shaping, consensus-driven policy development processes. The question of the final decision-taking is a different one. When consensus is achieved (including rough conssensus), there is no problem : decision-taking is a mere rubber-stamping. Likewise for proposed standards : decision-taking is individual and the standard takes off if htere is a sufficient critical mass of actors endorsing it. The delicate situation is when rough consensus is not achieved (ie : some actors still strongly oppose) and decision still has to be taken because of external factors. That is the kind of situation where representation may kick back in. But then, this raises the question of how to create multi-stakeholder decision-making structures that are trusted and diverse enough to make decisions when they apply in general. This is a problem that will have to be addressed. But let's keep in mind that the normal procedure is consensus-building. For that you need facilitators and not boards, issue networks and not separate constituencies, iterative consultation processes and not voting. A fundamental principle of deliberative or participative democracy (whatever that is) coould be "one person, one voice" rather than "one person, one vote" as in representatibve democracy. (Side note : we have here the inverse problem between english and french as we encounter in the free software issue. In french, "one persone, one vote" is translated as "une personne, une voix", which happens to be the same as "one person, one voice". Whereas with free software, we can say "gratuit" (as in free beer) or libre (as in free speech). Interesting multi-lingual issues; like the remark on the difference between fourth estate and fourth branch for the press. Best Bertrand On 4/24/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Guru at ITfC wrote: > In this sense it is difficult to not think of the people of the world as the > constitutency for IG. All are equally stakeholders to the possibilities of > the information society that we "are building". The current 'users' who are > still in a minority (microscopic minority in many countries) represent the > most previleged section of humanity on many considerations and can at best > be 'trustees' for the rest and cannot abrogate any special previleges to > themselves. I would interpret "However in many, perhaps most issue areas, > existing Internet users will be the most directly affected and thus have the > strongest claim to be heard" in this light. I don't dissent from the thrust of what you and Parminder have said in your responses. All I am saying, and I apologise if I didn't say it clearly, is that in the discussion of any IG issue, all impacted stakeholders should be empowered to collaborate in policy development, but that exactly *which* stakeholders are so impacted will vary from one issue to another, and therefore the weight that should legitimately be accorded to their input will vary accordingly. The question of what weight should be accorded to those potentially affected *in the future* is not an uncommon one. In environmental law, in particular, consideration is given to the interests of future generations. This is closely analogous to the approach to be taken in IG in respect of non-users. However, should non-users be consulted on all IG issues, including those that are never likely to affect them and about which they and those who speak for them have no knowledge or experience? Whilst Parminder may have taken issue with my example of participation in the IETF, standards development is just as much a part of IG as technical coordination and public policy development. I agree that standards development is a sphere of governance that concerns him, and his constituents, and probably us all, less than other spheres that more often and directly engage public policy issues. But this does mean that *in general*, the IETF can legitimately give less weight to the input of non-users, by failing to specifically provide for the solicitation of their views in its processes (with some exceptions, eg. multilingualism). Which leads on the two basic approaches that an IG organisation can take in dealing with the fact that some people are more directly and more often engaged by the issues within its remit than others. The first approach is to make a rough guess as to who is and is not engaged by the issues that you are discussing, divide them into stakeholder groups, and institutionalise their representation within the organisation in the way that ICANN has (or by holding meetings in locations, or using technologies, that exclude stakeholders with no legitimate interest). The problems with this approach are: (a) You might be wrong; how do you know who will be impacted by the issues you are considering? And Karl's concern: how can you legitimately box people into stakeholder groups? (b) The process by which the decision is made may not be open, transparent, or subject to input by all those potentially affected. (Hello, ICANN!) (c) It is inflexible, in that novel issues may arise that impact upon new stakeholders, and the organisation has no way in which their input may be formally received without restructuring itself. The second way of dealing with the fact that some people have more at stake than others in particular IG issue areas is by making the organisation completely open to all stakeholders who wish to participate, but by determining the weight that their contributions are to be accorded by subjecting their views to a process of reasoned public deliberation. This is my (forlorn) vision for the IGF. Since writing the above I've just read Bertrand's latest post, and it would be superfluous for me to cover the same ground here, but I think the above analysis adds to it slightly by illustrating the distinction between *representative* democracy (the first case given above) and *deliberative* democracy (the second case, about which I write a lot more in my thesis). -- 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 -- ____________________ 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") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Apr 25 03:44:18 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a40704240626n278466adn43b2579ba81f8b9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <28cfc1a40704240626n278466adn43b2579ba81f8b9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Brenden, On 4/24/07, Brenden Kuerbis < bnkuerbi at syr.edu> wrote: > > > > > Dear McTim, > > To be honest, I was suprised to see someone who claims knowledge from > allegedly participating in the "right" lists express such an opinion. > Why? You see politics, I see protocol development and implementation. Perhaps this is because you are political scientists? I don't blame you, when I worked in DC, I subscribed to the 'everything is political" view as well. After a while, I grew to dislike the tint of those particular specs. One does not have to dig very deep in the relevant IETF Working Group lists > (Namedroppers, DNSOPS, and other pre 2001 non-IETF lists) to find > evidence that DNSSEC, and particularly control over signing the root, is > intensely political and could continue to hold up deployment of the > technology. > Well it's not just root-signing that is holding up deployment, it's bad design choices along the way that is just as culpable. Should we have a signed rootzone? yes. Who should sign it? the rootzone admin of course (NSTLD at VERISIGN-GRS.COM). I don't particularly care who signs the ZSK. I'm sure you will tell us all who should in due course. In fact, one of the central actors in the technical community shaping the > DNS (Paul Vixie) just said as much ( > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.dnsext/10235/focus=10237). > He said the word politics, true. But if you read that mail and the rest of the thread, or have been on the list for a long time (as I was before it got deadly boring), you'd know that who/how root-signing was to be done is outside IETF purview. I don't ever recall it being tackled on that list or DNSOPS (to which I am still subbed). So please, do this list a favor > Why would it be doing the list a favor to point out that you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill? , and stop trying to discredit research on this issue. > research or opinion? It's a blog man, you've "researched" the history and described the protocol. I am still waiting for the meat. It's a fix to a narrow set of specifc well-known vulnerabilities. The sky is not falling. I'm trying to point this out, not discredit you. If you want to debate the issue please join it constructively - here, or > on our blog < http://blog.internetgovernance.org>, > I am waiting for you to complete your thoughts before I offer feedback there. or at the upcoming symposium on Internet governance and security - rather > than make misguided attempts to stiffle it. > I am not trying to stifle it, only to add a different perspective. Remember, It's only "misguided" in your head, not in mine. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Apr 25 05:44:17 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Up-date on the preparations for the next CSTD meeting Message-ID: <200704250943.l3P9hdOn004271@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to inform you about the preparations for the next session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, taking place in Geneva between 21 and 25 May (see timetable of the WSIS related cluster of events at http://www.csbureau.info/Time%20table%20IS%20week%202007.doc). Participation of WSIS accredited civil society entities We were informally told that the final ECOSOC decision to formally allow WSIS accredited entities to participate in the next two meetings of the CSTD might be adopted either today or on this Thursday (tomorrow). There might not be any problem on the adoption of this decision, since ECOSOC Member States had already agreed on the language for several weeks. Note that NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC are of course already entitled to participate in the works of the Commission. The two other CSTD related pending decisions, to be discussed and probably adopted before the end of this week, are: - The ECOSOC decision to allow for participation of private sector entities; - The ECOSOC decision taking note of the report of the 9th session of the CSTD. This latest decision was the reason why the may CSTD related issues remained pending because several governments wanted to re-open the wording of the decision proposed by the 9th CSTD session. Finally, the consensus could be reached in only taking note of that report. We heard that these three decisions might be discussed separately, and not as a package. We will keep you posted about the up coming developments. Documents of the up coming 10th CSTD session available on line All working documentation for the next CSTD session, including the UN Secretary General report to the CSTD and the agenda of the session, is being posted on line on the CSTD-10 webpage (http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=4066 &lang=1). For a quick link to the full information on CTSD and its past sessions, see also http://www.unctad.org/cstd. Stakeholder written statements It is expected that all statements sent by CSTD stakeholders, including of course NGOs, would be posted on the CSTD website, therefore following the practice experimented with the WSIS preparatory process. Written statements should be sent to stdev at unctad.org. More precise information in this regard will be included in an "information note for participants", to be circulated by the CSTD Secretariat soon. CS drafting process? In this regard, I think it is relevant to consider a (or several) joint CS statement(s) on some of the main issues to be discussed during the next CTSD, and in particular on: - CSTD multiyear programme of work (see my previous message dated 9 February 2007: "Based on the ECOSOC resolution renewing the CSTD mandate in July 2006, the Commission will work through biennial action cycle. The programme of work is still to be determined and the CSTD Panel in Paris (6-8 Nov. 2006) addressed this issue (see report of the CSTD Panel, http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/dite_pcbb_stdev0045_en.pdf, read in particular pages 15-16)." - Proposals regarding CSTD working methods (including reporting activities and relationship with other UN entities). Is anybody willing to initiate a drafting process on that, or would you prefer CONGO proposes some ideas on that? Please send us your feedback on this last point. 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 25 08:11:41 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:41:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Up-date on the preparations for the next CSTD meeting In-Reply-To: <200704250943.l3P9hdOn004271@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070425121156.BDED1E0682@smtp3.electricembers.net> > >Is anybody willing to initiate a drafting process on that, or would you prefer CONGO proposes some ideas on that? Philippe, Thanks for the information. I think both the areas CSTD 'program of work' and 'working methods' are very important for CS to contribute to. We did some work on it for the Paris meeting, which can be taken forward. I can be of help in the week 13th - 18th May but probably not before that. By when do we need to submit these statements? At the CSTD meeting itself? Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:14 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; rbloem at ngocongo.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Up-date on the preparations for the next CSTD meeting Dear all, This is to inform you about the preparations for the next session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, taking place in Geneva between 21 and 25 May (see timetable of the WSIS related cluster of events at http://www.csbureau.info/Time%20table%20IS%20week%202007.doc). Participation of WSIS accredited civil society entities We were informally told that the final ECOSOC decision to formally allow WSIS accredited entities to participate in the next two meetings of the CSTD might be adopted either today or on this Thursday (tomorrow). There might not be any problem on the adoption of this decision, since ECOSOC Member States had already agreed on the language for several weeks. Note that NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC are of course already entitled to participate in the works of the Commission. The two other CSTD related pending decisions, to be discussed and probably adopted before the end of this week, are: - The ECOSOC decision to allow for participation of private sector entities; - The ECOSOC decision taking note of the report of the 9th session of the CSTD. This latest decision was the reason why the may CSTD related issues remained pending because several governments wanted to re-open the wording of the decision proposed by the 9th CSTD session. Finally, the consensus could be reached in only taking note of that report. We heard that these three decisions might be discussed separately, and not as a package. We will keep you posted about the up coming developments. Documents of the up coming 10th CSTD session available on line All working documentation for the next CSTD session, including the UN Secretary General report to the CSTD and the agenda of the session, is being posted on line on the CSTD-10 webpage (http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=4066 &lang=1). For a quick link to the full information on CTSD and its past sessions, see also http://www.unctad.org/cstd. Stakeholder written statements It is expected that all statements sent by CSTD stakeholders, including of course NGOs, would be posted on the CSTD website, therefore following the practice experimented with the WSIS preparatory process. Written statements should be sent to stdev at unctad.org. More precise information in this regard will be included in an "information note for participants", to be circulated by the CSTD Secretariat soon. CS drafting process? In this regard, I think it is relevant to consider a (or several) joint CS statement(s) on some of the main issues to be discussed during the next CTSD, and in particular on: - CSTD multiyear programme of work (see my previous message dated 9 February 2007: "Based on the ECOSOC resolution renewing the CSTD mandate in July 2006, the Commission will work through biennial action cycle. The programme of work is still to be determined and the CSTD Panel in Paris (6-8 Nov. 2006) addressed this issue (see report of the CSTD Panel, http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/dite_pcbb_stdev0045_en.pdf, read in particular pages 15-16)." - Proposals regarding CSTD working methods (including reporting activities and relationship with other UN entities). Is anybody willing to initiate a drafting process on that, or would you prefer CONGO proposes some ideas on that? Please send us your feedback on this last point. 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Wed Apr 25 09:14:53 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:14:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Up-date on the preparations for the next CSTD meeting In-Reply-To: <200704250943.l3P9hdOn004271@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> References: <200704250943.l3P9hdOn004271@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <0A10E7FD-2A9B-45DD-BFC0-1ADAAB353477@maxwell.syr.edu> Philippe, I would be willing to work with you on this, either through CONGO or as a CS statement. I have some thoughts on the issue of both working methods and the multi-year program based on my (admittedly now a bit dated) experience with the Fourth World Conference on Women, its preparations and follow-up. Regards, John On Apr 25, 2007, at 5:44, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: > Dear all, > > > > This is to inform you about the preparations for the next session > of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, taking > place in Geneva between 21 and 25 May (see timetable of the WSIS > related cluster of events athttp://www.csbureau.info/Time%20table% > 20IS%20week%202007.doc). > > > > Participation of WSIS accredited civil society entities > > > > We were informally told that the final ECOSOC decision to formally > allow WSIS accredited entities to participate in the next two > meetings of the CSTD might be adopted either today or on this > Thursday (tomorrow). There might not be any problem on the adoption > of this decision, since ECOSOC Member States had already agreed on > the language for several weeks. > > > > Note that NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC are of course > already entitled to participate in the works of the Commission. > > > > The two other CSTD related pending decisions, to be discussed and > probably adopted before the end of this week, are: > > - The ECOSOC decision to allow for participation of > private sector entities; > > - The ECOSOC decision taking note of the report of the 9th > session of the CSTD. This latest decision was the reason why the > may CSTD related issues remained pending because several > governments wanted to re-open the wording of the decision proposed > by the 9th CSTD session. Finally, the consensus could be reached in > only taking note of that report. > > > > We heard that these three decisions might be discussed separately, > and not as a package. We will keep you posted about the up coming > developments. > > > > Documents of the up coming 10th CSTD session available on line > > > > All working documentation for the next CSTD session, including the > UN Secretary General report to the CSTD and the agenda of the > session, is being posted on line on the CSTD-10 webpage (http:// > www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=4066&lang=1). > > > > For a quick link to the full information on CTSD and its past > sessions, see also http://www.unctad.org/cstd. > > > > Stakeholder written statements > > > > It is expected that all statements sent by CSTD stakeholders, > including of course NGOs, would be posted on the CSTD website, > therefore following the practice experimented with the WSIS > preparatory process. Written statements should be sent > tostdev at unctad.org. More precise information in this regard will be > included in an “information note for participants”, to be > circulated by the CSTD Secretariat soon. > > > > CS drafting process? > > > > In this regard, I think it is relevant to consider a (or several) > joint CS statement(s) on some of the main issues to be discussed > during the next CTSD, and in particular on: > > > > - CSTD multiyear programme of work (see my previous > message dated 9 February 2007: “Based on the ECOSOC > resolutionrenewing the CSTD mandate in July 2006, the Commission > will work through biennial action cycle. The programme of work is > still to be determined and the CSTD Panel in Paris (6-8 Nov. 2006) > addressed this issue (see report of the CSTD Panel,http:// > www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/dite_pcbb_stdev0045_en.pdf, > read in particular pages 15-16).” > > > > - Proposals regarding CSTD working methods (including > reporting activities and relationship with other UN entities). > > > > Is anybody willing to initiate a drafting process on that, or would > you prefer CONGO proposes some ideas on that? > > > > Please send us your feedback on this last point. > > 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Wed Apr 25 11:58:19 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:58:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: References: <01ff01c7838c$7d0a5e00$88f6ed0a@IAN> <462A9F24.7040001@cavebear.com> <462AB6D3.5030704@cavebear.com> <462ADE07.1020805@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40704220505y1d6ee5e6y2454b768c0a821cf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <462F7A9B.3080708@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Why is any of this recent stupid personal invective relevant to Internet > Governance? Can we please cut the silliness and try to think of what the > IGC would like to say at the next consultation, now a few weeks nearer > than it was last time I asked. And many weeks nearer than when I > believe Jeanette and Robin first asked. I must confess that I was traveling and I couldn't keep up with the flood of emails. However, we do have at least to try to work out a contribution for the consultation, even if I haven't seen such a strong consensus emerging on anything more than what we said in February. Perhaps we could do some brainstorming, i.e. anyone who has something to propose for the caucus to say could put it on the table in this thread (some already did), and then Parminder and I can have a look at the result and see whether there is anything that can have reasonable chances to gather consensus. -- 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Apr 25 12:27:31 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:27:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please Message-ID: I thought Parminder's note summarizing 3 or 4 possible points of 'rough consensus' for the caucus to contribute to the next consultation was a good start, can our co-coordinators take another pass at that please and spell out further? thanks, Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> vb at bertola.eu 4/25/2007 11:58:19 AM >>> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Why is any of this recent stupid personal invective relevant to Internet > Governance? Can we please cut the silliness and try to think of what the > IGC would like to say at the next consultation, now a few weeks nearer > than it was last time I asked. And many weeks nearer than when I > believe Jeanette and Robin first asked. I must confess that I was traveling and I couldn't keep up with the flood of emails. However, we do have at least to try to work out a contribution for the consultation, even if I haven't seen such a strong consensus emerging on anything more than what we said in February. Perhaps we could do some brainstorming, i.e. anyone who has something to propose for the caucus to say could put it on the table in this thread (some already did), and then Parminder and I can have a look at the result and see whether there is anything that can have reasonable chances to gather consensus. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 26 06:22:45 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:52:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> > I thought Parminder's note summarizing 3 or 4 possible points of 'rough > consensus' for the caucus to contribute to the next consultation was a > good start, can our co-coordinators take another pass at that please and > spell out further? What I propose(d) is on these lines. There seems to be a strong view in IGC (and the wider CS) that the IGF needs to take up a more substantive role that of an annual Internet conference. This is also in keeping with IGF's Tunis mandate, as well as IGC's pre-Tunis views of what should IGF be. It was probably fine (maybe also, necessary/ strategic) to play cautiously in the first meeting of IGF for reasons that have often been discussed here. However, if IGF repeats its format and processes in Rio, we would have lost a vital opportunity of a new experiment in global governance, and an arena where many unrepresented constituencies could input into IG policies. So, it is important from both process and substantive point of view that IGF 2 is different (as per para above). It's my view, and many have shared it here, that both the choice of themes (they were too broad to be meaningful) and format (journalism style) of the plenary sessions was unsatisfactory, and yield little of substance. We will like to suggest that we have plenary sessions that have fewer panelists, are moderated by subject experts, and address themes that are uppermost in people's minds in the IG arena Four such topics were suggested (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 (4) mandate and role of IGF (and/or application of wsis principles in extant IG structures). We can work on the precise wording of these (Milton suggested some language for 3 and Michael Gurstein has suggest some changes in 3 as well, 4 come from Bill's suggestion, so he may want to contribute more precise langauge), but the general idea is to have clear focused issues for discussion in plenary sessions, proceeding from a reading of what are the issues that people in IG arena are most concerned about, at present. IGF 1 was more successful in terms of on-the-side workshops, and their outputs in form of dynamic coalitions. We may have different kinds of comments for workshop format, selection process etc for Rio. We may also have additional recommendations like (picking from suggestions which have been made on this list)IGF organizing some workshops on its own, IGF commissioning research/ background papers on important issues, IGF taking some initiative between its annual meetings on basis of themes, region etc.... Inputs are welcome 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:58 PM > To: vb at bertola.eu; Adam Peake; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > I thought Parminder's note summarizing 3 or 4 possible points of 'rough > consensus' for the caucus to contribute to the next consultation was a > good start, can our co-coordinators take another pass at that please and > spell out further? > > thanks, > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> vb at bertola.eu 4/25/2007 11:58:19 AM >>> > Adam Peake ha scritto: > > Why is any of this recent stupid personal invective relevant to > Internet > > Governance? Can we please cut the silliness and try to think of what > the > > IGC would like to say at the next consultation, now a few weeks > nearer > > than it was last time I asked. And many weeks nearer than when I > > believe Jeanette and Robin first asked. > > I must confess that I was traveling and I couldn't keep up with the > flood of emails. However, we do have at least to try to work out a > contribution for the consultation, even if I haven't seen such a strong > > consensus emerging on anything more than what we said in February. > > Perhaps we could do some brainstorming, i.e. anyone who has something > to > propose for the caucus to say could put it on the table in this thread > > (some already did), and then Parminder and I can have a look at the > result and see whether there is anything that can have reasonable > chances to gather consensus. > -- > 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Apr 26 07:26:01 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:26:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, On 4/26/07 12:22 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > (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 Does the first one refer to public policy vis. names and numbers? If so, perhaps the first two could be folded together. I would again suggest though that the "original idea and evolution" framing will seem like beating dead horses to many, so I'd reformulate it in a more forward looking manner. > (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 I'm happy enough with the language Milton put forward separately on this, which resonates with the development agenda stuff I'm interested in (although one could imagine sneaking in a short sentence using that phrase). > (4) mandate and role of IGF (and/or application of wsis principles in extant > IG structures). > > We can work on the precise wording of these (Milton suggested some language > for 3 and Michael Gurstein has suggest some changes in 3 as well, 4 come > from Bill's suggestion, so he may want to contribute more precise langauge), How about, The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 26 07:37:05 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:07:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070426113705.03D9EE0610@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Does the first one refer to public policy vis. names and numbers? If so, > perhaps the first two could be folded together. No, it refers to the more general public policy space about Internet issues that has been discussed often times on this list.. and of course including names and numbers (EC, FC and all such concepts refer to this space) I would again suggest > though that the "original idea and evolution" framing will seem like > beating > dead horses to many, so I'd reformulate it in a more forward looking > manner. We can keep only the non-dead part, something like - 'ICANN's role and processes, now and in the emerging scene' with more fine-tuning to follow.. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 4:56 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > Hi, > > On 4/26/07 12:22 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > (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 > > Does the first one refer to public policy vis. names and numbers? If so, > perhaps the first two could be folded together. I would again suggest > though that the "original idea and evolution" framing will seem like > beating > dead horses to many, so I'd reformulate it in a more forward looking > manner. > > > (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 > > I'm happy enough with the language Milton put forward separately on this, > which resonates with the development agenda stuff I'm interested in > (although one could imagine sneaking in a short sentence using that > phrase). > > > (4) mandate and role of IGF (and/or application of wsis principles in > extant > > IG structures). > > > > We can work on the precise wording of these (Milton suggested some > language > > for 3 and Michael Gurstein has suggest some changes in 3 as well, 4 come > > from Bill's suggestion, so he may want to contribute more precise > langauge), > > How about, > > The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any > existing > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and > other > institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, > bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, > and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding > functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance > mechanism, > nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited > speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and > inclusive > dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its > mandate. > > BD > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Apr 26 08:52:46 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:52:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: <20070426113705.03D9EE0610@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070426113705.03D9EE0610@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4630A09E.9010002@hei.unige.ch> Hi Parminder, Parminder wrote: >>Does the first one refer to public policy vis. names and numbers? If so, >>perhaps the first two could be folded together. > > > No, it refers to the more general public policy space about Internet issues > that has been discussed often times on this list.. and of course including > names and numbers (EC, FC and all such concepts refer to this space) Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & institutions within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does it and what is it"? I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such concepts;" "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for mass consumption in a plenary. Maybe you could write some text clarifying what you're suggesting we propose here? Thanks, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Apr 26 08:53:34 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:53:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> Hi, see below. At 13:26 4/26/2007 +0200, William Drake wrote: >Hi, > >On 4/26/07 12:22 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > (1) Global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who > does it and > > what is it Perhaps you should check the Global Intenet Polici Initiative (www.internetpolicy.net) - under this project, a number of issues were discussed in about 20 countries, and in at least one of them, the adequate laws were accepted by the Parliament, which have solved the problems with the IP addresses and the DNS. It's good to talk about theory, and I understand there are many people here who are good at that, but perhaps a little bit looking into the practice may be of help, too. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Thu Apr 26 09:46:04 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Veni: You seem to mention initiatives that you have been involved in - be it Gipi, or the Bulgarian Govt. I could go on as well about Canada... There are many individuals, organizations, institutions and govt. officials from this country that have contributed to discussions at ICANN, IG and governance in general. CIRA (cira.ca) - The Canadian Internet Registration Authority - is one example, there are many others. I could go on, but won't. Suffice it to say that when mentioning where key contributions - do recognize that good initiatives, policies and decisions also take place in other countries. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Apr-07, at 8:53 AM, veni markovski wrote: > Hi, > see below. > > At 13:26 4/26/2007 +0200, William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 4/26/07 12:22 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >> >> > (1) Global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who >> does it and >> > what is it > > Perhaps you should check the Global Intenet Polici Initiative > (www.internetpolicy.net) - under this project, a number of issues > were discussed in about 20 countries, and in at least one of them, > the adequate laws were accepted by the Parliament, which have > solved the problems with the IP addresses and the DNS. It's good to > talk about theory, and I understand there are many people here who > are good at that, but perhaps a little bit looking into the > practice may be of help, too. > > veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Thu Apr 26 09:47:43 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr.Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:47:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> Veni: You seem to mention initiatives that you have been involved in - be it Gipi, or the Bulgarian Govt. I could go on as well about Canada... There are many individuals, organizations, institutions and govt. officials from this country that have contributed to discussions at ICANN, IG and governance in general. CIRA (cira.ca) - The Canadian Internet Registration Authority - is one example, there are many others. I could go on, but won't. Suffice it to say that when mentioning where key contributions come from- do recognize that good initiatives, policies and decisions also take place in other countries. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Apr-07, at 8:53 AM, veni markovski wrote: > Hi, > see below. > > At 13:26 4/26/2007 +0200, William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 4/26/07 12:22 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >> >> > (1) Global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who >> does it and >> > what is it > > Perhaps you should check the Global Intenet Polici Initiative > (www.internetpolicy.net) - under this project, a number of issues > were discussed in about 20 countries, and in at least one of them, > the adequate laws were accepted by the Parliament, which have > solved the problems with the IP addresses and the DNS. It's good to > talk about theory, and I understand there are many people here who > are good at that, but perhaps a little bit looking into the > practice may be of help, too. > > veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Apr 26 09:54:10 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:54:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <20070426135411.DEF47334578@mxr.isoc.bg> At 09:47 4/26/2007 -0400, Mr.Robert Guerra wrote: >Veni: > >You seem to mention initiatives that you have been involved in - be >it Gipi, or the Bulgarian Govt. True. I always prefer to talk about something which has been achieved. I believe that if each of us, who has participated in something similar in other countries, writes down what they have achieved, that would make the picture about Internet Governance clearer. Because, the other road is to talk only about how we could solve the problems. I am talking about not only contribution to the discussions, but actually doing something. GIPI did a lot of things, and what the project did, helped some countries to develop Internet faster, better, stronger. If good initatives and decisions are taking place in other countries, and you know about them, why not share it? Why not create a world map of Internet governance, and instead of wasting hours, days, and weeks in discussions, we could focus on the solutions? best, veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Apr 26 10:00:38 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:00:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <4630B086.8040304@hei.unige.ch> And that if the phrase, "global public policies" actually meant "national public policies," all these would be relevant to the conversation. BD Mr.Robert Guerra wrote: > Veni: > > You seem to mention initiatives that you have been involved in - be it > Gipi, or the Bulgarian Govt. > > I could go on as well about Canada... There are many individuals, > organizations, institutions and govt. officials from this country that > have contributed to discussions at ICANN, IG and governance in general. > CIRA (cira.ca) - The Canadian Internet Registration Authority - is one > example, there are many others. > > I could go on, but won't. Suffice it to say that when mentioning where > key contributions come from- do recognize that good initiatives, > policies and decisions also take place in other countries. > > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > On 26-Apr-07, at 8:53 AM, veni markovski wrote: > >> Hi, >> see below. >> >> At 13:26 4/26/2007 +0200, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 4/26/07 12:22 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >>> >>> > (1) Global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who >>> does it and >>> > what is it >> >> >> Perhaps you should check the Global Intenet Polici Initiative >> (www.internetpolicy.net) - under this project, a number of issues >> were discussed in about 20 countries, and in at least one of them, >> the adequate laws were accepted by the Parliament, which have solved >> the problems with the IP addresses and the DNS. It's good to talk >> about theory, and I understand there are many people here who are >> good at that, but perhaps a little bit looking into the practice may >> be of help, too. >> >> veni > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Apr 26 10:06:56 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:06:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: <4630B086.8040304@hei.unige.ch> References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> <4630B086.8040304@hei.unige.ch> Message-ID: <20070426140702.5264833458C@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:00 4/26/2007 +0200, DRAKE William wrote: >And that if the phrase, "global public policies" actually meant >"national public policies," all these would be relevant to the conversation. Problem in our discussion is that while it's very difficult to reach agreement on global public policies, it's wise to take a look at how individual countries have solved the problem around Internet Governance. Because, even the best theoretical model, may turn out to be a disaster, when implemented. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Thu Apr 26 10:29:17 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:29:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: <20070426135411.DEF47334578@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> <20070426135411.DEF47334578@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <590425EF-2CAB-4C20-A5B9-F656C7B9004E@privaterra.info> On 26-Apr-07, at 9:54 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > > If good initatives and decisions are taking place in other > countries, and you know about them, why not share it? Why not > create a world map of Internet governance, and instead of wasting > hours, days, and weeks in discussions, we could focus on the > solutions? > Good initiatives and projects - Many come to mind such as GigaNet, APC, DiploFoundation, ISOC - to name a few. Likely you know about many of them.. Many of the people involved in those projects are already on this list. Thus, i'll leave it up to them to elaborate as to what they think is the most strategic way to engage in the ongoing policy discussions related to IG. regards Robert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Thu Apr 26 11:06:18 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:06:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: <590425EF-2CAB-4C20-A5B9-F656C7B9004E@privaterra.info> References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> <20070426135411.DEF47334578@mxr.isoc.bg> <590425EF-2CAB-4C20-A5B9-F656C7B9004E@privaterra.info> Message-ID: All, I adopt the broad view of Internet governance, and for me a key issue is the extent to which Internet governance concerns are national in scope and the extent to which they are international. Understanding the locus of any problem is key to understanding which mechanisms can be used to ameliorate or fix it. So Bill's comment regarding national vs. global is quite pertinent. Many of us believe that 99.9% of the Internet community just want the Internet to work. They want the availability of affordable access, with a right to confidentiality of communication. I believe that it is of critical importance to understand clearly the impediments to this goal, and for each such impediment, the venue in which they can be fixed and therefore should be addressed. GIPI has made a start in this direction, other organizations have clearly contributed also. I do not find a lot of discussion on this list responsive to this goal. Perhaps I'm just out of step with the list. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 10:29 AM -0400 4/26/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: >On 26-Apr-07, at 9:54 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > >> >>If good initatives and decisions are taking place in other >>countries, and you know about them, why not share it? Why not >>create a world map of Internet governance, and instead of wasting >>hours, days, and weeks in discussions, we could focus on the >>solutions? >> > >Good initiatives and projects - Many come to mind such as GigaNet, >APC, DiploFoundation, ISOC - to name a few. Likely you know about >many of them.. > >Many of the people involved in those projects are already on this >list. Thus, i'll leave it up to them to elaborate as to what they >think is the most strategic way to engage in the ongoing policy >discussions related to IG. > >regards > >Robert > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Apr 26 11:53:50 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:53:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> <20070426135411.DEF47334578@mxr.isoc.bg> <590425EF-2CAB-4C20-A5B9-F656C7B9004E@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <4630CB0E.4070503@hei.unige.ch> Hi George, I doubt that anyone would contest that many of the most significant impediments people face arise at the national level, or that it would be useful to assess good and bad practices on a comparative cross-national basis in order to encourage progressive change. But I would suggest that this is complementary rather than an alternative to looking at global IG mechanisms with the same objective in mind, particularly insofar as local impediments may be related to global or regional arrangements. The problem comes when these are posed as binary alternatives (which I note you did not do), with the implication that looking at the global stuff is somehow a waste of time and just "theoretical" (not a dirty word to me, but also a misconstruction here). As with the late-WSIS line some tried to push, that we don't need to talk about IG when there's a global digital divide out there, it sounds like an effort to divert attention from something people want to talk about, which doesn't go down well. I'm all for us trying to walk and chew gum at the same time, and think there's no need to devalue one in order to encourage the other. Agree? If so, any thoughts on how to build the national dimension into the IGF? I doubt that a plenary discussion would be welcome, at least by certain governments, but maybe a workshop could try to lay the foundations of a useful framework? Cheers, Bill George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I adopt the broad view of Internet governance, and for me a key issue is > the extent to which Internet governance concerns are national in scope > and the extent to which they are international. Understanding the locus > of any problem is key to understanding which mechanisms can be used to > ameliorate or fix it. > > So Bill's comment regarding national vs. global is quite pertinent. > > Many of us believe that 99.9% of the Internet community just want the > Internet to work. They want the availability of affordable access, with > a right to confidentiality of communication. > > I believe that it is of critical importance to understand clearly the > impediments to this goal, and for each such impediment, the venue in > which they can be fixed and therefore should be addressed. GIPI has > made a start in this direction, other organizations have clearly > contributed also. > > I do not find a lot of discussion on this list responsive to this goal. > Perhaps I'm just out of step with the list. > > 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 veni at veni.com Thu Apr 26 12:50:26 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:50:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. In-Reply-To: <4630CB0E.4070503@hei.unige.ch> References: <20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4630a2e9.2fe39b3a.0625.7d73@mx.google.com> <67605F13-A09B-4F64-948B-8C2B9CD8A788@privaterra.info> <20070426135411.DEF47334578@mxr.isoc.bg> <590425EF-2CAB-4C20-A5B9-F656C7B9004E@privaterra.info> <4630CB0E.4070503@hei.unige.ch> Message-ID: <20070426165451.90DFD3345D8@mxr.isoc.bg> ill, there was a workshop at the last IGF, organized by the Worldbank (http://www.intgovforum.org/Athens_workshops/IGF%20Workshop%20report%20Legal%20Aspects.pdf) . I think it would be better to talk about a plenary, or an "enhanced" workshop at this time. Yes, there's nothing bad about letting people talk about something - on the contrary. My remarks were in connection with the fact that while people try to solve the global issues (what are they? where do they come from? where do they go?), there are simple things, which each of us could do: show how things are in their own country - who controls the DNS/IP addresses, who deals with eNum, what's the policy, etc. There's nothing bad or wrong in saying, "nothing is done in my country", or "they are controlled by the government", or "private business/academia/etc is in charge". I just think that given the cross-cultural differences, and the interests invested, it will be difficult to supply a solution, which will be equally valid for the, let's say, end-user registrants (with 1-2 domain names), the commercial registrants (with 10,000 - 200,000 domain names), the registrars, the registries, governments, academia, private businesses, intellectual property lawyers, etc. In other words - instead of looking what divides them all, let's try to find the things that unite them - each of them, from different countries and territories. veni At 17:53 4/26/2007 +0200, DRAKE William wrote: >Hi George, > >I doubt that anyone would contest that many of the most significant >impediments people face arise at the national level, or that it >would be useful to assess good and bad practices on a comparative >cross-national basis in order to encourage progressive change. But >I would suggest that this is complementary rather than an >alternative to looking at global IG mechanisms with the same >objective in mind, particularly insofar as local impediments may be >related to global or regional arrangements. The problem comes when >these are posed as binary alternatives (which I note you did not >do), with the implication that looking at the global stuff is >somehow a waste of time and just "theoretical" (not a dirty word to >me, but also a misconstruction here). As with the late-WSIS line >some tried to push, that we don't need to talk about IG when there's >a global digital divide out there, it sounds like an effort to >divert attention from something people want to talk about, which >doesn't go down well. I'm all for us trying to walk and chew gum at >the same time, and think there's no need to devalue one in order to >encourage the other. Agree? If so, any thoughts on how to build >the national dimension into the IGF? I doubt that a plenary >discussion would be welcome, at least by certain governments, but >maybe a workshop could try to lay the foundations of a useful framework? > >Cheers, > >Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 26 12:56:36 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:26:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: <4630A09E.9010002@hei.unige.ch> Message-ID: <20070426165641.5AE055C5D@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & institutions > within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved > questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does > it and what is it"? Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a position somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking for a plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also mentioned that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed out plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally the themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should of course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later. You are welcome to comment on this line of thought. And give your take on the issue. I myself have great reluctance to fly to Rio to hear about access and openness, in the manner IGF plenaries are done. And I have indicated that these are only indicative area, and we will further develop the language on these topics. > I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such concepts;" > "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to > me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about > ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for > mass consumption in a plenary. When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various approaches that have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy (substance and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and oranges logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC is only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't seem to suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from majority of discussions on this list.... And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem to say that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public policy issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be discussed. We spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized and for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to speak of them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position. In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are more interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a plenary on IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2? 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: DRAKE William [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > Hi Parminder, > > Parminder wrote: > >>Does the first one refer to public policy vis. names and numbers? If > so, > >>perhaps the first two could be folded together. > > > > > > No, it refers to the more general public policy space about Internet > issues > > that has been discussed often times on this list.. and of course > including > > names and numbers (EC, FC and all such concepts refer to this space) > > Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & institutions > within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved > questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does > it and what is it"? > > I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such concepts;" > "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to > me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about > ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for > mass consumption in a plenary. > > Maybe you could write some text clarifying what you're suggesting we > propose here? > > Thanks, > > Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Apr 27 02:33:54 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:33:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: <0JH400EWA72I1E40@tango.unige.ch> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, On 4/26/07 6:56 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >> Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & institutions >> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved >> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does >> it and what is it"? > > Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a position > somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking for a > plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced > cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also mentioned > that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed out > plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally the > themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should of > course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later. Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I don't think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you said at some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed. If however you proposed concrete language on something, that I'd save and look back at. I've said several times I this is very broad, I don't know what you have in mind, please clarify, and as that hasn't happened you cannot expect that people with very diverse opinions are going to all agree that yes, the caucus should say we want a plenary on a topic that's framed like a cloud. You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so I gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the access of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same for global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. I don't understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the process absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say what we mean is not a good use of anyone's time. >> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such concepts;" >> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to >> me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about >> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for >> mass consumption in a plenary. > > When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various approaches that > have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy (substance > and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and oranges > logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC is > only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't seem to > suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from majority of > discussions on this list.... I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names and numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions on which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who does it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved. In reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, so I can't imagine the mAG being enticed. Again, if you can't identify what's in the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth doing, and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers, then I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic. > And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem to say > that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public policy > issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be discussed. We No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree to discuss. Of course there are issues, but the number of people who think that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather small. > spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized and > for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for > addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to speak of > them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position. My position is please be clear, full stop. Please don't misread anything else into it beyond that. > In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are more > interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a plenary on > IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2? If I know what it's about and it sounds important and worth doing, of course. I suspect others would like to know this first, too. Best, BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 27 05:33:52 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:03:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070427093351.B6566E049E@smtp3.electricembers.net> > You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so > I > gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the access > of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same for > global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. This is my suggestion for the 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions' plenary theme for IGF Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new challenges for global public policy making, as well as new opportunities of managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which are the right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing global public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right forum for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus. "Discussing public policy issues" regarding IG is also the first point in the mandate for IGF as per Tunis agenda'. TA deals at length with the question of new global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility of new frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones)(p 61, 69), and there is a feeling/recognition that the task of both recognizing these issues, and improvising global governance structures adequate to dealing with them is an agenda that WSIS gave broad direction about, but left it to post-WSIS processes to formalize. IGF was envisioned as a key forum to enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates IGF to "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel will examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:04 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > Hi Parminder, > > On 4/26/07 6:56 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > >> Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & institutions > >> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved > >> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does > >> it and what is it"? > > > > Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a > position > > somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking > for a > > plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced > > cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also mentioned > > that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed out > > plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally the > > themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should of > > course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later. > > Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I > don't > think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you said > at > some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed. If > however you proposed concrete language on something, that I'd save and > look > back at. I've said several times I this is very broad, I don't know what > you have in mind, please clarify, and as that hasn't happened you cannot > expect that people with very diverse opinions are going to all agree that > yes, the caucus should say we want a plenary on a topic that's framed like > a > cloud. > > You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so > I > gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the access > of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same for > global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. I don't > understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the > process > absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say > what > we mean is not a good use of anyone's time. > > >> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such > concepts;" > >> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to > >> me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about > >> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for > >> mass consumption in a plenary. > > > > When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various approaches > that > > have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy > (substance > > and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and > oranges > > logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC is > > only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't seem > to > > suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from majority > of > > discussions on this list.... > > I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names and > numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions on > which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who > does > it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved. In > reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, so > I > can't imagine the mAG being enticed. Again, if you can't identify what's > in > the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth doing, > and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers, > then > I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic. > > > And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem to > say > > that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public > policy > > issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be discussed. > We > > No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree to > discuss. Of course there are issues, but the number of people who think > that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as > described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather > small. > > > spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized > and > > for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for > > addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to speak > of > > them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position. > > My position is please be clear, full stop. Please don't misread anything > else into it beyond that. > > > In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are more > > interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a > plenary on > > IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2? > > If I know what it's about and it sounds important and worth doing, of > course. I suspect others would like to know this first, too. > > Best, > > BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Apr 27 05:56:24 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. Message-ID: <551912.65927.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I totally agree with George, and in particular "Many of us believe that 99.9% of the Internet community just want the Internet to work..." Back in around 2000 I was in my hometown of around 2,500 people in a shop and the woman serving me asked questions, as they often do in small towns! When she found I'd been involved in child protection issues on the internet for the previous 4 or 5 years she thought I was her saviour! She had kids, and wanted to know how to protect them, justifiably or not, from what she considered problematic content. There are many more stories from many different people, and George is right, people just want to be able to use the internet, and safety is a prime issue, whether it's protecting children or shopping or avoiding malware... Compiling my news and information service - of which the key stories are at http://technewsreview.com.au/ - I also know that there are no key repositories of information and the information is not readily shared, which is what Veni has more or less said. It's something I'm attempting to deal with, and I'm happy for people to send me references to papers and stories to include on my website. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: George Sadowsky To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: Friday, 27 April, 2007 1:06:18 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places.. All, I adopt the broad view of Internet governance, and for me a key issue is the extent to which Internet governance concerns are national in scope and the extent to which they are international. Understanding the locus of any problem is key to understanding which mechanisms can be used to ameliorate or fix it. So Bill's comment regarding national vs. global is quite pertinent. Many of us believe that 99.9% of the Internet community just want the Internet to work. They want the availability of affordable access, with a right to confidentiality of communication. I believe that it is of critical importance to understand clearly the impediments to this goal, and for each such impediment, the venue in which they can be fixed and therefore should be addressed. GIPI has made a start in this direction, other organizations have clearly contributed also. I do not find a lot of discussion on this list responsive to this goal. Perhaps I'm just out of step with the list. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 10:29 AM -0400 4/26/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: >On 26-Apr-07, at 9:54 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > >> >>If good initatives and decisions are taking place in other >>countries, and you know about them, why not share it? Why not >>create a world map of Internet governance, and instead of wasting >>hours, days, and weeks in discussions, we could focus on the >>solutions? >> > >Good initiatives and projects - Many come to mind such as GigaNet, >APC, DiploFoundation, ISOC - to name a few. Likely you know about >many of them.. > >Many of the people involved in those projects are already on this >list. Thus, i'll leave it up to them to elaborate as to what they >think is the most strategic way to engage in the ongoing policy >discussions related to IG. > >regards > >Robert > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 27 06:30:42 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:00:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070427103044.99E38E0431@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Bill >I'm simply asking you to do the same for > global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. I don't > understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the > process > absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say > what > we mean is not a good use of anyone's time. My reluctance to expand this point came from the fact that (1) this was Milton's contribution, (2)my 'normal' ideas on the global public policy reg Internet may be a bit extreme for building a consensus in this group and (3) I thought most people here agreed that there were non-ICANN kind of public policy issues which are important, and when I saw you implying (as it occurred to me) that most/the only significant public policy issues are those around ICANN, I wasn't sure what you meant because in my understanding I didn't think that was your position. So I inquired about it from you, that's all. In any case the ICANN point and access points were themselves not very much expanded at this point, and I was eager to gather other people's suggestions. > I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names and > numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions on > which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who > does > it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved. In > reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, so > I > can't imagine the mAG being enticed. Again, if you can't identify what's > in > the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth doing, > and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers, > then > I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic. As for ICANN and public policy issues, I think it is important to see (and I know, you do see) that most such issues like .xxx, geo tlds, trademarks and DNs, may get highlighted in ICANN's context but their real nature is different(.xxx - content regulation, geo-tld - national sovereignty, cultural expression etc, trademark Dns - IPR), and their legitimate spaces lie elsewhere (these may be existent, or require institutional innovations or new institutions altogether). So I am unable to agree with you that a discussion on public policy issues and institutions can be bundled with the ICANN plenary, though they will of course surface there in connection with the prime issues at hand - ICANN primary technical role, its structural adequacy for it, how well it has been doing the role, its legitimate/illegitimate taking on of public policy roles, USG's role vis a vis ICANN, ICANN's accountability and transparency processes, its 'internationalization' in terms of legal status, its interface with whatever get identified as legitimate global internet public policy structures, and so on...... This apparently is very different from discussing the nature of global internet public policy, the issues involved, institutions involved, institutional innovations required, current state of play about EC etc...... > Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I > don't > think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you said > at > some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed. I have no expectations whatsoever. However, if I have made the exact point in response to exactly the same query from you once earlier (email enclosed), with my reply addressed to you, and your id marked separately, the least I will do is to say that I did answer that query/objection before. Don't you think that's only fair? So there is no need to call me 'unrealistic'. > No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree to > discuss. Of course there are issues, but the number of people who think > that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as > described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather > small. Our proposal for discussion of Internet public polity issues and institutions has no dependence on the degree of acceptance of an FC kind of thing. FC is a kind of concept for which a workshop will be a better forum. A plenary will more likely give prominence to something like EC which has much better recognition as well as WSIS legitimacy. However, at a plenary on public policy issues and institutions, if the discussion on this list is something to go by, someone may also broach FC kind of possibilities, in their various possible shapes. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:04 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > Hi Parminder, > > On 4/26/07 6:56 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > >> Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & institutions > >> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved > >> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does > >> it and what is it"? > > > > Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a > position > > somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking > for a > > plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced > > cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also mentioned > > that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed out > > plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally the > > themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should of > > course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later. > > Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I > don't > think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you said > at > some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed. If > however you proposed concrete language on something, that I'd save and > look > back at. I've said several times I this is very broad, I don't know what > you have in mind, please clarify, and as that hasn't happened you cannot > expect that people with very diverse opinions are going to all agree that > yes, the caucus should say we want a plenary on a topic that's framed like > a > cloud. > > You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so > I > gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the access > of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same for > global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. I don't > understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the > process > absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say > what > we mean is not a good use of anyone's time. > > >> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such > concepts;" > >> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to > >> me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about > >> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for > >> mass consumption in a plenary. > > > > When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various approaches > that > > have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy > (substance > > and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and > oranges > > logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC is > > only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't seem > to > > suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from majority > of > > discussions on this list.... > > I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names and > numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions on > which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who > does > it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved. In > reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, so > I > can't imagine the mAG being enticed. Again, if you can't identify what's > in > the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth doing, > and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers, > then > I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic. > > > And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem to > say > > that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public > policy > > issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be discussed. > We > > No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree to > discuss. Of course there are issues, but the number of people who think > that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as > described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather > small. > > > spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized > and > > for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for > > addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to speak > of > > them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position. > > My position is please be clear, full stop. Please don't misread anything > else into it beyond that. > > > In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are more > > interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a > plenary on > > IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2? > > If I know what it's about and it sounds important and worth doing, of > course. I suspect others would like to know this first, too. > > Best, > > BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:38:58 +0530 Size: 44701 URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Apr 27 12:23:37 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:23:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: 20070426102246.F12BDE044C@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: Hello Parminder, You asked of us a direct question, no-one gave you a straight-forward answer, here I offer mine. Best Regards -- Re: Four such topics were suggested: (1) Global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who does it and what is it? Answer: Do we need it? Yes, so that �Real-World IT Matters� can be: Administrated, Adjudicated, and Addressed. Answer: Who does it? It is performed under the color of a Social Contract, and exercised by the People. And Answer: What is it? An environment wherein; All life is created equal A Due-Process of Law is provided and therein A Duty to abide the Law (2) ICANN - the original idea, its evolution and its role in the emerging context. Answer: The original idea; An Administrative prophylaxis (prophylactic) for: IT-System DNS Distribution Commercial Development Intelligence Gathering/Collecting Information Dissemination/Distribution And Its evolution and its role in the emerging context. Answer: To engage IT-System DNS Distribution in a technical capacity and refine it. To disengage from: Commercial Development Intelligence Gathering/Collecting Information Dissemination/Distribution (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. Answer: The �Global-Economic-Structure� and its weighted-inequity, that; creates, impacts, and maintains a cycle-of-poverty for an under-class of; Humans, Animals, and Plants (Life forms in general). As a result �access to Internet� information when available is of low priority to distressed; Individuals, Communities and Governments, when �basic� Maslow needs are dire. It is here were IT can help-itself by providing the requisite information for survival. Refugees don�t need �iTunes�, they need to be �in-Tune�, with the knowledge skills that raise the conditions of life around them, so that their Community can support the necessary Library Resource. (Come far enough, so they can support a local Digital-Library how ever primitive, it�s up to �We Privileged Individuals� to provide a constructive & efficient means for them) The content of that Library needs to be constructive to needs and protective of exploitive commerce that deviates the Community from progressive growth. (4) Mandate and Role of IGF (and/or application of WSIS principles in extant IG structures). Answer: Just do it, the conditions of the Planet are far to grave to sit on your ass. Talk is no longer cheap, it is costing all-of-us our lives. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Apr 28 04:59:33 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:59:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: <20070427093351.B6566E049E@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Thanks for taking the first step, it advances the conversation. It seems though the text below is all about the need to talk about global public policies as a general matter, rather than what global public policies in particular need to be talked about. I suspect that the mAG would need more to go on in thinking about the viability of such a session. Anyway, this shouldn't be a bilateral conversation, let's hear what others would want to have in a caucus input doc. Re: your other message on the discussion process, no worries, on the same page. Cheers, BD On 4/27/07 11:33 AM, "Parminder" wrote: >> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so >> I >> gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the access >> of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same for >> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. > > This is my suggestion for the 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and > institutions' plenary theme for IGF > > Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new > challenges for global public policy making, as well as new opportunities of > managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which are the > right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing global > public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape > constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right forum > for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus. "Discussing > public policy issues" regarding IG is also the first point in the mandate > for IGF as per Tunis agenda'. TA deals at length with the question of new > global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility of new > frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones)(p 61, 69), and > there is a feeling/recognition that the task of both recognizing these > issues, and improvising global governance structures adequate to dealing > with them is an agenda that WSIS gave broad direction about, but left it to > post-WSIS processes to formalize. IGF was envisioned as a key forum to > enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates IGF to > "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel will > examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional > arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'. > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:04 PM >> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand >> advisory group meeting please >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> On 4/26/07 6:56 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >> >>>> Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & institutions >>>> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved >>>> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does >>>> it and what is it"? >>> >>> Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a >> position >>> somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking >> for a >>> plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced >>> cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also mentioned >>> that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed out >>> plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally the >>> themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should of >>> course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later. >> >> Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I >> don't >> think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you said >> at >> some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed. If >> however you proposed concrete language on something, that I'd save and >> look >> back at. I've said several times I this is very broad, I don't know what >> you have in mind, please clarify, and as that hasn't happened you cannot >> expect that people with very diverse opinions are going to all agree that >> yes, the caucus should say we want a plenary on a topic that's framed like >> a >> cloud. >> >> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so >> I >> gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the access >> of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same for >> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. I don't >> understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the >> process >> absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say >> what >> we mean is not a good use of anyone's time. >> >>>> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such >> concepts;" >>>> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to >>>> me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about >>>> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for >>>> mass consumption in a plenary. >>> >>> When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various approaches >> that >>> have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy >> (substance >>> and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and >> oranges >>> logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC is >>> only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't seem >> to >>> suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from majority >> of >>> discussions on this list.... >> >> I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names and >> numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions on >> which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who >> does >> it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved. In >> reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, so >> I >> can't imagine the mAG being enticed. Again, if you can't identify what's >> in >> the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth doing, >> and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers, >> then >> I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic. >> >>> And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem to >> say >>> that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public >> policy >>> issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be discussed. >> We >> >> No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree to >> discuss. Of course there are issues, but the number of people who think >> that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as >> described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather >> small. >> >>> spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized >> and >>> for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for >>> addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to speak >> of >>> them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position. >> >> My position is please be clear, full stop. Please don't misread anything >> else into it beyond that. >> >>> In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are more >>> interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a >> plenary on >>> IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2? >> >> If I know what it's about and it sounds important and worth doing, of >> course. I suspect others would like to know this first, too. >> >> Best, >> >> BD > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 28 06:38:54 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:08:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070428103903.D2F4FE04AC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Bill I agree that the subject of global public policy, both in terms of substance and process, needs to go through a process of maturation. I think IGF discussions are a good place to undertake this maturation process. In fact, I can suggest specific issues, on substance - cross border content flow and regulation, IPR/ strengthening public domain on the Internet, market principles versus public goods principles as basis for IG, multilingualism, e-commence, cybercrime etc etc , and on process - EC, GAC, FC, new multistakeholder processes, UN based systems etc etc..... However, I myself think that at this stage the public policy issue is in a relatively early stage of evolution, and a more open approach to gather different ideas and perspectives will work better. On whether MAG will like to have more details, frankly, I am not able to make out whether they prefer fewer details (broader themes) or greater details (specific themes) for the plenary. A good part of the back-and-forth we have gone into here comes from this ambiguity in our understanding. If IGF indeed prefers more specific themes, I am happy to suggest a plenary on 'the present state of play on enhanced cooperation'. Our reps in the MAG may helps us on understand the general orientation of MAG or the higher-than-MAG governance systems of IGF in this regard better. Meanwhile, my understanding remains that IGF is even less likely to accept as EC kind of specific theme, so my proposal for the following four themes stands. And suggestions/ inputs are being taken. (1) 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions' (2) ICANN - its role and processes at present, and in the emerging context (3) Global Internet policies impacting access and effective use of Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG (4)Mandate and role of IGF The current language for 1, 3 and 4 is given below. Lee McKnight gave the theme 2, he or/and others may want to contribute specific language for it. Meanwhile we are also taking inputs on other aspects of IGF 2, like its plenary design, workshops design, supporting participation of people the costs of attending, IGF's own proactive agenda of workshops and research, overview/ background papers, approach toward dynamic coalitions etc... Other topics for taking in suggestions are also welcome. Parminder ___________ (1) 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions' plenary Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new challenges for global public policy making, as well as new opportunities of managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which are the right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing global public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right forum for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus. "Discussing public policy issues" regarding IG is also the first point in the mandate for IGF as per Tunis agenda'. TA deals at length with the question of new global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility of new frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones)(p 61, 69), and there is a feeling/recognition that the task of both recognizing these issues, and improvising global governance structures adequate to dealing with them is an agenda that WSIS gave broad direction about, but left it to post-WSIS processes to formalize. IGF was envisioned as a key forum to enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates IGF to "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel will examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'. (2) ICANN - its role and processes at present, and in the emerging context - elaboration to come (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet." (4) role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:30 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > Hi Parminder, > > Thanks for taking the first step, it advances the conversation. It seems > though the text below is all about the need to talk about global public > policies as a general matter, rather than what global public policies in > particular need to be talked about. I suspect that the mAG would need > more > to go on in thinking about the viability of such a session. Anyway, this > shouldn't be a bilateral conversation, let's hear what others would want > to > have in a caucus input doc. > > Re: your other message on the discussion process, no worries, on the same > page. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > On 4/27/07 11:33 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > >> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, > so > >> I > >> gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the > access > >> of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same > for > >> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. > > > > This is my suggestion for the 'Global public policy on Internet - issues > and > > institutions' plenary theme for IGF > > > > Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new > > challenges for global public policy making, as well as new opportunities > of > > managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which are > the > > right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing global > > public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape > > constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right > forum > > for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus. "Discussing > > public policy issues" regarding IG is also the first point in the > mandate > > for IGF as per Tunis agenda'. TA deals at length with the question of > new > > global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility of new > > frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones)(p 61, 69), > and > > there is a feeling/recognition that the task of both recognizing these > > issues, and improvising global governance structures adequate to dealing > > with them is an agenda that WSIS gave broad direction about, but left it > to > > post-WSIS processes to formalize. IGF was envisioned as a key forum to > > enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates IGF > to > > "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross- > cutting > > international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel will > > examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional > > arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'. > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > >> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:04 PM > >> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > >> advisory group meeting please > >> > >> Hi Parminder, > >> > >> On 4/26/07 6:56 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > >> > >>>> Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & > institutions > >>>> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved > >>>> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who > does > >>>> it and what is it"? > >>> > >>> Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a > >> position > >>> somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking > >> for a > >>> plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced > >>> cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also > mentioned > >>> that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed > out > >>> plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally > the > >>> themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should > of > >>> course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later. > >> > >> Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I > >> don't > >> think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you > said > >> at > >> some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed. > If > >> however you proposed concrete language on something, that I'd save and > >> look > >> back at. I've said several times I this is very broad, I don't know > what > >> you have in mind, please clarify, and as that hasn't happened you > cannot > >> expect that people with very diverse opinions are going to all agree > that > >> yes, the caucus should say we want a plenary on a topic that's framed > like > >> a > >> cloud. > >> > >> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, > so > >> I > >> gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the > access > >> of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same > for > >> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. I > don't > >> understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the > >> process > >> absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say > >> what > >> we mean is not a good use of anyone's time. > >> > >>>> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such > >> concepts;" > >>>> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to > >>>> me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session > about > >>>> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for > >>>> mass consumption in a plenary. > >>> > >>> When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various > approaches > >> that > >>> have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy > >> (substance > >>> and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and > >> oranges > >>> logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC > is > >>> only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't > seem > >> to > >>> suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from > majority > >> of > >>> discussions on this list.... > >> > >> I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names > and > >> numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions > on > >> which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who > >> does > >> it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved. > In > >> reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, > so > >> I > >> can't imagine the mAG being enticed. Again, if you can't identify > what's > >> in > >> the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth > doing, > >> and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers, > >> then > >> I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic. > >> > >>> And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem > to > >> say > >>> that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public > >> policy > >>> issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be > discussed. > >> We > >> > >> No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree > to > >> discuss. Of course there are issues, but the number of people who > think > >> that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as > >> described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather > >> small. > >> > >>> spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized > >> and > >>> for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for > >>> addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to > speak > >> of > >>> them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position. > >> > >> My position is please be clear, full stop. Please don't misread > anything > >> else into it beyond that. > >> > >>> In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are > more > >>> interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a > >> plenary on > >>> IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2? > >> > >> If I know what it's about and it sounds important and worth doing, of > >> course. I suspect others would like to know this first, too. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> BD > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Apr 28 11:45:58 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: 20070428103903.D2F4FE04AC@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: Hello Parminder, You have reformulated question One (1). Here is my updated Answer: Re: (1) 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions' Answer: The �Public Policy� on the Internet: issues Global Public Policy at present is to great-degree �non-enforceable�, this issue is evidenced by a number of Public Nuisance Torts on the Net. [Spam for example]. So the �Issue� becomes �How to make �Public Policy� [Common Law] enforceable. What mechanism(s) are required to �enforce Public Policy. In addition, Public Policy needs a �support mechanism� to facilitate the requirements of demand (Needs) of the People. Answer: The �Public Policy� on the Internet: institutions' I have suggested a new �Institution� that incorporates �A Due-Process of Law� built into a Social Contract [K] which crosses all Global boundaries. -- I have a question for all of you. Are these meeting designed for Old-Kotties to sit around and postulate the World problems? If so, then I don�t have time for this. Every minute someone is killed by a gun, Every 3 minutes a child is orphaned by AIDS in Africa, every day 24000 people die from hunger or hunger-related causes, � � � . Gentlemen, WE need action, and if you�re not planning to go to the table with a: List of Plans and a demand for Action in hand, then this is wasting; time, money, and lives. I�m looking of ACTION Gentlemen. What do you have to offer? -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Apr 28 12:47:36 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:47:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please Message-ID: My opinion is Parminder's on the right track with the 4 suggested sessions. How much specificity is needed at this stage versus the next is a question, and I'd kind of assume we're talking largely, in generalities at this stage. Still, if Bill (or ?) could wordsmith the various paragraphs, that might help. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 4/28/2007 4:59 AM >>> Hi Parminder, Thanks for taking the first step, it advances the conversation. It seems though the text below is all about the need to talk about global public policies as a general matter, rather than what global public policies in particular need to be talked about. I suspect that the mAG would need more to go on in thinking about the viability of such a session. Anyway, this shouldn't be a bilateral conversation, let's hear what others would want to have in a caucus input doc. Re: your other message on the discussion process, no worries, on the same page. Cheers, BD On 4/27/07 11:33 AM, "Parminder" wrote: >> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so >> I >> gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the access >> of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same for >> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. > > This is my suggestion for the 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and > institutions' plenary theme for IGF > > Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new > challenges for global public policy making, as well as new opportunities of > managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which are the > right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing global > public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape > constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right forum > for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus. "Discussing > public policy issues" regarding IG is also the first point in the mandate > for IGF as per Tunis agenda'. TA deals at length with the question of new > global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility of new > frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones)(p 61, 69), and > there is a feeling/recognition that the task of both recognizing these > issues, and improvising global governance structures adequate to dealing > with them is an agenda that WSIS gave broad direction about, but left it to > post-WSIS processes to formalize. IGF was envisioned as a key forum to > enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates IGF to > "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel will > examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional > arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'. > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:04 PM >> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand >> advisory group meeting please >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> On 4/26/07 6:56 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >> >>>> Sorry, I'm still not following. On what specific issues & institutions >>>> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved >>>> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does >>>> it and what is it"? >>> >>> Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a >> position >>> somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking >> for a >>> plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced >>> cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also mentioned >>> that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed out >>> plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally the >>> themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should of >>> course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later. >> >> Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I >> don't >> think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you said >> at >> some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed. If >> however you proposed concrete language on something, that I'd save and >> look >> back at. I've said several times I this is very broad, I don't know what >> you have in mind, please clarify, and as that hasn't happened you cannot >> expect that people with very diverse opinions are going to all agree that >> yes, the caucus should say we want a plenary on a topic that's framed like >> a >> cloud. >> >> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so >> I >> gave you a few sentences. Milton's provided a few sentences on the access >> of disadvantaged people/groups. I'm simply asking you to do the same for >> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing. I don't >> understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the >> process >> absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say >> what >> we mean is not a good use of anyone's time. >> >>>> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such >> concepts;" >>>> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to >>>> me. And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about >>>> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for >>>> mass consumption in a plenary. >>> >>> When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various approaches >> that >>> have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy >> (substance >>> and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and >> oranges >>> logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC is >>> only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't seem >> to >>> suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from majority >> of >>> discussions on this list.... >> >> I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names and >> numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions on >> which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who >> does >> it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved. In >> reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, so >> I >> can't imagine the mAG being enticed. Again, if you can't identify what's >> in >> the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth doing, >> and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers, >> then >> I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic. >> >>> And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem to >> say >>> that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public >> policy >>> issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be discussed. >> We >> >> No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree to >> discuss. Of course there are issues, but the number of people who think >> that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as >> described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather >> small. >> >>> spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized >> and >>> for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for >>> addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to speak >> of >>> them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position. >> >> My position is please be clear, full stop. Please don't misread anything >> else into it beyond that. >> >>> In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are more >>> interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a >> plenary on >>> IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2? >> >> If I know what it's about and it sounds important and worth doing, of >> course. I suspect others would like to know this first, too. >> >> Best, >> >> BD > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 28 17:00:43 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:00:43 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please References: <20070428103903.D2F4FE04AC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D38B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: (1) 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions' (2) ICANN - its role and processes at present, and in the emerging context (3) Global Internet policies impacting access and effective use of Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG (4)Mandate and role of IGF Wolfgang: I support this in Message-ID: Hi, On 4/29/07 12:57 PM, "Parminder" wrote: >> Wolfgang: >> >> I support this in> IGOs (like ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO) in the evaluation. This cna be done >> under (1) oder under (2). It would be intersting to compare the level of >> multistakholder involvement in ICANN and IGOs. > > Sure, makes sense to do it in (1) since it speaks of global public policy > institutions, though in comparative terms these can be evoked in (2) as > well. Parminder I think this point would be better raised in the context of a session on the mandate, wherein a key topic would be the IGF's ability to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." In contrast, a session on global public policies would presumably be about the substantive principles guiding these, not about the decision making procedures followed in various organizations. The more topics you load into the description of this session, the less coherent and appealing it's going to sound. I also would not name particular organizations in a proposal, as it could set off alarm bells somewhere. Anyway there's no reason to prejudge the conversation and specify a few of the many when what's of interest are the principles of transparency and inclusion, not particular instanciations. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 29 06:57:58 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:27:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D38B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20070429105805.02767C9460@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Parminder: > > (1) 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions' > > (2) ICANN - its role and processes at present, and in the emerging context > > (3) Global Internet policies impacting access and effective use of > Internet > by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG > > (4)Mandate and role of IGF > > Wolfgang: > > I support this in IGOs (like ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO) in the evaluation. This cna be done > under (1) oder under (2). It would be intersting to compare the level of > multistakholder involvement in ICANN and IGOs. > > Sure, makes sense to do it in (1) since it speaks of global public policy institutions, though in comparative terms these can be evoked in (2) as well. 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: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 2:31 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > William Drake > Subject: AW: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand > advisory group meeting please > > Parminder: > > (1) 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions' > > (2) ICANN - its role and processes at present, and in the emerging context > > (3) Global Internet policies impacting access and effective use of > Internet > by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG > > (4)Mandate and role of IGF > > Wolfgang: > > I support this in IGOs (like ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO) in the evaluation. This cna be done > under (1) oder under (2). It would be intersting to compare the level of > multistakholder involvement in ICANN and IGOs. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 29 11:26:56 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 08:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please In-Reply-To: C25A4FB6.AB48%drake@hei.unige.ch Message-ID: Paraminder, Wolfgang, Bill; I think all you [Paraminder, Wolfgang, Bill] who have contributed intellectually to this thread, have done a fine job. ( I don�t mean/intended to put you down) I�m playing a bit of a Devils Advocate - for the purpose of stimulation. That is, As Devils Advocate it is my job to push you into taking �ACTION�. So I will now dispense with the next prodding. Devils Advocate: You are correct in having the various appendages of the UN, ICANN & NGOs* assessed, in question (1). However by summarizing the individual Agency�s IG activities prior to this meeting, provides you with a laundry-list of; Accomplished & Un-Accomplished Benchmarks. In effect, it is time to handout the Report Cards. (Take Charge) Otherwise the conditions of Question (1) as is, will only produce an �applause from the Agency�s to each Other, and an applause from the Agency�s to the IGF. [�Here Here� � �Hip Hip� � Hurrah!) This is not a Dr. Phil�s feel-good cocktail party. Rather on the contrary, With Report Cards in hand; ** 1. Dole out the Discipline, (Explain what Benchmarks the Agency: Reached or did not reach, too the Agencies One-by-One) 2. Set condition with the Agency for New Benchmarks. 3.Get Contractual Affirmation of the New Benchmarks, Right there, Right Then. [Have your �Contract with the IGF� in hand to disperse] 4. No-One leaves the Table until you have an Actionable List of Benchmarks. 5. Require each Agency to Publicly Acknowledge their Benchmark. 6. Confirm with each Agent their responsibility. That�s �your� new Laundry List. -- I am the Devils Advocate, and it my job to push you into �ACTION�. I realize that doesn�t sound very �Diplomatic�. When the going gets Tough, The Tough get Going. It�s Time. 'Ask not what your Planet can do for you - Ask what YOU can do for your Planet' -- Notation: * >> Wolfgang: >> I support this in> IGOs (like ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO) in the evaluation. This can be done >> under (1) order under (2). It would be interesting to compare the level of >> multistakholder involvement in ICANN and IGOs. Devils Advocate: Agrees ... IGOs (like ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO) --snip-- Devils Advocate: Begs to differ ** > I also would not name particular organizations in a proposal, as it could >set off alarm bells somewhere. >Best, > >Bill -- Thnx guys ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 29 12:01:27 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:01:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please Message-ID: Hello, all I think we're making some progress and here is my contribution On 4/27/07 11:33 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > This is my suggestion for the 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and > institutions' plenary theme for IGF I believe you should start with the Tunis Agenda, and delete the stuff in brackets: [ Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new challenges for global public policy making, as well as new opportunities of managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which are the right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing global public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right forum for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus.] This would leave us with (I have made some minor edits): >"Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >governance" is the first point in the IGF mandate > in the Tunis agenda'. The TA deals at length with the question >of new global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility >of new frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones) >(p 61, 69). Among civil society and governments, there is a feeling that >WSIS mandated the tasks of identifying these issues and improvising global >governance structures to deal with them, but left it to > post-WSIS processes to formalize. Then I would add: This session should explore the following topics: * The TA distinguishes between "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy and the "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy concerns are closely linked to technical administration? * What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and how can this goal be pursued? > IGF was envisioned as a key forum to > enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates IGF to > "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel will > examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional > arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'. I think this material relates more to Bill's suggested topic, and is not part of the public policy panel. This language should be moved to #4, or else just use Bill's suggested language. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 29 12:06:56 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:06:56 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please Message-ID: Wolfgang: >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/28/2007 5:00 PM >>> >I support this inof other IGOs (like ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO) in the >evaluation. This cna be done under (1) oder under (2). It >would be intersting to compare the level of multistakholder >involvement in ICANN and IGOs. I think this conversation would best be put under the framework of #4 - Mandate and role of IGF. Based on my reading of Bill's description of that, it involves an equal comparison of all the IGOs on the basis of the WSIS principles. I think an exceptional approach to ICANN is justified by the fact that ICANN is not an IGO. There are two distinct and interesting issues that could be discussed -- its status as an international organization (e.g., the talk about moving it out of the US) and the changing role of the GAC. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Apr 29 23:34:27 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:34:27 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please Message-ID: I feel both IGF and ICANN are worthy of focused plenary discussion on their own terms, as is access. That leaves Parminder/Bill's suggestion of a survey of public policy issues and insttiutions at 1 as a stand alone thing as well. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> mueller at syr.edu 4/29/2007 12:06 PM >>> Wolfgang: >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/28/2007 5:00 PM >>> >I support this inof other IGOs (like ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO) in the >evaluation. This cna be done under (1) oder under (2). It >would be intersting to compare the level of multistakholder >involvement in ICANN and IGOs. I think this conversation would best be put under the framework of #4 - Mandate and role of IGF. Based on my reading of Bill's description of that, it involves an equal comparison of all the IGOs on the basis of the WSIS principles. I think an exceptional approach to ICANN is justified by the fact that ICANN is not an IGO. There are two distinct and interesting issues that could be discussed -- its status as an international organization (e.g., the talk about moving it out of the US) and the changing role of the GAC. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Apr 30 09:02:13 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:02:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Registration form for the 10th CSTD session Message-ID: <200704301301.l3UD1W9L006214@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Following the recent decision taken by ECOSOC on the participation of WSIS accredited CS entities in the next two sessions of the CSTD, find attached the registration form for the up coming CSTD session (21-25 May 2007). It is also available on line from the following page: http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=4066 &lang=1&m=12763&info=highlights The CSTD Secretariat will soon circulate a complete information note for participants. Let me remind you that the CSTD session is subject to a specific registration system from all other meetings held in the framework of the cluster of WSIS related events. For all other events (including Action Line Facilitation meetings, side events, the IGF Consultation and the Joint meeting of CSTD and GAID), an on line registration system has been established by ITU at http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/edrs/ITU-SG/edrs15/edrs.registration.form. All the best, Philippe 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: ecn162007_rf_en_v3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 65536 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Mon Apr 30 11:37:24 2007 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:37:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Newsletter, Vol 2.02 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28cfc1a40704300837p6854b7f6q509d9a4e2d46146c@mail.gmail.com> FYI. ====================================== Internet Governance Project Newsletter ====================================== ...current events in Internet Governance and the activities of the Internet Governance Project. http://www.internetgovernance.org Volume 2.02 April 27, 2007 ======== Contents ======== [1] ICANN's Deregulation Leads to (Surprise!) TLD Price Increases [2] DNSSEC: A Serial Blog [3] Master Key to the Internet? US Homeland Security Takes some Heat [4] Court Tells USG to Reveal More about its role in .xxx [5] Will Whois Debate Ever End? [6] Civil Society Experts Convene for Global Governance Workshop [7] IGP Research: Award Winning Papers [8] Upcoming Event: Symposium on Internet Governance and Security [9] Upcoming Event: IGF Consultation ================================================================= [1] No Price Caps + No Registry Competition = TLD Price Increases ================================================================= Of course the press was loudest this month when VeriSign, in line with its recently minted registry contract with ICANN, hiked its prices for .COM to $6.42 per year per domain. But shortly thereafter the comparably smaller registries for .INFO and .ORG followed suit, raising their prices to $6.15. To be honest, none of the changes should have been a surprise. A feature of ICANN's new registry agreements minted in 2006 was the lifting of provisions imposing price controls on the .COM, .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG registry operators. Concern about the lifting of these controls and the potential for discriminatory or variable pricing was the focus of the majority of thousands of messages submitted in response to the request for public comments. All ccTLDs and many gTLDs (e.g. .AERO, .CAT, .COOP, .JOBS, .MOBI, .MUSEUM, .TEL, and .TRAVEL) operate without any ICANN-mandated price controls. ============================= [2] IGP Examines DNS Security ============================= During April, the IGP Blog has examined DNS Security Extensions, focusing specifically on the problem of cryptographically signing the DNS root zone to improve internet security. We've highlighted some of the hidden and not-so-hidden political implications of this technical change. And in the coming posts, we'll 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. Securing the Root: Introduction Securing the Root: What is DNSSEC? What's the controversy? Securing the Root: The root of the problem, creating trust anchor(s) ================================================ [3] US Homeland Security Dept. Attracts Interest ================================================ While the web was abuzz over a story how DHS 'wants the master key' to a secure DNS, IGP was busy reporting the actual detail of the controversy. Signing the root is considered a critical step to deploying DNSSEC widely across the Internet. DHS's draft proposal, "Signing the Domain Name System Root Zone: Technical Specification," was quietly released last fall to a limited group of experts for review. It focused almost exclusively on a single 'Root Key Operator,' suggesting a governmental organization or contractor could assume the role. Citing the need to avoid "explicit interdependencies," a split key management approach which distributes authority among multiple parties and is a standard in high security federal systems was discounted. The DHS-funded study did, however, recognize other options, including multiple RKOs, in a small appendix. ================================================================== [4] Court Orders USG to Tell More About its Role in .xxx Rejection ================================================================== ICANN finally made a decision to kill the ICM Registry's .xxx application, with the Board voting 9-5 against it in Lisbon last month. In a bad sign for the future, the vote indicated that ICANN's approach to top level domains will be to block any proposed that are politically or culturally controversial. The controversy over domain names and free expression on the Internet ignited robust discussion on civil society Internet governance lists . In response to ICANN's decision, ICM registry released details of a court decision which ruled that the Departments of Commerce and State failed to justify withholding documents that reflect the U.S. government's role in meddling with ICANN's consideration of .xxx. The Court observed that "apparently in response to pressure from the U.S. government and other concerned parties - the [ICANN] Board postponed its vote on the measure at eight subsequent board meetings." It further ordered the government to turn over the documents or fully explain its failure to do so as part of official agency deliberations about the role of the U.S. government in ICANN's approval of .xxx. It discounted the government's excuses for withholding or redacting key documents, and admonished the departments that "[d]escriptions of mere opinions relating to ICANN's consideration of .XXX - absent, for example, corresponding assertions that such opinions concern DOC's role in ICANN process and contribute to an ongoing dialogue or debate regarding that role - do not enjoy deliberative process privilege." ICM Registry welcomed the Court's ruling. Stuart Lawley, CEO of ICM Registry said: "Recent events remind us that intergovernmental email exchanges can be more illuminating of agency actions than official explanations." View the Court order here: =============================== [5] Will Whois Debate Cycle On? =============================== Despite the Whois Task Force issuing its conclusive final report in March, any final policy change by ICANN remains undone. The final report's recommendations to protect domain name registrants from unrestricted harvesting and mining of their contact data were a hard fought victory for public interest advocates, who built a tenuous alliance with the domain name registration industry to the dismay of the US government, and copyright and law enforcement interests. The GNSO Council will now begin consideration of the Task Force recommendations in order to create a Whois policy. Discussions were initiated during the ICANN Lisbon meetings, and will continue online and through conference calls. According to the ICANN website, the GNSO Council may make a policy recommendation to the ICANN Board following it's deliberations. Should the ICANN Board receive a recommendation from the GNSO Council, it must then consider whether to accept it. It is feared that the group will simply pound away for 4 more months on the same polarized disagreements that occupied the prior Whois Task Force for three years. One participant in an international organization described the result this way: "I found this process kind of bizarre, with a group sent out to work on the issue and coming back with a report and two conclusions, another group coming up with a set of draft policy principles which apparently are not based on the previous work done by the first group, to conclude with a decision of the originating group to set up another working group which has the objective to come up with...(ad libitum?)" You can follow the issue here: ========================================== [6] Civil Society and Global Public Policy ========================================== IGP's Milton Mueller attended the international meeting on "Civil Society Intervention in the Reform of Global Public Policy" in Paris April 17-19. The purpose of the meeting was to allow civil society organizations and academics from various continents, languages and issue-areas "to compare and analyze their strategies, methods and tools." The space for this discussion was provided by the Ford Foundation and the Institute for a new Reflection on Governance. The seminar used three global governance campaigns as the basis for discussions: 1) reform campaigns around International Financial Institutions (IFI); 2) promotion of the Tobin Tax, and 3) Internet governance. Conference organizer Lisa Jordan of the Ford Foundation explained that one reason for the choices was that the IFI campaigns are mature, dating back 25-30 years; the Tobin tax campaigns are middle-aged, and the Internet governance arena is a very young one. The Internet governance advocates and researchers in attendance included not only Mueller but Willie Currie of APC, Sean O'Siochru of the CRIS Campaign, Veronique Kleck of VECAM in France, and Dipankar Sinha of the University of Calcutta. As the newest and least familiar of the global governance campaigns, Internet governance as an issue benefited greatly from the exposure, attracting intense interest from the participants in other issue-networks. There is no room here for a full discussion of all the comparative lessons learned, but one message in particular about global Internet governance emerged. There was a great deal of discussion of how we assess the value of institutional venues to target, with the Internet Governance Forum in particular and multistakeholder venues in general (e.g., the World Commission on Dams) receiving much scrutiny. But there was a consensus that these global institutions create civil society; i.e., they are spotlights that allow many different CS actors to find each other. WSIS succeeded in mobilizing civil society groups around communication-information policy issues and brought together people and issue networks that had not worked together before. The IGF is the only venue that can maintain that role now. The problem, of course, is that if IGF does not seriously affect policy or engage decision makers then its ability to attract and mobilize CS (and other players) will atrophy. Another interesting message to emerge was one of patience. International processes are slow and may conflict with the expectations created by the rapid technological and industry change in the IG area. An activist noted that time spans of 15-20 years were required. ========================================================== [7] IGP Researchers Win Awards, Shape Scientific Discourse ========================================================== IGP's ability to link Internet governance advocacy with rigorous scholarly work was visibly apparent over the past few months. Doctoral candidates Brenden Kuerbis and Christiane Page will present a paper at the 2007 International Communications Association meeting in San Francisco next month. Their recently published work , co-authored with Milton Mueller, was given the ICA law and policy division's "top three paper" award. The research examines communications rights and the emergence of transnational civil society advocacy in Internet governance during the World Summit on the Information Society. < http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13> The evolution of Internet governance was also the topic of a recent article by IGP Partners Milton L. Mueller, John Mathiason and Hans Klein. Their article, "The Internet and Global Governance: Principles and Norms for a New Regime," was published in the April/June issue of Global Governance. < http://www.atypon-link.com/LRP/doi/abs/10.5555/ggov.2007.13.2.237> Emerald Group Publishing informed us that Milton Mueller's recently published paper, "IP addressing: the next frontier of internet governance debate" has been selected as a Highly Commended Winner at the Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2007. < www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14636690610688051> Partner John Mathiason also published work earlier this year with Kumarian Press. "Invisible Governance: International Secretariats in Global Politics" examines the hidden role of these influential bodies in global public policy. < http://www.kpbooks.com/details.asp?title=Invisible+Governance> Finally, IGP Partner Derrick Cogburn was elected Co-Program Chair and Vice-President Elect for the International Communication Section (ICOMM) of the International Studies Association. In this role, he along with his colleagues will be responsible for planning the vast majority of ISA's program over the next three years. Internet governance research is growing by leaps and bounds and IGP researchers are leading the way, congratulations to all! ================================================================= [8] Upcoming Event: Symposium on Internet Governance and Security ================================================================= Internet Governance and Security: Exploring the Relationship between Global and National Solutions May 17, 2007 2:00-6:00 PM Swiss Embassy, 2900 Cathedral Ave. N.W. (Metro: Red Line, Woodley) Washington DC, USA This symposium on Internet Governance and Internet security will explore the relationships between global and national Solutions to problems of cyber crime and cyber security. The meeting will focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and national policy making for issues related to the security and privacy of commerce and communication on the Internet. The symposium will be held in Washington, DC, May 17, 2007, beginning at 2:00 pm and running until 6:00 pm. The event will be held in the facilities of the Swiss Embassy. At 6:30, the Swiss Embassy will house a reception for sponsors, organizers, speakers, and invited guests. Three academic institutions are cooperating to define the program: Syracuse University School of Information Studies; the George Mason University Law School's Critical Infrastructure Protection Program; The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne. The meeting coincides with the US module of the EPFL's global Executive Master's in e-governance, which will bring 20 students and participants in the program to Washington. Most cyber security initiatives are undertaken at the national level. But the Internet is a global infrastructure and effective policy often requires a globally coordinated effort. New global institutions such as ICANN and the Internet Governance Forum have been created to meet the need for global coordination and policy development. Older international institutions, such as the ITU and the United Nations, also wish to play a role. And powerful national governments such as the United States and China can often exert international influence over Internet policy. Many times these different sources of authority work at cross purposes or compete for influence. Often there are disagreements or uncertainties about what is the proper role of nations, international organizations, the private sector and the technical community. This symposium will explore these issues, attracting an elite audience of technical experts, policy academics, U.S. and international policy makers in government, and industry players. They will identify and discuss Internet governance issues such as the security of the domain name system (DNSSEC), spam and cybercrime, identity and identification, and private sector security regimes in sectors such as banking. If you would like to attend, please RSVP to Kathryn Allen, at kallen02 at syr.edu **Agenda** 2:00 Welcome Milton Mueller, Syracuse University iSchool, Internet Governance Project, Host Matthias Finger, Swiss Federal Polytechnical Institute (EPFL) John McCarthy, Critical Infrastructure Protection Program, GMU Law School 2:10*3:30 Panel 1 - Securing the Root: The Politics and Economics of DNSSEC Moderator: Brenden Kuerbis, Syracuse University Paul Vixie, ISC Becky Burr, Wilmer Hale, Washington DC Scott Rose, NIST David Conrad, ICANN/IANA Thierry Moreau, Connotech, Canada Matt Larsen, VeriSign 3:45*4:45 Panel 2 - Taking Charge: Public Sector Plans and Private Sector Priorities John A. McCarthy, George Mason University School of Law Jim Kadtke, John Sabo, IT-ISAC Marcus Sachs, SRI International 5:00*6:00 Panel 3 - National Interest, Global Governance: Which Suits the Internet? David Johnson, New York Law School Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Marc Rotenberg, EPIC Margie Milam, MarkMonitor 6:30 Reception Sponsors: Wilmer Hale and Syracuse University (Invitation only) ============================= [9] Upcoming Event: IGF Consultation ============================= A new round of consultations will take place on the 23 May 2007, in preparation for the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Rio. The meeting will be held at the ITU Tower, Room C. It will be part of a cluster of WSIS related events which will take place in Geneva from 15-25 May, 2007. All stakeholders interested in attending are invited to register online now < http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/edrs/ITU-SG/edrs15/edrs.registration.form>. The purpose of these consultations is to address the agenda and the programme of the Rio de Janeiro meeting. Stakeholders are invited to send in contributions, as an input into these consultations to: igf at unog.ch or post their comments in our online discussion section . Contributions and discussion posts received by 14 May, 2007 will be reflected in a synthesis paper summarizing the input received. The paper will be made available on the IGF website prior to the consultations. ========================= Subscription Information ========================= Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html =============== Privacy Policy =============== The IGP-Announce mailing list is used only to mail IGP news announcements. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- 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 30 19:48:20 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 07:48:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released Message-ID: <46368044.9000906@Malcolm.id.au> For those who haven't seen them, the IGF Secretariat has just released a draft programme outline and schedule for the Rio meeting which are linked from its Web site at http://www.intgovforum.org. As we might have expected, they do not provide any plenary sessions for the discussion of the IGF's role, Internet resource management, or future Internet governance arrangements. And rather than reducing the overlap between sessions, there is now more overlap; with between six and seven concurrent streams. These include a new session for meetings of dynamic coalitions, and a new "open forum/best practices forum". I don't think that I have said so yet, but I am happy with Parminder's suggestions for input into the May consultations, as amended in the light of others' comments, and would hope that consensus can be reached on it before 17 May so that it can be reflected in the synthesis paper rather than only being presented verbally. -- 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