From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Sat Dec 1 03:50:01 2007 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:50:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <290f01c833cb$100b68e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <290f01c833cb$100b68e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47512039.40505@isoc.be> In 2006 we have been involved in debates around illegal online gambling. During several meetings with different ministry representatives we revealed the difficulty of those ministries to work together. Due to the lack of existing law, or effective law, inside the country most of the cases got filed... So what if inside a country there is no possibility of prosecuting the offenders ? With this sample I want to prove the fact government alone is not able to solve topics such as cybercrime, we have to get attention of all possible stakeholders in order to close down virtual offenders. Any organisation close to the Internet should at least take care of the principles needed to get results by working together with others ... Sometimes we are just looking for ourself and our organisations, loosing contact and view on how others are able to cooperate with us... Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw// http://www.isoc.be Ian Peter schreef: > Yep, I went to their workshop. Dutch regulator on spam said only countries > he could rely on for co-operation were USA and Australia. Industry guy said > worst phishers were known, and where they lived, but because of lack of > cross-border co-operation they couldn’t touch them. > > > > Ian -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: 01 December 2007 14:18 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> http://www.stopspamalliance.org - and its member organizations (ITU, >> OECD, APECTEL, London Action Plan, MAAWG, CAUCE/APCAUCE ..) are intl orgs, >> public/private groups like LAP, ISP associations like MAAWG, civil >> society antispam like CAUCE and APCAUCE..) >> > > There's a much bigger list on the website of course, but for the purposes of > this discussion,ISOC is also a stopspamalliance member. > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 > 12:12 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 > 12:12 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 04:13:04 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:13:04 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Innovation References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <049801c83363$78faa450$6aefecf0$@com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD95@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Two comments to two aspects of the discussion: Accountability of elected representatives: Yes, we had five elected AT Large Directors in 2000. I organized from Melbourne onwards until 2002 at seven ICANN Meetings the so-called "Dialogue with At Large Directors" together with Hans Klein. With the exception of one occasion, we never managed to bring all five ALM directors into a dialogue with their constituencies. Very often they had "higher priorities" than talking to their voters during the one week of an ICANN meeting. Karl came nearly everytime, Kato (the Asian At Large director from Fujitsu) and Campos (the Latin America Director from the Bank of Brasil) came frequently. Nii from Africa as often as he could. But Andy Mueller Maguhn ignored it widely. And when Andy, who got such an enourmes support in the elections, ended its mandate as director in 2002 he totaly disappeared from the scene. He did not undertake any effort to fight for a improved at large representation with his knowledge as former ICANN director. Karl did it. Andy did not. Karl voted very often "against", Andy voted very often "abstain". How can election guarantee that you get at the end indeed the people who behave in a responsible way? I know that among all the bad procedures you have at your disposal, fair, free and transparent elections are the best you can get. But while elections are important and an empowring instrument, they do not settle all problems. Empowering of Internet Users: In the reform process ICANN moved from one extreme to another: The original plan in 1998 was to have nine voting At Large Directors. After four years in 2002 you got just one non voting AL liaison. The background for this movement is - as described elswhere - mainly political. We know this. A big fear and mistrust by some political (and probably also economic) groups was in favour of an exclusion of AL to minimize the risk that uncontrollable voices can make their way to the decisions making process. Within WSIS it was a long way until governments recognized civil society as a main stakeholder and accepted multistakeholderism as a principle. During PrepCom1 at WSIS I in 2002 in Geneva, the doors were closed and CS had no access even to the Plenary. There were a lot of turbulences in front of the closed doors in the ICCG in Geneva. One conclusion which was drawn by CS folks in Geneva was that they have to counter the governmental argument that CS is just a bunch of "individual noise makers" who have no mandate from anybody. The result was the start of a process of self-organisation among CS which procuded the CS Plenary, the CS Bureau, the CS Content & Themes and about 30 caucuses and working groups. One was the CS Internet Governance Caucus (co-chaired first by YJ and me after WSIS I by Jeanette and Adam and now by Parminder and Vittorio). The self organisation of the caucus paved the way for the recognition by the other stakeholders. The IGC became a respected partner in the process, was asked to nominate members for the WGIG and published reasonable statements. It had been the IGC-WGIG members which became a driving force in the WGIG process itself, which paved the way for the Tunis Agenda. In fact, two milestones of WGIG were initiatited and drafted by CS people: the IG definition and the proposal for an Internet Governance Forum. Can be lessons learned for ICANN? Yes. 1. do your homework in pushing foreward the self-organization process using the existing structures for innovative actions 2. pratice what you preach with regard to bottom up, 3. draft understandable and rational language with substantial proposals 4. make concrete contributions in the acting bodies. One outcome from the ALAC review process could be to change the Advisory Committee status into a supporting organisation status which would than allow an ALSO to send two voting directors to the Board. Wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] Sendt: fr 30-11-2007 16:12 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org Emne: RE: [governance] Innovation -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > > It is good to hear that people are getting interested. > > Was it you who mentioned previously that you thought that the Director > elected for LA in year 2000 did not fully represent the Caribbean area? Yes, it was. And I note that yet again you write LA, not LAC. So - if as you say, the Director was elected for LA - not LAC, obviously they didn't represent the Caribbean at ALL, as there isn't even the single letter that includes us in the regional name. > Do you think that the ALAC - a channel in which your regions views > are > filtered and then filtered and then filtered again - is as good as > having a Director you can chose and elect? I disagree with the premise - I don't think that the views are " filtered and then filtered and then filtered again". And honestly, once one elects a Director, until the next election, there's no accountability - or that's what I am accustomed to here. The elected person or persons can choose to put forward the regional views or their personal ones, as they want. At the end, they can be voted out, but the next person will do exactly the same thing. In the current case, all the views are going forward, without filtration. > Back here in the US there was a thing known as a "company union" - see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union OK... I don't see the analogy, but ... > If you were drowning, as internet users are, in a sea of powerlessness, > and if given a choice between the ALAC, and its nearly vacuous ability > to hold ICANN to account, and real elections for real identifiable > people - including themselves if they chose to run, don't you think > that many, perhaps most would chose elections? Yet again, I disagree with the base concept here. I think that Internet users in the Caribbean are drowning in a sea of lack of information, lack of infrastructure, lack of affordable technology; not powerlessness that can be fixed with a vote. We need information, outreach, we need to know and understand what the issues are. Then we can determine what we think about those issues and then we can say- this is what we want/need. An election system won't do that IMO. NGOs and information campaigns and technology transfer and training programs will. And the ALSes can work on that, and they can get support from ICANN and other organizations to do that. Honestly, I think that you are coming from a place that is so different to the reality here that it's almost impossible to relate. Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 20:32 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 04:44:19 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:44:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: (message from George Sadowsky on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:32:04 -0500) References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071201094419.E17BB2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> George Sadowsky wrote: > What do you think of my suggestion to concentrate on the great > majority of Internet users, mostly those without domain names, and do > two things. First, define their real needs to the best of our > ability. Second, and only after we've done the first, discuss what > forms of structure, conduct and governance would best meet those > needs, nows and in the future? I think that there's something fundamentally wrong with the idea that "we" would define "their real needs". Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.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 ca at rits.org.br Sat Dec 1 05:21:52 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:21:52 -0200 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <475135C0.1080509@rits.org.br> George and all, I strongly disagree with your view (which we hear from time to time in this debate) that liberalization (aka privatization, part of the [in]famous "enabling environment" business keeps preaching at us) per se solves any of the problems we are debating. Brazil had a pervasive privatization process in the late nineties. It was strongly criticized not because of privatization in itself, but because it was incredibly underpriced, a real gift to big business by the federal government at the time. It was also criticized because it replaced a national monopoly with de facto regional monopolies which (guess what) agreed to act (illegally, of course) as a cartel (so much for the "competitivity" the so-called "liberalization" tries to sell us as ficticious panacea). The result: although ANATEL, by law, is able to define price ceilings for telecom services (in agreement with the cartel, of course), it can hardly do so for "value-added" services like Internet connectivity and data transfer. So we have a situation in which broadband pricing is fixed by the cartel at sky-high levels -- much like connectivity pricing is fixed among the giant backbone operators in the North -- with a lousy service quality and serving only "prime markets". Brazil is now trying to devise ways to get out of this riddle. After all, the cartel leaves nearly half of 5,564 municipalities totally out of the Internet (no local points of presence), since "there is no market", so they are condemned to be perpetually unconnected (except for a minimal telephone service mandatory in the incumbents' contracts). There is no other way except a strong public policy to create a true enabling environment -- one which provides everyone with decently priced and reasonably good access, be it a money machine for a cartel or not. A large existing fiber backbone is being reorganized now to carry government e-services and help in universalizing municipalities' access to the Internet for e-gov services, public schools' connectivity and community nets. And ANATEL is proposing a regulation which will require all regional telco monopolies to install points of presence (with speeds compatible with population size) in every municipality. I do hope it works. --c.a. George Sadowsky wrote: > Dan, > > I would disagree that low costs and more consumer choice, as reported by > Veni, support Karl's claim of powerlessness. > > Every country has an ISP industry, shaped by competitive forces, > history, and the legislative and regulatory environment in which it > exists. These determine the structure, conduct, and behavior of the > actors in ISP industry. In the US, it depends where you are. If you're > in Washington, you have lots of choices; if you're in Hanover, New > Hampshire, you have at most two. There are locations in the US where > there are no broadband choices. Some countries, especially those that > are geographically compact, can offer more comprehensive broadband > connectivity in similar policy environments. > > Users are not made powerless by connectivity prices that are above lower > costs available elsewhere in the world. The ARE made powerless by lack > of any connectivity or by connectivity that is outrageously expensive. > > I would like to stress that these are national and local problems, and > not international problems except to the extent that they are replicated > in country after country. To the extent that they exist, I argue that > this is a case for telecommunications reform at the national and local > level, and that we should be working with governments, as well as other > sectors of society, to demonstrate the benefits of liberalization for > this sector. > > On the one had, I think that it's terrific that Bulgarians have all > kinds of choices with respect to the purchase of Internet connectivity. > On the other hand, I don't think that users in other countries are > necessarily substantially disadvantaged by that. We need to work with > all countries to enable them to understand the opportunity costs of not > liberalizing, so that they can make the Internet even more of an > empowering tool than it is already. > > I would argue that institutional governance of the Internet is > important, but less important than seeing that user needs are met. They > are clearly interrelated, but identifying needs comes first, and then > governance arrangements that maximize meeting those identified needs > should follow. > > Form should follow function. I think that tends to be forgotten for a > number of postings on this list. Let's focus first on real needs and > then how to best meet them. Let's also remember that when we talk about > Internet users, the great majority of them don't have domain names, so > it's not the domain name industry that we should be focusing on but the > user community as a whole, at present and to a fair extent, in the > future also. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > At 3:40 PM -0800 11/30/07, Dan Krimm wrote: >> Indeed, Veni, competition in consumer broadband last-mile connectivity >> service in the US is dreadfully low. >> >> So, all that really does is support Karl's claim of end user >> powerlessness >> that George was disputing. It seems to me that Karl was just allowing >> George's point without deep analysis (or perhaps Karl was thinking about >> domain-hosting services, independent of last-mile connectivity, where >> competition remains quite robust even in the US -- "ISP" may not be a >> very >> precise term anymore) because Karl was making a different point about >> power >> in institutional structures of political governance, rather than power >> in a >> commercial marketplace (two *very* different realms). >> >> Please, this is just a "gotcha" tactic of rhetorical distraction, and >> brings us off point from what Karl and George are really trying to >> discuss, >> which is a substantive issue of real significance. >> >> This is precisely part of the "noise" that dilutes productive >> discussion on >> this list. There was really no need for this comment at all, and nothing >> was really gained by it, unless you were simply trying to spuriously >> undermine trust in Karl as an individual speaker. That is not a >> substantive topic. >> >> As long as we're trying to clear the list of ad hominems, can we >> please try >> to clear this stuff off too? It dissipates the substantive focus of >> discussions on the list, and that's good for no one except those who wish >> to obstruct and distract from such productive discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> Dan >> >> >> >> At 3:31 PM -0500 11/30/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >>> At 11:20 11/30/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: >>> >>>> For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>>> select ISP's and the like. >>> >>> This sounds strange. At least in New York City there is a choice - >>> between cable Internet and Verizon. Both are at the same price, more >>> or less. Is this really a choice? Compare: in Sofia, Bulgaria you can >>> choose among about 20 big ISPs, and about 500 smaller (true, in the >>> whole city, not each of them covers all of the buildings). >>> In New York you can choose between "business" and "family" or >>> something like that plan. Speeds - up to 6Mbps. In Sofia - tens of >>> plans, speeds - up to 1000 Mbps. Prices - adequate: in New York City >>> it is more expensive than in Sofia. I call that a choice. >>> >>> But, again, that is my own, non US-centric, point of view. Or, >>> rather, fact? >>> >>> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 11:09:30 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:09:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> References: <272f01c83392$55fa7be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C5F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of > the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic and > NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as well) > do not always coincide. As Alejandro explained, the NCUC is confined to domain name issues whereas ALAC is supposed to cover all the issues of ICANN. Aside from that, Vittorio's explanation is another example of how badly conceived the ALAC is. There is no such thing as "the views of the average Internet user." There is a vast variety of conflicting views, as VB's discussion of Whois illustrates. So it makes no sense to have ALAC structured as if it were a constituency with relatively homogeneous views, analogous to a "trademark holders" or "registries" constituency. It does, however, make sense to give ALL of the at large members an opportunity to vote. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 12/1/2007 12:05 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Dec 1 11:33:22 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:33:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: References: <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C5F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > Looking back a day into the files of this list you may find a proposal in > which Bill Drake, Milton, and I seem to agree to not discuss ICANN for a > period. Instead, to pick another issue in the WGIG list, amenable for > global Internet governance, and start discussing the governance needs, > mechanisms, and then if logic takes us there, structures that perform the > functions identified as necessary. I thought it important to clarify which IG issues went beyond ICANN, yes. But it makes no sense to "stop talking about ICANN" in that context, because as my list explained, ICANN is related directly or tangentially to all of them. However, I agree with the proposition that irrational bickering around ICANN -- including the efforts of those who feel overly protective and defensive about it -- can obscure or divert productive discussion of the broader picture. So what institutional structures do we have besides ICANN to work with? There are, ranked in order of (my opinion of their) importance, 1. The Forum 2. Proposals for a framework convention or some other method of negotiating "globally applicable public policy principles" 3. "Enhanced cooperation" and other UN-based WSIS followup processes 4. Informal security governance networks 5. WIPO, ITU, OECD and other traditional IGOs Lacking time at the moment, I would suggest that the best path forward is to find a way to make the Forum contribute in some meaningful way to #2 and #3, and to reinforce the Forum as a way of influencing what happens in #5. > The intent of that proposal is to frigging stop the frigging polarized What happened, Alex, were you briefly possessed by Linda Blair's demon? ;-) No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 12/1/2007 12:05 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 Sat Dec 1 11:51:14 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:51:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <017601c8343a$64c9bf70$2e5d3e50$@com> Why suggest dropping the broad focus and keeping the narrow? To me it would make more sense to do the opposite. So in that case, how about dropping the NCUC as the ALAC is broader-based, and those who want to focus on gTLD issues in the GNSO can, but we won't be restricted? Or making the NCUC a sub-group of At Large, for those who want to focus on GNSO issues? Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 22:38 > To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > Vittorio stated > > >A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups > >have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > >perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > > I remain unconvinced at the necessity for both an ALAC and a NCUC in a > sensible and efficient structure for channeling what might effectively > be > called relevant civil society input to a names and numbers > organisation. > > Alx added > > >the NCUC (originally non-commercial domain-name holders, which we > later > >expanded to represent non-commercial interest in generic domain names) > is > >focused on generic domain names, whereas the ALAC covers all that > ICANN > >does and may attract the general user, i.e. not only generic names but > also > >ccTLD names, IP addresses, etc. > > Historically relevant because of the forces at play and the insistence > of > Esther Dyson, but in a greenfields situation would you ever come up > with a > structure like that? I don't see great differentiation between those > interest areas and those likely to want to be involved. > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: 01 December 2007 13:12 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > Ian Peter ha scritto: > > Sorry to raise yet another heresy, > > > > But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users > Constituency > and > > a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who would > get > > involved in ALAC? > > > > I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing > > structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an > ALAC > and > > a NCUC? > > In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of > the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic > and > NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as > well) > do not always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had in > the At Large several people from consumer organizations and technical > groups pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those of > the NCUC and of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating full > disclosure and authentication of whoever is behind a website, including > individuals. > > A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups > have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > 30/11/2007 > 12:12 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > 30/11/2007 > 12:12 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > 11/30/2007 21:26 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 21:26 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 12:58:08 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:58:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <475135C0.1080509@rits.org.br> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> <475135C0.1080509@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hi, Carlos. My definition of liberalization is not only privatization. You are correct in reporting that a privatized monopoly is worse than a public monopoly, and I am sorry for your experiences. In "liberalization," (probably a term that should not be used without some contextual description), I include: 1. Privatization of state providers of ICT services 2. Effective competition in all markets 3. Strong and non-discriminatory interconnection requirements 4. No artificial barriers to entry 5. A "level playing field" for all competitors 6. A technologically neutral legal context for ICT development. ... and probably a couple of other things I can't think of at the moment. Does that help? George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 8:21 AM -0200 12/1/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >George and all, > >I strongly disagree with your view (which we hear from time to time >in this debate) that liberalization (aka privatization, part of the >[in]famous "enabling environment" business keeps preaching at us) >per se solves any of the problems we are debating. > >Brazil had a pervasive privatization process in the late nineties. >It was strongly criticized not because of privatization in itself, >but because it was incredibly underpriced, a real gift to big >business by the federal government at the time. It was also >criticized because it replaced a national monopoly with de facto >regional monopolies which (guess what) agreed to act (illegally, of >course) as a cartel (so much for the "competitivity" the so-called >"liberalization" tries to sell us as ficticious panacea). > >The result: although ANATEL, by law, is able to define price >ceilings for telecom services (in agreement with the cartel, of >course), it can hardly do so for "value-added" services like >Internet connectivity and data transfer. So we have a situation in >which broadband pricing is fixed by the cartel at sky-high levels -- >much like connectivity pricing is fixed among the giant backbone >operators in the North -- with a lousy service quality and serving >only "prime markets". > >Brazil is now trying to devise ways to get out of this riddle. After >all, the cartel leaves nearly half of 5,564 municipalities totally >out of the Internet (no local points of presence), since "there is >no market", so they are condemned to be perpetually unconnected >(except for a minimal telephone service mandatory in the incumbents' >contracts). There is no other way except a strong public policy to >create a true enabling environment -- one which provides everyone >with decently priced and reasonably good access, be it a money >machine for a cartel or not. A large existing fiber backbone is >being reorganized now to carry government e-services and help in >universalizing municipalities' access to the Internet for e-gov >services, public schools' connectivity and community nets. And >ANATEL is proposing a regulation which will require all regional >telco monopolies to install points of presence (with speeds >compatible with population size) in every municipality. > >I do hope it works. > >--c.a. > >George Sadowsky wrote: >>Dan, >> >>I would disagree that low costs and more consumer choice, as >>reported by Veni, support Karl's claim of powerlessness. >> >>Every country has an ISP industry, shaped by competitive forces, >>history, and the legislative and regulatory environment in which it >>exists. These determine the structure, conduct, and behavior of >>the actors in ISP industry. In the US, it depends where you are. >>If you're in Washington, you have lots of choices; if you're in >>Hanover, New Hampshire, you have at most two. There are locations >>in the US where there are no broadband choices. Some countries, >>especially those that are geographically compact, can offer more >>comprehensive broadband connectivity in similar policy environments. >> >>Users are not made powerless by connectivity prices that are above >>lower costs available elsewhere in the world. The ARE made >>powerless by lack of any connectivity or by connectivity that is >>outrageously expensive. >> >>I would like to stress that these are national and local problems, >>and not international problems except to the extent that they are >>replicated in country after country. To the extent that they >>exist, I argue that this is a case for telecommunications reform at >>the national and local level, and that we should be working with >>governments, as well as other sectors of society, to demonstrate >>the benefits of liberalization for this sector. >> >>On the one had, I think that it's terrific that Bulgarians have all >>kinds of choices with respect to the purchase of Internet >>connectivity. On the other hand, I don't think that users in other >>countries are necessarily substantially disadvantaged by that. We >>need to work with all countries to enable them to understand the >>opportunity costs of not liberalizing, so that they can make the >>Internet even more of an empowering tool than it is already. >> >>I would argue that institutional governance of the Internet is >>important, but less important than seeing that user needs are met. >>They are clearly interrelated, but identifying needs comes first, >>and then governance arrangements that maximize meeting those >>identified needs should follow. >> >>Form should follow function. I think that tends to be forgotten >>for a number of postings on this list. Let's focus first on real >>needs and then how to best meet them. Let's also remember that >>when we talk about Internet users, the great majority of them don't >>have domain names, so it's not the domain name industry that we >>should be focusing on but the user community as a whole, at present >>and to a fair extent, in the future also. >> >>George >> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >>At 3:40 PM -0800 11/30/07, Dan Krimm wrote: >>>Indeed, Veni, competition in consumer broadband last-mile connectivity >>>service in the US is dreadfully low. >>> >>>So, all that really does is support Karl's claim of end user powerlessness >>>that George was disputing. It seems to me that Karl was just allowing >>>George's point without deep analysis (or perhaps Karl was thinking about >>>domain-hosting services, independent of last-mile connectivity, where >>>competition remains quite robust even in the US -- "ISP" may not be a very >>>precise term anymore) because Karl was making a different point about power >>>in institutional structures of political governance, rather than power in a >>>commercial marketplace (two *very* different realms). >>> >>>Please, this is just a "gotcha" tactic of rhetorical distraction, and >>>brings us off point from what Karl and George are really trying to discuss, >>>which is a substantive issue of real significance. >>> >>>This is precisely part of the "noise" that dilutes productive discussion on >>>this list. There was really no need for this comment at all, and nothing >>>was really gained by it, unless you were simply trying to spuriously >>>undermine trust in Karl as an individual speaker. That is not a >>>substantive topic. >>> >>>As long as we're trying to clear the list of ad hominems, can we please try >>>to clear this stuff off too? It dissipates the substantive focus of >>>discussions on the list, and that's good for no one except those who wish >>>to obstruct and distract from such productive discussion. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Dan >>> >>> >>> >>>At 3:31 PM -0500 11/30/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >>>>At 11:20 11/30/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: >>>> >>>>>For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>>>>select ISP's and the like. >>>> >>>>This sounds strange. At least in New York City there is a choice - >>>>between cable Internet and Verizon. Both are at the same price, more >>>>or less. Is this really a choice? Compare: in Sofia, Bulgaria you can >>>>choose among about 20 big ISPs, and about 500 smaller (true, in the >>>>whole city, not each of them covers all of the buildings). >>>>In New York you can choose between "business" and "family" or >>>>something like that plan. Speeds - up to 6Mbps. In Sofia - tens of >>>>plans, speeds - up to 1000 Mbps. Prices - adequate: in New York City >>>>it is more expensive than in Sofia. I call that a choice. >>>> >>>>But, again, that is my own, non US-centric, point of view. Or, >>>>rather, fact? >>>> >>>>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 >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 13:02:19 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:02:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <017601c8343a$64c9bf70$2e5d3e50$@com> References: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> <017601c8343a$64c9bf70$2e5d3e50$@com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C5F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Jacky: You're talking apples and oranges, or perhaps fish and bicycles. The NCUC has a clear and simple focus: we represent noncommercial organizations. ALAC is supposed to represent anyone and everyone, including commercial actors and potentially commercial organizations. So, you can't merge NCUC and ALAC without completely destroying the balance of constituencies in the GNSO and undermining the nature of NCUC. Under the proposed structure of ICANN's GNSO, there will be 4 constituency groupings: registries, registrars (both domain name supplier interests); and commercial and noncommercial users. It is relatively easy for the NGOs and public interest groups focused on human rights in a "noncommercial users constituency" to come to an agreement on policy. Likewise it is relatively easy for registries and registrars to determine what their interests are and to represent a policy perspective. But if ALAC was as broadly representative of "individual internet users" as it is supposed to be, it would be very difficult for them to represent a point of view, because individual internet users in the aggregate don't have a common point of view. As I recall, you don't even think users in North America or Asia can adequately understand or represent users in the Caribbean. In general, the At Large's attempt to be the home for individual internet users cannot be confused with a "constituency" structure in which the groupings are balanced and presumed to be made up on relatively homogeneous groups with a common outlook on or interest in policy issues. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 11:51 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Vittorio Bertola' > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > Why suggest dropping the broad focus and keeping the narrow? To me it > would > make more sense to do the opposite. So in that case, how about dropping > the > NCUC as the ALAC is broader-based, and those who want to focus on gTLD > issues in the GNSO can, but we won't be restricted? Or making the NCUC a > sub-group of At Large, for those who want to focus on GNSO issues? > Jacqueline > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 22:38 > > To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > > > Vittorio stated > > > > >A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups > > >have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > > >perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > > > > I remain unconvinced at the necessity for both an ALAC and a NCUC in a > > sensible and efficient structure for channeling what might effectively > > be > > called relevant civil society input to a names and numbers > > organisation. > > > > Alx added > > > > >the NCUC (originally non-commercial domain-name holders, which we > > later > > >expanded to represent non-commercial interest in generic domain names) > > is > > >focused on generic domain names, whereas the ALAC covers all that > > ICANN > > >does and may attract the general user, i.e. not only generic names but > > also > > >ccTLD names, IP addresses, etc. > > > > Historically relevant because of the forces at play and the insistence > > of > > Esther Dyson, but in a greenfields situation would you ever come up > > with a > > structure like that? I don't see great differentiation between those > > interest areas and those likely to want to be involved. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > Sent: 01 December 2007 13:12 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > > > Ian Peter ha scritto: > > > Sorry to raise yet another heresy, > > > > > > But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users > > Constituency > > and > > > a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who would > > get > > > involved in ALAC? > > > > > > I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing > > > structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an > > ALAC > > and > > > a NCUC? > > > > In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of > > the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic > > and > > NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as > > well) > > do not always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had in > > the At Large several people from consumer organizations and technical > > groups pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those of > > the NCUC and of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating full > > disclosure and authentication of whoever is behind a website, including > > individuals. > > > > A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups > > have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > > perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > > -- > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > > 30/11/2007 > > 12:12 > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > > 30/11/2007 > > 12:12 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > > 11/30/2007 21:26 > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > 11/30/2007 > 21:26 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: > 12/1/2007 12:05 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 12/1/2007 12:05 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sat Dec 1 13:01:51 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:01:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? Message-ID: Karl has raised a number of useful observations, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. My comments are interspersed below. I think that this has been an interesting discussion, but I am seeing decreasing returns to continuing it. Others may feel differently. >George Sadowsky wrote: > >>However, I do think that the way you phrase it, i.e. "the body that >>extracts over half a billion dollars (US$ out of the pockets of >>domain name buyers every year," goes in the wrong direction. It's >>correct that ICANN is involved in price setting, but per domain >>name the cost is closer to $6. > >My estimate is based on a computed registry cost (which I'll get to >in a few paragraphs), an ICANN granted registry fee of about $7 (not >to mention the ICANN piece of every registration), and about >75,000,000 names (largely in .com). > >There is no doubt that domain name buyers are paying in excess of >$500,000,000 per year just in the ICANN granted registry fee. The >question is how much does it actually cost to provide those registry >services? > >A price-setting regulatory body ought to know how much it costs to >provide the regulated service being provided. Unfortunately the >body of internet governance that sets domain name registry prices >(and its own fee as well) seems to never have bothered to inquire as >to the actual cost. > >Perhaps it is obvious to that body, but it is certainly not obvious to me. > >The $6 appears to be nothing but a fiat amount - it appears to be >based on no evidence, no information, no audit - no nothing. There >is no evidence that ICANN has never tried to establish a cost basis. >And now it is going up to $7, not $6, with an additional bi-yearly >7% rise, again without any supporting accounting, much less audited >accounting. > >I've estimated the cost at about $0.03 per name per year. Perhaps >that is too low, perhaps not. But what evidence is there to >contradict my calculations? I'd love to hear concrete, auditable, >quantitative information that leads me (and us) to a real answer >that we can believe and use rather than debate. Cost, of course, depends upon the number, nature, and level of services that go with the registration. > >The analysis of others also indicates that $6 much, much higher than >the real cost. > >Suppose that I'm off by a factor of 33x. That still means that >ICANN is pumping/taxing the internet to the tune of about >$400,000,000 (USD) on .com alone every year and splitting the >proceeds between itself and Verisign. > >Alternatively we can use Tucow's bid at running .com at $2 - on >which basis the money pump is a mere $330,000,000 every year (on >.com alone) and rising with ICANN's 7% solution. > >Even at these lesser amounts, the sums are still quite significant. I'm not as familiar with the history as I would like to be, but I believe that you are right, that $6 was at first a guess at what it would take to support registry and registar operations. that guess must have been made a long time ago, based upon some untested assumptions regarding volume, cost projections, and service levels. > >Thus we see an ICANN, because it is not accountable to the community >of internet users, that has become excessively accommodating to the >registry industry - gifting it with huge revenue streams and profit >margins that are measured in the 1000% to 35,000% range. Without commenting on your profit margin estimates, I would be curious to know if any studies or good business plans exist that indicate that a much lower cost would be commercially viable. The business has changed significantly since the fist price was set, including mirror servers, query rates and now data escrow issues. Perhaps that would be a useful study for an economist in industrial organization who also has a technical bent. In fact, the entire domain name industry is ripe for study. Ross Rader gave me the name of a writer at the Wall Street Journal who he thought was writing such a study, but I've receiived no response from him. > >When the body of internet governance not only guarantees registries >a profit, but a profit margin measured in tens of thousands of >percents, is it still internet governance? Or is it something else? > >When I was on the board at ICANN I found an across-the-board (pun >intended) reluctance to look at any sort of hard numbers of >anything, even ICANN's own expenses. Indeed, when I went to look >for myself I found my way barred and I had to bring legal action >simply so that I could do what board members around the world are >empowered to do - look at the financial records. When you were on the Board, the dynamics of ICANN, and of its interactions with the burgeoning industry were considerably different. I can understand that it is natural for you to look through the lens of that period, but isn't it possible that it's not the right lens now? I can think of a number of ways to test that hypothesis. Can you? > >In other words, I am suggesting that there may be an institutional >aversion to asking too many questions about where and how money >flows. > >One of my concerns about ICANN's nominating committee process is >that it tends to produce people who are worthies but are of an >accommodating nature, not of the ilk will demand to see hard proof >of an assertion. Well, I would disagree somewhat here, in part because of my familiarity with the process as Chair of the ICANN NomCom for the last three years. I know that you said "tends to produce" and certainly some people nominated have an accommodating nature, but we have also nominated people who are professionally aggressive almost to a fault. They may have directed their energies to other problems, of course. And you would not want a Board of people, most of whom were overly demanding in different directions (we may disagree here), because it would be difficult for such a Board to get things done. There are, of course, cultural differences that cause people from some cultures to be more accommodating --- essentially practicing a different style of management --- and that often produces a less than perfect result. When I worked at the United Nations, I observed many misunderstandings and disagreements largely due to different cultural norms and conflicting cultural assumptions. I don't see the ICANN Board as complacent. I agree that it would be a bad thing; just look at corporate board behavior in the US and we could both identify cases in which the board-CEO collusion has led to disaster for stockholders, as well as having significant financial repercussions across the economy (Tyco, Enron, MCI, ...) > >As such it is not surprising that ICANN has simply accepted a domain >name registry price policy that began with an arbitrary number - a >number that was simply created out of thin air a few years ago - and >increments it by a percentage that was also created out of thin air. > >Had ICANN had a working election process it may have found its board >populated by more people willing to require hard facts before >granting rich price terms, paid for not by ICANN but, instead, out >of the pockets of the users of the internet. There are several problems with elections, and I don't want to get into a discussion of them now, but the one show-stopper that I see is defining the electorate > >>I agree with you that WHOIS continues to be a problem, complicated >>by competing interests but also by non-interoperable national legal >>codes, over which we have relatively no control (at least in the >>short run). I'd like to see that sorted out also, but I don't see >>any voting scheme able to solve that problem without creating other >>problems of equal or greater magnitude. > >You are right that voting systems alone will not solve Whois. > >But allowing internet users light a fire under ICANN's board, a fire >created through the accountability provided by elections, then I >submit that ICANN would not have repeatedly waivered when the >intellectual property industry said "boo", as it did just a few >weeks ago in Los Angeles. I do not like the WHOIS result either. In my view, Ross Rader's presentation of the alternative made a great deal of sense. But it seems to me that this is a problem within the GNSO, which could be considered a general problem in the structure of ICANN. If GNSO makes policy and decides not to make a recommendations, and the ICANN Board reviews the appropriateness of the process, how would an elected Board be able to come to a different result? (Just asking, not criticizing) > >>I understand that you have a severe dislike of the current UDRP. >>Is there a comprehensive alternative you would like to suggest that >>is significantly better? If you have already suggested it, what >>has been its reception and why? > >The UDRP starts with a fundamental error: It acts as a sword to >vindicate rights in a name only if those rights are based on >trademark. > >In other words, if I own a trademark "foo" then I can use the UDRP >to challenge others who use "foo". I might win, I might loose, but >at least I have the UDRP as a tool. > >On the other hand, if I am named "foo" or my god is named "foo" or >my university is named "foo" - all of which are legal, valid, and >legitimate non-trademark uses of that name - and I feel that my >rights are violated by someone else's use of "foo", then I can not >call upon the UDRP, the UDRP is not a tool that I can invoke simply >because my rights in the name are not trademark based. > >In other words, the first thing to fix in the UDRP is to make >require only that the plantiff have rights in a name, not that those >rights are trademark rights. > >Secondly, the UDRP replaces the existing legal system. The legal >system is complex and expensive because it bends over backwards to >be fair. The UDRP is attractive to intellectual property owners and >lawyers (like me, on both counts) because it is fast and cheap. But >that speed and low cost come at a price - the loss of fairness. >Among the ways the UDRP is unfair is the way that those who make >choices are paid, it tends to make them friendly to the plaintiff. > >Thirdly, because the UDRP is a private law that supersedes nations >it tends to squash cultural differences. I'm certain that in the >Sudan right now nobody is wondering about the trademark names >associated with a certain teddy bear that has been in the news. >That situation demonstrates how different are the cultural feelings >about names that the UDRP covers with a single worldwide, commercial >trade name based system. Thanks for the exposition. I feel a bit out of my depth here, because I have no legal training. But it seems to me that a significant piece of this issue is related to the concept of copyright in general, and its application in certain media. Furthermore, is it not correct that the UDRP is an optional mediation device, and that challenge within a legal system (not clear whose system or what decides it), outside of the Internet space, is still possible? > >>What do you think of my suggestion to concentrate on the great >>majority of Internet users, mostly those without domain names, and >>do two things. First, define their real needs to the best of our >>ability. Second, and only after we've done the first, discuss what >>forms of structure, conduct and governance would best meet those >>needs, nows and in the future? > >Yes is useful to remember that the internet is much larger than >those who spend money on domain names. And that is precisely why I >find the "stakeholder" conception so pernicious - it tends to >identify the degree of interest ("stake") and thus the degree of >authority in bodies of internet governance with the amount of money >that the putative "stakeholder" spends or makes. > >So yes, we ought to remember the vast masses who are unheard and >who's money in the net is not clearly identifiable and not, on an >individual basis, very large. > >On the other hand, when we have a fairly clear cut issue - such as >domain name registry fees unrelated to the actual cost of providing >the domain name registry service - and a well identifiable body of >people being harmed (those who buy domain names and also, as we >should not forget, those who find them too expensive and this forego >buying a domain name), and an amount of money that would be >significant even by Rockefeller standards, then that is an issue we >ought to face. I agree that DN registry fees are a clearer issue. But I'd rather attack the larger and IMHO the considerably more important issue, even if it is ill-defined, because i think that convergence and appropriate action in this space will yield, to be somewhat trite, the greater good for the greater number. However, I'd still love to see the domain name industry study done so that there would be durable factual evidence to help guide the evolution of that industry in an efficient and effective manner. > > --karl-- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Sat Dec 1 13:27:04 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:27:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C5F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> <017601c8343a$64c9bf70$2e5d3e50$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C5F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <018401c83447$c8179450$5846bcf0$@com> Which is what I said back a couple of messages ago - they are different and have different roles. I just flipped it to see what the reaction would be - if one suggested that we drop NCUC rather than drop ALAC. And the reaction was definitely interesting to see! :) Jacqueline > > In general, the At Large's attempt to be the home for individual > internet users cannot be confused with a "constituency" structure in > which the groupings are balanced and presumed to be made up on > relatively homogeneous groups with a common outlook on or interest in > policy issues. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 11:51 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Vittorio Bertola' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > > > Why suggest dropping the broad focus and keeping the narrow? To me it > > would > > make more sense to do the opposite. So in that case, how about > dropping > > the > > NCUC as the ALAC is broader-based, and those who want to focus on > gTLD > > issues in the GNSO can, but we won't be restricted? Or making the > NCUC a > > sub-group of At Large, for those who want to focus on GNSO issues? > > Jacqueline > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 22:38 > > > To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > > > > > Vittorio stated > > > > > > >A different question might be why do academic and civil rights > groups > > > >have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > > > >perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > > > > > > I remain unconvinced at the necessity for both an ALAC and a NCUC > in a > > > sensible and efficient structure for channeling what might > effectively > > > be > > > called relevant civil society input to a names and numbers > > > organisation. > > > > > > Alx added > > > > > > >the NCUC (originally non-commercial domain-name holders, which we > > > later > > > >expanded to represent non-commercial interest in generic domain > names) > > > is > > > >focused on generic domain names, whereas the ALAC covers all that > > > ICANN > > > >does and may attract the general user, i.e. not only generic names > but > > > also > > > >ccTLD names, IP addresses, etc. > > > > > > Historically relevant because of the forces at play and the > insistence > > > of > > > Esther Dyson, but in a greenfields situation would you ever come up > > > with a > > > structure like that? I don't see great differentiation between > those > > > interest areas and those likely to want to be involved. > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > > Sent: 01 December 2007 13:12 > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > > > > > Ian Peter ha scritto: > > > > Sorry to raise yet another heresy, > > > > > > > > But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users > > > Constituency > > > and > > > > a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who > would > > > get > > > > involved in ALAC? > > > > > > > > I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are > analyzing > > > > structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have > an > > > ALAC > > > and > > > > a NCUC? > > > > > > In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest > of > > > the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the > academic > > > and > > > NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as > > > well) > > > do not always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we > had in > > > the At Large several people from consumer organizations and > technical > > > groups pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those > of > > > the NCUC and of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating > full > > > disclosure and authentication of whoever is behind a website, > including > > > individuals. > > > > > > A different question might be why do academic and civil rights > groups > > > have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > > > perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > > > -- > > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <----- > --- > > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <----- > --- > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > > > 30/11/2007 > > > 12:12 > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > > > 30/11/2007 > > > 12:12 > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > > > 11/30/2007 21:26 > > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > > 11/30/2007 > > 21:26 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: > > 12/1/2007 12:05 PM > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: > 12/1/2007 12:05 PM > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > 11/30/2007 21:26 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 21:26 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Dec 1 13:52:20 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:52:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <017601c8343a$64c9bf70$2e5d3e50$@com> Message-ID: <401411.97372.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Why don't we just drop whatever group is the least productive and most expensive to maintain? At a glance, the NCUC receives zero dollars from ICANN, has members that actively participate in a number of working groups for periods of months and years; they create topical Workshops on a regular basis and manage to issue substantive policy papers for board consideration (see for example the 25-page document on new gTLDs at http://www.ncdnhc.org/policydocuments/PDP-Dec05-NCUC-CONST-STMT-JUNE2007.pdf ). By contrast, the ALAC is budgeted at $760,000 per annum, has no members actively involved in any working groups, it doesn't issue any policy papers whatsoever, but it does come up with occasional "Statements" that are a few paragraphs long and reflect at least a few minutes worth of group consideration. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sat Dec 1 13:57:03 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> <475135C0.1080509@rits.org.br> Message-ID: George, re how liberalization/privatization, your Rx is generally accepted. Many of us in Latin America see it lacking, though, in that some strong state policy is required, together with public investment, in order to push connectivity and access to large sectors of population and territory which are not attractive as markets, especially to the large, consolidated companies which Carlos has described. You have also seen many analyses of the troubles of pure-market solutions for island states and other sparsely populated geographies which are not large enough to support competitive markets, either by population or by the total mass of money available. So, many of us have arrived at the conclusion that market-only is not a complete solution outside the Northern economies - and even there. Now of course in general the solutions are in-country and barely global, exception made of international interconnection costs, or international aid/support for fledling markets and extremely disadvantaged populations. Mind you, this is one issue in which Carlos and I see almost eye-to-eye, our differences are of degree. I mention this in illustration of my concept that once we start looking at different sets of issues, the alignments of the same set of players change radically. 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, 1 Dec 2007, George Sadowsky wrote: > Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:58:08 -0500 > From: George Sadowsky > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > George Sadowsky > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, > and how? > > Hi, Carlos. > > My definition of liberalization is not only privatization. You are correct > in reporting that a privatized monopoly is worse than a public monopoly, and > I am sorry for your experiences. > > In "liberalization," (probably a term that should not be used without some > contextual description), I include: > > 1. Privatization of state providers of ICT services > 2. Effective competition in all markets > 3. Strong and non-discriminatory interconnection requirements > 4. No artificial barriers to entry > 5. A "level playing field" for all competitors > 6. A technologically neutral legal context for ICT development. > > ... and probably a couple of other things I can't think of at the moment. > > Does that help? > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > At 8:21 AM -0200 12/1/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> George and all, >> >> I strongly disagree with your view (which we hear from time to time in this >> debate) that liberalization (aka privatization, part of the [in]famous >> "enabling environment" business keeps preaching at us) per se solves any of >> the problems we are debating. >> >> Brazil had a pervasive privatization process in the late nineties. It was >> strongly criticized not because of privatization in itself, but because it >> was incredibly underpriced, a real gift to big business by the federal >> government at the time. It was also criticized because it replaced a >> national monopoly with de facto regional monopolies which (guess what) >> agreed to act (illegally, of course) as a cartel (so much for the >> "competitivity" the so-called "liberalization" tries to sell us as >> ficticious panacea). >> >> The result: although ANATEL, by law, is able to define price ceilings for >> telecom services (in agreement with the cartel, of course), it can hardly >> do so for "value-added" services like Internet connectivity and data >> transfer. So we have a situation in which broadband pricing is fixed by the >> cartel at sky-high levels -- much like connectivity pricing is fixed among >> the giant backbone operators in the North -- with a lousy service quality >> and serving only "prime markets". >> >> Brazil is now trying to devise ways to get out of this riddle. After all, >> the cartel leaves nearly half of 5,564 municipalities totally out of the >> Internet (no local points of presence), since "there is no market", so they >> are condemned to be perpetually unconnected (except for a minimal telephone >> service mandatory in the incumbents' contracts). There is no other way >> except a strong public policy to create a true enabling environment -- one >> which provides everyone with decently priced and reasonably good access, be >> it a money machine for a cartel or not. A large existing fiber backbone is >> being reorganized now to carry government e-services and help in >> universalizing municipalities' access to the Internet for e-gov services, >> public schools' connectivity and community nets. And ANATEL is proposing a >> regulation which will require all regional telco monopolies to install >> points of presence (with speeds compatible with population size) in every >> municipality. >> >> I do hope it works. >> >> --c.a. >> >> George Sadowsky wrote: >>> Dan, >>> >>> I would disagree that low costs and more consumer choice, as reported by >>> Veni, support Karl's claim of powerlessness. >>> >>> Every country has an ISP industry, shaped by competitive forces, history, >>> and the legislative and regulatory environment in which it exists. These >>> determine the structure, conduct, and behavior of the actors in ISP >>> industry. In the US, it depends where you are. If you're in Washington, >>> you have lots of choices; if you're in Hanover, New Hampshire, you have at >>> most two. There are locations in the US where there are no broadband >>> choices. Some countries, especially those that are geographically >>> compact, can offer more comprehensive broadband connectivity in similar >>> policy environments. >>> >>> Users are not made powerless by connectivity prices that are above lower >>> costs available elsewhere in the world. The ARE made powerless by lack of >>> any connectivity or by connectivity that is outrageously expensive. >>> >>> I would like to stress that these are national and local problems, and not >>> international problems except to the extent that they are replicated in >>> country after country. To the extent that they exist, I argue that this >>> is a case for telecommunications reform at the national and local level, >>> and that we should be working with governments, as well as other sectors >>> of society, to demonstrate the benefits of liberalization for this sector. >>> >>> On the one had, I think that it's terrific that Bulgarians have all kinds >>> of choices with respect to the purchase of Internet connectivity. On the >>> other hand, I don't think that users in other countries are necessarily >>> substantially disadvantaged by that. We need to work with all countries >>> to enable them to understand the opportunity costs of not liberalizing, so >>> that they can make the Internet even more of an empowering tool than it is >>> already. >>> >>> I would argue that institutional governance of the Internet is important, >>> but less important than seeing that user needs are met. They are clearly >>> interrelated, but identifying needs comes first, and then governance >>> arrangements that maximize meeting those identified needs should follow. >>> >>> Form should follow function. I think that tends to be forgotten for a >>> number of postings on this list. Let's focus first on real needs and then >>> how to best meet them. Let's also remember that when we talk about >>> Internet users, the great majority of them don't have domain names, so >>> it's not the domain name industry that we should be focusing on but the >>> user community as a whole, at present and to a fair extent, in the future >>> also. >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> >>> At 3:40 PM -0800 11/30/07, Dan Krimm wrote: >>>> Indeed, Veni, competition in consumer broadband last-mile connectivity >>>> service in the US is dreadfully low. >>>> >>>> So, all that really does is support Karl's claim of end user >>>> powerlessness >>>> that George was disputing. It seems to me that Karl was just allowing >>>> George's point without deep analysis (or perhaps Karl was thinking about >>>> domain-hosting services, independent of last-mile connectivity, where >>>> competition remains quite robust even in the US -- "ISP" may not be a >>>> very >>>> precise term anymore) because Karl was making a different point about >>>> power >>>> in institutional structures of political governance, rather than power in >>>> a >>>> commercial marketplace (two *very* different realms). >>>> >>>> Please, this is just a "gotcha" tactic of rhetorical distraction, and >>>> brings us off point from what Karl and George are really trying to >>>> discuss, >>>> which is a substantive issue of real significance. >>>> >>>> This is precisely part of the "noise" that dilutes productive discussion >>>> on >>>> this list. There was really no need for this comment at all, and nothing >>>> was really gained by it, unless you were simply trying to spuriously >>>> undermine trust in Karl as an individual speaker. That is not a >>>> substantive topic. >>>> >>>> As long as we're trying to clear the list of ad hominems, can we please >>>> try >>>> to clear this stuff off too? It dissipates the substantive focus of >>>> discussions on the list, and that's good for no one except those who wish >>>> to obstruct and distract from such productive discussion. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At 3:31 PM -0500 11/30/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >>>>> At 11:20 11/30/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>>>>> select ISP's and the like. >>>>> >>>>> This sounds strange. At least in New York City there is a choice - >>>>> between cable Internet and Verizon. Both are at the same price, more >>>>> or less. Is this really a choice? Compare: in Sofia, Bulgaria you can >>>>> choose among about 20 big ISPs, and about 500 smaller (true, in the >>>>> whole city, not each of them covers all of the buildings). >>>>> In New York you can choose between "business" and "family" or >>>>> something like that plan. Speeds - up to 6Mbps. In Sofia - tens of >>>>> plans, speeds - up to 1000 Mbps. Prices - adequate: in New York City >>>>> it is more expensive than in Sofia. I call that a choice. >>>>> >>>>> But, again, that is my own, non US-centric, point of view. Or, rather, >>>>> fact? >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 14:14:03 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: George, quick: 1. re cost/pricing/profit in domain names. Karl can research this among the companies. Some are public so the information is available for the really curious. The general perception is that the real killing is being made in the secondary market, by "domainers." 2. UDRP and intellectual property law. The UDRP is predicated on the premise that ICANN is to create new law. Many of us want non-commercial speech and names to be better protected. We have to work through the GNSO and changin laws. 3. ICANN Board members' complacency, as assumed by Karl, particularly for those seated by the Nominating Committee. Having been a fellow Director to, I think, three generations of them, and having observed the members of the other councils seated by the NomCom, I can assure you: not so. That's empirical fact, not a subjective appreciation. Available for confirmation in the transcripts of public meetings and in the vote counts in the minutes. Insisting on the characterization of complacency would mean extending it to Joi Ito, Avri Doria, Steve Goldstein, Sophia Bekele, and many other well-known independent spirits. "Concrete analysis of concrete situations," as Lenin used to ask for. No, not everything is perfect with ICANN. Nor much of the rest of the world. Next subject please. 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, 1 Dec 2007, George Sadowsky wrote: > Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:01:51 -0500 > From: George Sadowsky > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > George Sadowsky > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? > > Karl has raised a number of useful observations, some of which I agree with > and some of which I don't. My comments are interspersed below. > > I think that this has been an interesting discussion, but I am seeing > decreasing returns to continuing it. Others may feel differently. > > >> George Sadowsky wrote: >> >>> However, I do think that the way you phrase it, i.e. "the body that >>> extracts over half a billion dollars (US$ out of the pockets of domain >>> name buyers every year," goes in the wrong direction. It's correct that >>> ICANN is involved in price setting, but per domain name the cost is closer >>> to $6. >> >> My estimate is based on a computed registry cost (which I'll get to in a >> few paragraphs), an ICANN granted registry fee of about $7 (not to mention >> the ICANN piece of every registration), and about 75,000,000 names (largely >> in .com). >> >> There is no doubt that domain name buyers are paying in excess of >> $500,000,000 per year just in the ICANN granted registry fee. The question >> is how much does it actually cost to provide those registry services? >> >> A price-setting regulatory body ought to know how much it costs to provide >> the regulated service being provided. Unfortunately the body of internet >> governance that sets domain name registry prices (and its own fee as well) >> seems to never have bothered to inquire as to the actual cost. >> >> Perhaps it is obvious to that body, but it is certainly not obvious to me. >> >> The $6 appears to be nothing but a fiat amount - it appears to be based on >> no evidence, no information, no audit - no nothing. There is no evidence >> that ICANN has never tried to establish a cost basis. And now it is going >> up to $7, not $6, with an additional bi-yearly 7% rise, again without any >> supporting accounting, much less audited accounting. >> >> I've estimated the cost at about $0.03 per name per year. Perhaps that is >> too low, perhaps not. But what evidence is there to contradict my >> calculations? I'd love to hear concrete, auditable, quantitative >> information that leads me (and us) to a real answer that we can believe and >> use rather than debate. > > Cost, of course, depends upon the number, nature, and level of services that > go with the registration. > >> >> The analysis of others also indicates that $6 much, much higher than the >> real cost. >> >> Suppose that I'm off by a factor of 33x. That still means that ICANN is >> pumping/taxing the internet to the tune of about $400,000,000 (USD) on .com >> alone every year and splitting the proceeds between itself and Verisign. >> >> Alternatively we can use Tucow's bid at running .com at $2 - on which basis >> the money pump is a mere $330,000,000 every year (on .com alone) and rising >> with ICANN's 7% solution. >> >> Even at these lesser amounts, the sums are still quite significant. > > I'm not as familiar with the history as I would like to be, but I believe > that you are right, that $6 was at first a guess at what it would take to > support registry and registar operations. that guess must have been made a > long time ago, based upon some untested assumptions regarding volume, cost > projections, and service levels. > >> >> Thus we see an ICANN, because it is not accountable to the community of >> internet users, that has become excessively accommodating to the registry >> industry - gifting it with huge revenue streams and profit margins that are >> measured in the 1000% to 35,000% range. > > Without commenting on your profit margin estimates, I would be curious to > know if any studies or good business plans exist that indicate that a much > lower cost would be commercially viable. The business has changed > significantly since the fist price was set, including mirror servers, query > rates and now data escrow issues. Perhaps that would be a useful study for an > economist in industrial organization who also has a technical bent. In fact, > the entire domain name industry is ripe for study. Ross Rader gave me the > name of a writer at the Wall Street Journal who he thought was writing such a > study, but I've receiived no response from him. > >> >> When the body of internet governance not only guarantees registries a >> profit, but a profit margin measured in tens of thousands of percents, is >> it still internet governance? Or is it something else? >> >> When I was on the board at ICANN I found an across-the-board (pun intended) >> reluctance to look at any sort of hard numbers of anything, even ICANN's >> own expenses. Indeed, when I went to look for myself I found my way barred >> and I had to bring legal action simply so that I could do what board >> members around the world are empowered to do - look at the financial >> records. > > When you were on the Board, the dynamics of ICANN, and of its interactions > with the burgeoning industry were considerably different. I can understand > that it is natural for you to look through the lens of that period, but isn't > it possible that it's not the right lens now? I can think of a number of > ways to test that hypothesis. Can you? > >> >> In other words, I am suggesting that there may be an institutional aversion >> to asking too many questions about where and how money flows. >> >> One of my concerns about ICANN's nominating committee process is that it >> tends to produce people who are worthies but are of an accommodating >> nature, not of the ilk will demand to see hard proof of an assertion. > > Well, I would disagree somewhat here, in part because of my familiarity with > the process as Chair of the ICANN NomCom for the last three years. I know > that you said "tends to produce" and certainly some people nominated have an > accommodating nature, but we have also nominated people who are > professionally aggressive almost to a fault. They may have directed their > energies to other problems, of course. And you would not want a Board of > people, most of whom were overly demanding in different directions (we may > disagree here), because it would be difficult for such a Board to get things > done. There are, of course, cultural differences that cause people from some > cultures to be more accommodating --- essentially practicing a different > style of management --- and that often produces a less than perfect result. > When I worked at the United Nations, I observed many misunderstandings and > disagreements largely due to different cultural norms and conflicting > cultural assumptions. > > I don't see the ICANN Board as complacent. I agree that it would be a bad > thing; just look at corporate board behavior in the US and we could both > identify cases in which the board-CEO collusion has led to disaster for > stockholders, as well as having significant financial repercussions across > the economy (Tyco, Enron, MCI, ...) > >> >> As such it is not surprising that ICANN has simply accepted a domain name >> registry price policy that began with an arbitrary number - a number that >> was simply created out of thin air a few years ago - and increments it by a >> percentage that was also created out of thin air. >> >> Had ICANN had a working election process it may have found its board >> populated by more people willing to require hard facts before granting rich >> price terms, paid for not by ICANN but, instead, out of the pockets of the >> users of the internet. > > There are several problems with elections, and I don't want to get into a > discussion of them now, but the one show-stopper that I see is defining the > electorate > >> >>> I agree with you that WHOIS continues to be a problem, complicated by >>> competing interests but also by non-interoperable national legal codes, >>> over which we have relatively no control (at least in the short run). I'd >>> like to see that sorted out also, but I don't see any voting scheme able >>> to solve that problem without creating other problems of equal or greater >>> magnitude. >> >> You are right that voting systems alone will not solve Whois. >> >> But allowing internet users light a fire under ICANN's board, a fire >> created through the accountability provided by elections, then I submit >> that ICANN would not have repeatedly waivered when the intellectual >> property industry said "boo", as it did just a few weeks ago in Los >> Angeles. > > I do not like the WHOIS result either. In my view, Ross Rader's presentation > of the alternative made a great deal of sense. But it seems to me that this > is a problem within the GNSO, which could be considered a general problem in > the structure of ICANN. If GNSO makes policy and decides not to make a > recommendations, and the ICANN Board reviews the appropriateness of the > process, how would an elected Board be able to come to a different result? > (Just asking, not criticizing) > >> >>> I understand that you have a severe dislike of the current UDRP. Is there >>> a comprehensive alternative you would like to suggest that is >>> significantly better? If you have already suggested it, what has been its >>> reception and why? >> >> The UDRP starts with a fundamental error: It acts as a sword to vindicate >> rights in a name only if those rights are based on trademark. >> >> In other words, if I own a trademark "foo" then I can use the UDRP to >> challenge others who use "foo". I might win, I might loose, but at least I >> have the UDRP as a tool. >> >> On the other hand, if I am named "foo" or my god is named "foo" or my >> university is named "foo" - all of which are legal, valid, and legitimate >> non-trademark uses of that name - and I feel that my rights are violated by >> someone else's use of "foo", then I can not call upon the UDRP, the UDRP is >> not a tool that I can invoke simply because my rights in the name are not >> trademark based. >> >> In other words, the first thing to fix in the UDRP is to make require only >> that the plantiff have rights in a name, not that those rights are >> trademark rights. >> >> Secondly, the UDRP replaces the existing legal system. The legal system is >> complex and expensive because it bends over backwards to be fair. The UDRP >> is attractive to intellectual property owners and lawyers (like me, on both >> counts) because it is fast and cheap. But that speed and low cost come at >> a price - the loss of fairness. Among the ways the UDRP is unfair is the >> way that those who make choices are paid, it tends to make them friendly to >> the plaintiff. >> >> Thirdly, because the UDRP is a private law that supersedes nations it tends >> to squash cultural differences. I'm certain that in the Sudan right now >> nobody is wondering about the trademark names associated with a certain >> teddy bear that has been in the news. That situation demonstrates how >> different are the cultural feelings about names that the UDRP covers with a >> single worldwide, commercial trade name based system. > > Thanks for the exposition. I feel a bit out of my depth here, because I have > no legal training. But it seems to me that a significant piece of this issue > is related to the concept of copyright in general, and its application in > certain media. Furthermore, is it not correct that the UDRP is an optional > mediation device, and that challenge within a legal system (not clear whose > system or what decides it), outside of the Internet space, is still possible? > >> >>> What do you think of my suggestion to concentrate on the great majority of >>> Internet users, mostly those without domain names, and do two things. >>> First, define their real needs to the best of our ability. Second, and >>> only after we've done the first, discuss what forms of structure, conduct >>> and governance would best meet those needs, nows and in the future? >> >> Yes is useful to remember that the internet is much larger than those who >> spend money on domain names. And that is precisely why I find the >> "stakeholder" conception so pernicious - it tends to identify the degree of >> interest ("stake") and thus the degree of authority in bodies of internet >> governance with the amount of money that the putative "stakeholder" spends >> or makes. >> >> So yes, we ought to remember the vast masses who are unheard and who's >> money in the net is not clearly identifiable and not, on an individual >> basis, very large. >> >> On the other hand, when we have a fairly clear cut issue - such as domain >> name registry fees unrelated to the actual cost of providing the domain >> name registry service - and a well identifiable body of people being harmed >> (those who buy domain names and also, as we should not forget, those who >> find them too expensive and this forego buying a domain name), and an >> amount of money that would be significant even by Rockefeller standards, >> then that is an issue we ought to face. > > > I agree that DN registry fees are a clearer issue. But I'd rather attack the > larger and IMHO the considerably more important issue, even if it is > ill-defined, because i think that convergence and appropriate action in this > space will yield, to be somewhat trite, the greater good for the greater > number. However, I'd still love to see the domain name industry study done > so that there would be durable factual evidence to help guide the evolution > of that industry in an efficient and effective manner. > >> >> --karl-- > > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 14:13:15 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:13:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <401411.97372.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <017601c8343a$64c9bf70$2e5d3e50$@com> <401411.97372.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003101c8344e$3f3aa300$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Re: this ALAC / NCUC discussion. Are people on this list actually serious? The civil society Internet Governance Caucus is debating whether it should cut off one of its own arms within ICANN because it can't decide whether it should be left-handed or right-handed. Speaking entirely as an individual Net user here, it's these sorts of rather insane discussions that mean civil society doesn't have the impact it should have on the wider stage. If anything the NCUC and ALAC should be discussing how they can better work together. Kieren ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Dec 1 14:30:42 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 06:30:42 +1100 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <003101c8344e$3f3aa300$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <053701c83450$b303d520$8b00a8c0@IAN> Aah, here we have the heart of it... Is the purpose of an Internet Governance Caucus to discuss sensible structures for Internet Governance or to protect existing power structures available for civil society, however eccentric they may be? If the latter, as Kieren suggests, can some one point to me a mailing list where Internet Governance issues are discussed, and can this list be renamed? Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: 02 December 2007 06:13 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? Re: this ALAC / NCUC discussion. Are people on this list actually serious? The civil society Internet Governance Caucus is debating whether it should cut off one of its own arms within ICANN because it can't decide whether it should be left-handed or right-handed. Speaking entirely as an individual Net user here, it's these sorts of rather insane discussions that mean civil society doesn't have the impact it should have on the wider stage. If anything the NCUC and ALAC should be discussing how they can better work together. Kieren ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 15:20:24 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> <475135C0.1080509@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Alex, Yes, I agree with your addenda here, and I also share Carlos' concerns regarding the situation in Brazil. I was not recommending a total pure market solution to the issue of enabling Internet growth, but rather specifically what comprehensive liberalization of the telecomm sector meant. Even in the United States we've had our period of public sector investment, which was essential to stimulate Internet expansion. As you know, how the telecomm sector is treated by government is a crucial factor in how successfully the Internet can spread. This is one area in which governments, should they chose to, can effect major policy initiatives that will either suppress or enable the Internet in their country. There is very little if any international component to this; it's a crucial issue, as you note, at the national level. How can an event like the IGF be helpful here? With hardly any international issues to be resolved, could the IGF become a forum for advising on national telecomm policy? Of course, if it could, the right people would not be there to hear the message. It's a tempting thought, however. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 6:57 PM +0000 12/1/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: >George, > >re how liberalization/privatization, your Rx is generally accepted. >Many of us in Latin America see it lacking, though, in that some >strong state policy is required, together with public investment, in >order to push connectivity and access to large sectors of population >and territory which are not attractive as markets, especially to the >large, consolidated companies which Carlos has described. > >You have also seen many analyses of the troubles of pure-market >solutions for island states and other sparsely populated geographies >which are not large enough to support competitive markets, either by >population or by the total mass of money available. > >So, many of us have arrived at the conclusion that market-only is >not a complete solution outside the Northern economies - and even >there. > >Now of course in general the solutions are in-country and barely >global, exception made of international interconnection costs, or >international aid/support for fledling markets and extremely >disadvantaged populations. > >Mind you, this is one issue in which Carlos and I see almost >eye-to-eye, our differences are of degree. I mention this in >illustration of my concept that once we start looking at different >sets of issues, the alignments of the same set of players change >radically. > >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, 1 Dec 2007, George Sadowsky wrote: > >>Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:58:08 -0500 >>From: George Sadowsky >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >> George Sadowsky >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlos Afonso >>Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, >> and how? >> >>Hi, Carlos. >> >>My definition of liberalization is not only privatization. You are >>correct in reporting that a privatized monopoly is worse than a >>public monopoly, and I am sorry for your experiences. >> >>In "liberalization," (probably a term that should not be used >>without some contextual description), I include: >> >>1. Privatization of state providers of ICT services >>2. Effective competition in all markets >>3. Strong and non-discriminatory interconnection requirements >>4. No artificial barriers to entry >>5. A "level playing field" for all competitors >>6. A technologically neutral legal context for ICT development. >> >>... and probably a couple of other things I can't think of at the moment. >> >>Does that help? >> >>George >> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> >>At 8:21 AM -0200 12/1/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>>George and all, >>> >>>I strongly disagree with your view (which we hear from time to >>>time in this debate) that liberalization (aka privatization, part >>>of the [in]famous "enabling environment" business keeps preaching >>>at us) per se solves any of the problems we are debating. >>> >>>Brazil had a pervasive privatization process in the late nineties. >>>It was strongly criticized not because of privatization in itself, >>>but because it was incredibly underpriced, a real gift to big >>>business by the federal government at the time. It was also >>>criticized because it replaced a national monopoly with de facto >>>regional monopolies which (guess what) agreed to act (illegally, >>>of course) as a cartel (so much for the "competitivity" the >>>so-called "liberalization" tries to sell us as ficticious panacea). >>> >>>The result: although ANATEL, by law, is able to define price >>>ceilings for telecom services (in agreement with the cartel, of >>>course), it can hardly do so for "value-added" services like >>>Internet connectivity and data transfer. So we have a situation in >>>which broadband pricing is fixed by the cartel at sky-high levels >>>-- much like connectivity pricing is fixed among the giant >>>backbone operators in the North -- with a lousy service quality >>>and serving only "prime markets". >>> >>>Brazil is now trying to devise ways to get out of this riddle. >>>After all, the cartel leaves nearly half of 5,564 municipalities >>>totally out of the Internet (no local points of presence), since >>>"there is no market", so they are condemned to be perpetually >>>unconnected (except for a minimal telephone service mandatory in >>>the incumbents' contracts). There is no other way except a strong >>>public policy to create a true enabling environment -- one which >>>provides everyone with decently priced and reasonably good access, >>>be it a money machine for a cartel or not. A large existing fiber >>>backbone is being reorganized now to carry government e-services >>>and help in universalizing municipalities' access to the Internet >>>for e-gov services, public schools' connectivity and community >>>nets. And ANATEL is proposing a regulation which will require all >>>regional telco monopolies to install points of presence (with >>>speeds compatible with population size) in every municipality. >>> >>>I do hope it works. >>> >>>--c.a. >>> >>>George Sadowsky wrote: >>>>Dan, >>>> >>>>I would disagree that low costs and more consumer choice, as >>>>reported by Veni, support Karl's claim of powerlessness. >>>> >>>>Every country has an ISP industry, shaped by competitive forces, >>>>history, and the legislative and regulatory environment in which >>>>it exists. These determine the structure, conduct, and behavior >>>>of the actors in ISP industry. In the US, it depends where you >>>>are. If you're in Washington, you have lots of choices; if you're >>>>in Hanover, New Hampshire, you have at most two. There are >>>>locations in the US where there are no broadband choices. Some >>>>countries, especially those that are geographically compact, can >>>>offer more comprehensive broadband connectivity in similar policy >>>>environments. >>>> >>>>Users are not made powerless by connectivity prices that are >>>>above lower costs available elsewhere in the world. The ARE made >>>>powerless by lack of any connectivity or by connectivity that is >>>>outrageously expensive. >>>> >>>>I would like to stress that these are national and local >>>>problems, and not international problems except to the extent >>>>that they are replicated in country after country. To the extent >>>>that they exist, I argue that this is a case for >>>>telecommunications reform at the national and local level, and >>>>that we should be working with governments, as well as other >>>>sectors of society, to demonstrate the benefits of liberalization >>>>for this sector. >>>> >>>>On the one had, I think that it's terrific that Bulgarians have >>>>all kinds of choices with respect to the purchase of Internet >>>>connectivity. On the other hand, I don't think that users in >>>>other countries are necessarily substantially disadvantaged by >>>>that. We need to work with all countries to enable them to >>>>understand the opportunity costs of not liberalizing, so that >>>>they can make the Internet even more of an empowering tool than >>>>it is already. >>>> >>>>I would argue that institutional governance of the Internet is >>>>important, but less important than seeing that user needs are >>>>met. They are clearly interrelated, but identifying needs comes >>>>first, and then governance arrangements that maximize meeting >>>>those identified needs should follow. >>>> >>>>Form should follow function. I think that tends to be forgotten >>>>for a number of postings on this list. Let's focus first on real >>>>needs and then how to best meet them. Let's also remember that >>>>when we talk about Internet users, the great majority of them >>>>don't have domain names, so it's not the domain name industry >>>>that we should be focusing on but the user community as a whole, >>>>at present and to a fair extent, in the future also. >>>> >>>>George >>>> >>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> >>>>At 3:40 PM -0800 11/30/07, Dan Krimm wrote: >>>>>Indeed, Veni, competition in consumer broadband last-mile connectivity >>>>>service in the US is dreadfully low. >>>>> >>>>>So, all that really does is support Karl's claim of end user powerlessness >>>>>that George was disputing. It seems to me that Karl was just allowing >>>>>George's point without deep analysis (or perhaps Karl was thinking about >>>>>domain-hosting services, independent of last-mile connectivity, where >>>>>competition remains quite robust even in the US -- "ISP" may not be a very >>>>>precise term anymore) because Karl was making a different point >>>>>about power >>>>>in institutional structures of political governance, rather than >>>>>power in a >>>>>commercial marketplace (two *very* different realms). >>>>> >>>>>Please, this is just a "gotcha" tactic of rhetorical distraction, and >>>>>brings us off point from what Karl and George are really trying >>>>>to discuss, >>>>>which is a substantive issue of real significance. >>>>> >>>>>This is precisely part of the "noise" that dilutes productive >>>>>discussion on >>>>>this list. There was really no need for this comment at all, and nothing >>>>>was really gained by it, unless you were simply trying to spuriously >>>>>undermine trust in Karl as an individual speaker. That is not a >>>>>substantive topic. >>>>> >>>>>As long as we're trying to clear the list of ad hominems, can we >>>>>please try >>>>>to clear this stuff off too? It dissipates the substantive focus of >>>>>discussions on the list, and that's good for no one except those who wish >>>>>to obstruct and distract from such productive discussion. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>>Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>At 3:31 PM -0500 11/30/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >>>>>>At 11:20 11/30/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>>>>>>select ISP's and the like. >>>>>> >>>>>>This sounds strange. At least in New York City there is a choice - >>>>>>between cable Internet and Verizon. Both are at the same price, more >>>>>>or less. Is this really a choice? Compare: in Sofia, Bulgaria you can >>>>>>choose among about 20 big ISPs, and about 500 smaller (true, in the >>>>>>whole city, not each of them covers all of the buildings). >>>>>>In New York you can choose between "business" and "family" or >>>>>>something like that plan. Speeds - up to 6Mbps. In Sofia - tens of >>>>>>plans, speeds - up to 1000 Mbps. Prices - adequate: in New York City >>>>>>it is more expensive than in Sofia. I call that a choice. >>>>>> >>>>>>But, again, that is my own, non US-centric, point of view. Or, >>>>>>rather, fact? >>>>>> >>>>>>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 >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 15:28:36 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:28:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alex, I fear that it will take much more than the public record to determine the real costs of operating the registry/registrar system. I hope that someone tackles the question and performs an authoritative comprehensive analysis in an independent manner. The domainers and their activities are at best a vexing unintended consequence of some rules that were established for other, at the time meritorious, reasons. There has to be some way to fix that situation, and I am all in favor of eliminating the add grace period, among other things. I view the Internet as a public trust, not as a feeding trough for hungry animals. On the subject of complacent Directors, I suggest an addition. No one in their right mind would make the mistake of placing Susan Crawford or Harald Alvestrand in that class. On to the next subject. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 7:14 PM +0000 12/1/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: >George, > >quick: > >1. re cost/pricing/profit in domain names. Karl can research this >among the companies. Some are public so the information is available >for the really curious. The general perception is that the real >killing is being made in the secondary market, by "domainers." > >2. UDRP and intellectual property law. The UDRP is predicated on the >premise that ICANN is to create new law. Many of us want >non-commercial speech and names to be better protected. We have to >work through the GNSO and changin laws. > >3. ICANN Board members' complacency, as assumed by Karl, >particularly for those seated by the Nominating Committee. Having >been a fellow Director to, I think, three generations of them, and >having observed the members of the other councils seated by the >NomCom, I can assure you: not so. That's empirical fact, not a >subjective appreciation. Available for confirmation in the >transcripts of public meetings and in the vote counts in the >minutes. Insisting on the characterization of complacency would mean >extending it to Joi Ito, Avri Doria, Steve Goldstein, Sophia Bekele, >and many other well-known independent spirits. "Concrete analysis of >concrete situations," as Lenin used to ask for. > >No, not everything is perfect with ICANN. Nor much of the rest of the world. > >Next subject please. > >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, 1 Dec 2007, George Sadowsky wrote: > >>Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:01:51 -0500 >>From: George Sadowsky >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >> George Sadowsky >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? >> >>Karl has raised a number of useful observations, some of which I >>agree with and some of which I don't. My comments are interspersed >>below. >> >>I think that this has been an interesting discussion, but I am >>seeing decreasing returns to continuing it. Others may feel >>differently. >> >>>George Sadowsky wrote: >>> >>>>However, I do think that the way you phrase it, i.e. "the body >>>>that extracts over half a billion dollars (US$ out of the pockets >>>>of domain name buyers every year," goes in the wrong direction. >>>>It's correct that ICANN is involved in price setting, but per >>>>domain name the cost is closer to $6. >>> >>>My estimate is based on a computed registry cost (which I'll get >>>to in a few paragraphs), an ICANN granted registry fee of about $7 >>>(not to mention the ICANN piece of every registration), and about >>>75,000,000 names (largely in .com). >>> >>>There is no doubt that domain name buyers are paying in excess of >>>$500,000,000 per year just in the ICANN granted registry fee. The >>>question is how much does it actually cost to provide those >>>registry services? >>> >>>A price-setting regulatory body ought to know how much it costs to >>>provide the regulated service being provided. Unfortunately the >>>body of internet governance that sets domain name registry prices >>>(and its own fee as well) seems to never have bothered to inquire >>>as to the actual cost. >>> >>>Perhaps it is obvious to that body, but it is certainly not obvious to me. >>> >>>The $6 appears to be nothing but a fiat amount - it appears to be >>>based on no evidence, no information, no audit - no nothing. >>>There is no evidence that ICANN has never tried to establish a >>>cost basis. And now it is going up to $7, not $6, with an >>>additional bi-yearly 7% rise, again without any supporting >>>accounting, much less audited accounting. >>> >>>I've estimated the cost at about $0.03 per name per year. Perhaps >>>that is too low, perhaps not. But what evidence is there to >>>contradict my calculations? I'd love to hear concrete, auditable, >>>quantitative information that leads me (and us) to a real answer >>>that we can believe and use rather than debate. >> >>Cost, of course, depends upon the number, nature, and level of >>services that go with the registration. >> >>> >>>The analysis of others also indicates that $6 much, much higher >>>than the real cost. >>> >>>Suppose that I'm off by a factor of 33x. That still means that >>>ICANN is pumping/taxing the internet to the tune of about >>>$400,000,000 (USD) on .com alone every year and splitting the >>>proceeds between itself and Verisign. >>> >>>Alternatively we can use Tucow's bid at running .com at $2 - on >>>which basis the money pump is a mere $330,000,000 every year (on >>>.com alone) and rising with ICANN's 7% solution. >>> >>>Even at these lesser amounts, the sums are still quite significant. >> >>I'm not as familiar with the history as I would like to be, but I >>believe that you are right, that $6 was at first a guess at what it >>would take to support registry and registar operations. that guess >>must have been made a long time ago, based upon some untested >>assumptions regarding volume, cost projections, and service levels. >> >>> >>>Thus we see an ICANN, because it is not accountable to the >>>community of internet users, that has become excessively >>>accommodating to the registry industry - gifting it with huge >>>revenue streams and profit margins that are measured in the 1000% >>>to 35,000% range. >> >>Without commenting on your profit margin estimates, I would be >>curious to know if any studies or good business plans exist that >>indicate that a much lower cost would be commercially viable. The >>business has changed significantly since the fist price was set, >>including mirror servers, query rates and now data escrow issues. >>Perhaps that would be a useful study for an economist in industrial >>organization who also has a technical bent. In fact, the entire >>domain name industry is ripe for study. Ross Rader gave me the >>name of a writer at the Wall Street Journal who he thought was >>writing such a study, but I've receiived no response from him. >> >>> >>>When the body of internet governance not only guarantees >>>registries a profit, but a profit margin measured in tens of >>>thousands of percents, is it still internet governance? Or is it >>>something else? >>> >>>When I was on the board at ICANN I found an across-the-board (pun >>>intended) reluctance to look at any sort of hard numbers of >>>anything, even ICANN's own expenses. Indeed, when I went to look >>>for myself I found my way barred and I had to bring legal action >>>simply so that I could do what board members around the world are >>>empowered to do - look at the financial records. >> >>When you were on the Board, the dynamics of ICANN, and of its >>interactions with the burgeoning industry were considerably >>different. I can understand that it is natural for you to look >>through the lens of that period, but isn't it possible that it's >>not the right lens now? I can think of a number of ways to test >>that hypothesis. Can you? >> >>> >>>In other words, I am suggesting that there may be an institutional >>>aversion to asking too many questions about where and how money >>>flows. >>> >>>One of my concerns about ICANN's nominating committee process is >>>that it tends to produce people who are worthies but are of an >>>accommodating nature, not of the ilk will demand to see hard proof >>>of an assertion. >> >>Well, I would disagree somewhat here, in part because of my >>familiarity with the process as Chair of the ICANN NomCom for the >>last three years. I know that you said "tends to produce" and >>certainly some people nominated have an accommodating nature, but >>we have also nominated people who are professionally aggressive >>almost to a fault. They may have directed their energies to other >>problems, of course. And you would not want a Board of people, >>most of whom were overly demanding in different directions (we may >>disagree here), because it would be difficult for such a Board to >>get things done. There are, of course, cultural differences that >>cause people from some cultures to be more accommodating --- >>essentially practicing a different style of management --- and >>that often produces a less than perfect result. When I worked at >>the United Nations, I observed many misunderstandings and >>disagreements largely due to different cultural norms and >>conflicting cultural assumptions. >> >>I don't see the ICANN Board as complacent. I agree that it would >>be a bad thing; just look at corporate board behavior in the US >>and we could both identify cases in which the board-CEO collusion >>has led to disaster for stockholders, as well as having significant >>financial repercussions across the economy (Tyco, Enron, MCI, ...) >> >>> >>>As such it is not surprising that ICANN has simply accepted a >>>domain name registry price policy that began with an arbitrary >>>number - a number that was simply created out of thin air a few >>>years ago - and increments it by a percentage that was also >>>created out of thin air. >>> >>>Had ICANN had a working election process it may have found its >>>board populated by more people willing to require hard facts >>>before granting rich price terms, paid for not by ICANN but, >>>instead, out of the pockets of the users of the internet. >> >>There are several problems with elections, and I don't want to get >>into a discussion of them now, but the one show-stopper that I see >>is defining the electorate >> >>> >>>>I agree with you that WHOIS continues to be a problem, >>>>complicated by competing interests but also by non-interoperable >>>>national legal codes, over which we have relatively no control >>>>(at least in the short run). I'd like to see that sorted out >>>>also, but I don't see any voting scheme able to solve that >>>>problem without creating other problems of equal or greater >>>>magnitude. >>> >>>You are right that voting systems alone will not solve Whois. >>> >>>But allowing internet users light a fire under ICANN's board, a >>>fire created through the accountability provided by elections, >>>then I submit that ICANN would not have repeatedly waivered when >>>the intellectual property industry said "boo", as it did just a >>>few weeks ago in Los Angeles. >> >>I do not like the WHOIS result either. In my view, Ross Rader's >>presentation of the alternative made a great deal of sense. But it >>seems to me that this is a problem within the GNSO, which could be >>considered a general problem in the structure of ICANN. If GNSO >>makes policy and decides not to make a recommendations, and the >>ICANN Board reviews the appropriateness of the process, how would >>an elected Board be able to come to a different result? (Just >>asking, not criticizing) >> >>> >>>>I understand that you have a severe dislike of the current UDRP. >>>>Is there a comprehensive alternative you would like to suggest >>>>that is significantly better? If you have already suggested it, >>>>what has been its reception and why? >>> >>>The UDRP starts with a fundamental error: It acts as a sword to >>>vindicate rights in a name only if those rights are based on >>>trademark. >>> >>>In other words, if I own a trademark "foo" then I can use the UDRP >>>to challenge others who use "foo". I might win, I might loose, >>>but at least I have the UDRP as a tool. >>> >>>On the other hand, if I am named "foo" or my god is named "foo" or >>>my university is named "foo" - all of which are legal, valid, and >>>legitimate non-trademark uses of that name - and I feel that my >>>rights are violated by someone else's use of "foo", then I can not >>>call upon the UDRP, the UDRP is not a tool that I can invoke >>>simply because my rights in the name are not trademark based. >>> >>>In other words, the first thing to fix in the UDRP is to make >>>require only that the plantiff have rights in a name, not that >>>those rights are trademark rights. >>> >>>Secondly, the UDRP replaces the existing legal system. The legal >>>system is complex and expensive because it bends over backwards to >>>be fair. The UDRP is attractive to intellectual property owners >>>and lawyers (like me, on both counts) because it is fast and >>>cheap. But that speed and low cost come at a price - the loss of >>>fairness. Among the ways the UDRP is unfair is the way that those >>>who make choices are paid, it tends to make them friendly to the >>>plaintiff. >>> >>>Thirdly, because the UDRP is a private law that supersedes nations >>>it tends to squash cultural differences. I'm certain that in the >>>Sudan right now nobody is wondering about the trademark names >>>associated with a certain teddy bear that has been in the news. >>>That situation demonstrates how different are the cultural >>>feelings about names that the UDRP covers with a single worldwide, >>>commercial trade name based system. >> >>Thanks for the exposition. I feel a bit out of my depth here, >>because I have no legal training. But it seems to me that a >>significant piece of this issue is related to the concept of >>copyright in general, and its application in certain media. >>Furthermore, is it not correct that the UDRP is an optional >>mediation device, and that challenge within a legal system (not >>clear whose system or what decides it), outside of the Internet >>space, is still possible? >> >>> >>>>What do you think of my suggestion to concentrate on the great >>>>majority of Internet users, mostly those without domain names, >>>>and do two things. First, define their real needs to the best of >>>>our ability. Second, and only after we've done the first, >>>>discuss what forms of structure, conduct and governance would >>>>best meet those needs, nows and in the future? >>> >>>Yes is useful to remember that the internet is much larger than >>>those who spend money on domain names. And that is precisely why >>>I find the "stakeholder" conception so pernicious - it tends to >>>identify the degree of interest ("stake") and thus the degree of >>>authority in bodies of internet governance with the amount of >>>money that the putative "stakeholder" spends or makes. >>> >>>So yes, we ought to remember the vast masses who are unheard and >>>who's money in the net is not clearly identifiable and not, on an >>>individual basis, very large. >>> >>>On the other hand, when we have a fairly clear cut issue - such as >>>domain name registry fees unrelated to the actual cost of >>>providing the domain name registry service - and a well >>>identifiable body of people being harmed (those who buy domain >>>names and also, as we should not forget, those who find them too >>>expensive and this forego buying a domain name), and an amount of >>>money that would be significant even by Rockefeller standards, >>>then that is an issue we ought to face. >> >> >>I agree that DN registry fees are a clearer issue. But I'd rather >>attack the larger and IMHO the considerably more important issue, >>even if it is ill-defined, because i think that convergence and >>appropriate action in this space will yield, to be somewhat trite, >>the greater good for the greater number. However, I'd still love >>to see the domain name industry study done so that there would be >>durable factual evidence to help guide the evolution of that >>industry in an efficient and effective manner. >> >>> >>> --karl-- >> >> >>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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Dec 1 15:29:47 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:29:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <003101c8344e$3f3aa300$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <993152.65391.qm@web52208.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Serious discussions tend to consider all the options. There was a time when the Protocol Supporting Organization was dropped from the ICANN roster of constituent bodies; so too was the DNSO General Assembly eliminated as a representative unit. From time to time, organizations can get dropped from the ICANN roster of constituent bodies. As I understand it, we are now attempting to have a serious discussion as to whether the ALAC has outlived its usefulness. You would think that ICANN Staff would be supportive of an effort to frankly discuss the performance and operation of a unit that is up for review, and that likely should be eliminated. --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > Re: this ALAC / NCUC discussion. > > Are people on this list actually serious? > > The civil society Internet Governance Caucus is > debating whether it should > cut off one of its own arms within ICANN because it > can't decide whether it > should be left-handed or right-handed. > > Speaking entirely as an individual Net user here, > it's these sorts of rather > insane discussions that mean civil society doesn't > have the impact it should > have on the wider stage. > > If anything the NCUC and ALAC should be discussing > how they can better work > together. > > > > Kieren > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Dec 1 16:12:54 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:12:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <670404.40277.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Re cost/pricing/profit in domain names, I recall this comment from James Seng: "Now, back in the days when I was the CTO of i-DNS 3-4yrs ago, I remember doing a spreadsheet calculation on the cost to do full-fledge registry operation. At 100k domain names, it would work out to be about US4-5/name but once it reach 1M domain names, the cost falls to less then US$1/name. And it get sweeter as you gain economy of scale :- at 20M names, it cost US$0.10/name!" http://james.seng.sg/2005/01/page/2/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 16:22:25 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:22:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: At 9:46 PM -0500 11/30/07, George Sadowsky wrote: >Dan, > >I would disagree that low costs and more consumer choice, as reported >by Veni, support Karl's claim of powerlessness. That's not what I said. Veni pointed out that in the US choice is *low* (he contrasted that with the higher competition in Bulgaria, which I wish we had in the US). In the US, we have relatively little power of choice over consumer broadband connectivity, compared with many other countries in the world. This is because of intentional regulatory choices made by the Republican-controlled FCC, with which I personally disgree quite vehemently, BTW (especially the categorization of broadband service along the lines of cable instead of telecom, so as to avoid the competition-preserving interconnection rules for telecom, upheld on a narrow technical/procedural basis by SCOTUS in the Brand X case in 2005, which started-up the whole net neutrality debate in the US legislature because of the anti-competitive effects in the ISP market in the US). In any case, this tangent is still a red herring, IMHO. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Dec 1 17:45:35 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:45:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: p06230909c3777ef4f18b@[10.0.1.2] Message-ID: > In any case, this tangent is still a red herring, IMHO. -Dan- That's right Dan, and Icann is to be the globalized extention of the FCC. Now ... Lets back that up an extra-heaping of Right-Wing Red/White/and Blue rhetorical: Below is the letter sent to the FCC today by the "Hands Off the Internet" coalition: ref.: http://handsoff.org/blog/net-neutrality/hoti-letter-to-the-fcc/#more-286 - November 7, 2007 The Honorable Kevin J. Martin Chairman The Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Request for FCC Review of Comcast actions involving BitTorrent Dear Mr. Chairman: During your tenure as FCC chairman, you have supported the free market over government regulation as the best way to preserve free expression and speech while also bringing new benefits to Internet users. The Hands Off the Internet coalition has supported this view, as we believe it is consistent with America�s traditional �light regulatory touch� Internet policies that have enjoyed strong bipartisan support for more than a decade. As you know, the cornerstones of today�s open Internet are the four principles embedded in the FCC�s August 2005 net neutrality policy statement: 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and 4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. These principles are the necessary safety net to protect consumers and the openness and freedom of the Internet. Comcast�s actions toward BitTorrent: Initial reports and subsequent confusion demand FCC investigation Comcast stands accused of violating the FCC�s four principles. The company has responded by offering the rationale for the actions it took. Now the ball is in your court. The FCC must determine if any of its four principles have in fact been violated. If not, and the process has been fair and open, then so be it. If after reviewing the facts, the FCC determines that the company has been in violation, then the FCC must determine the remedy. With both outcomes, the process works and the integrity of the four principles are intact. The FCC is on firm ground to investigate this possible violation of the open Internet >From a legal standpoint, Mr. Chairman, we believe the FCC has clear authority to enforce its four principles. Title 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 specifically grants the FCC the power to: �regulat[e] interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio [and to] perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders� to fulfill this mission. In 2005, in the Brand X case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC�s authority, writing that provisions in the Communications Act: �give the Commission the authority to promulgate binding legal rules�. [Also,] the Commission has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations [on Internet Service Providers under its authority] � to regulate interstate and foreign communications�.� Finally, as you testified to the Senate Commerce Committee on September 12, 2006 when asked if the FCC had authority to stop an Internet provider from blocking or degrading access: �The Commission does have authority under Title 1 of the Communications Act, and indeed last summer the Supreme Court� stated that the Commission has ancillary authority to adopt additional rules over the infrastructure providers of broadband access�. So I think we do have that authority.� We believe you do, too. Mr. Chairman, we were on record during the 109th Congress in support of codifying these principles into federal law. Though the legislation was held up and did not pass into law, we remain committed to these Four Principles and we urge you to move expeditiously to resolve any possible violations and uphold their integrity. Sincerely, Mike McCurry Co-Chair Christopher Wolf Co-Chair -- >From the Far (Right) Side: �You go give them liberals hell Ronnie.� That was the mandate. To the new �Captain Bly� on the new ship of fools. It was doubtlessly based on his chameleon performance of the past - as a liberal democrat � as the head of the Studio Actor's Guild. When other celluloid saviors were cringing in terror from McCarthy � Ron stood tall. It goes all the way back from Hollywood to hillbilly. From liberal to libelous, from �Bonzo� to Birch idol�born again. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights�it's all wrong. Call in the cavalry to disrupt this perception of freedom gone wild. God damn it�first one wants freedom, then the whole damn world wants freedom. Nostalgia, that's what we want�the good ol' days�when we gave'em hell. When the buck stopped somewhere and you could still buy something with it. To a time when movies were in black and white � and so was everything else. Even if we go back to the campaign trail, before six-gun Ron shot off his face and developed hoof-in-mouth. Before the free press went down before full-court press. And were reluctant to review the menu because they knew the only thing available was � Crow. ... �You go give them liberals hell Ronnie.� That was the mandate. To the new �Captain Bly� on the new ship of fools. It was doubtlessly based on his chameleon performance of the past - as a liberal democrat � as the head of the Studio Actor's Guild. When other celluloid saviors were cringing in terror from McCarthy � Ron stood tall. It goes all the way back from Hollywood to hillbilly. From liberal to libelous, from �Bonzo� to Birch idol�born again. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights�it's all wrong. Call in the cavalry to disrupt this perception of freedom gone wild. God damn it�first one wants freedom, then the whole damn world wants freedom. Nostalgia, that's what we want�the good ol' days�when we gave'em hell. When the buck stopped somewhere and you could still buy something with it. To a time when movies were in black and white � and so was everything else. Even if we go back to the campaign trail, before six-gun Ron shot off his face and developed hoof-in-mouth. Before the free press went down before full-court press. And were reluctant to review the menu because they knew the only thing available was � Crow. - Lyrics by Gil Scott-Heron - Title: 'B Movie' http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=mqljBdwZkwk%3D ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 1 17:58:42 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:58:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <47512039.40505@isoc.be> References: <290f01c833cb$100b68e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47512039.40505@isoc.be> Message-ID: <20071201225842.GA22186@hserus.net> Rudi Vansnick [01/12/07 09:50 +0100]: >of prosecuting the offenders ? With this sample I want to prove the fact >government alone is not able to solve topics such as cybercrime, we have >to get attention of all possible stakeholders in order to close down Excellent sentiments of course, and we do agree here. There is broad enough consensus that it must be multistakeholder. However, as I said, the "dont know" stakeholders need to be engaged. And the "don't care" stakeholders need to be pressured into action. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 18:00:45 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:00:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: p06230909c3777ef4f18b@[10.0.1.2] Message-ID: > In any case, this tangent is still a red herring, IMHO. -Dan- That's right Dan, and Icann is to be the globalized extention of the FCC. Now ... Lets back that up an extra-heaping of Right-Wing Red/White/and Blue rhetorical: - Below is the letter sent to the FCC today by the "Hands Off the Internet" coalition: ref.: http://handsoff.org/blog/net-neutrality/hoti-letter-to-the-fcc/#more-286 November 7, 2007 The Honorable Kevin J. Martin Chairman The Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SWWashington, DC 20554 Re: Request for FCC Review of Comcast actions involving BitTorrent Dear Mr. Chairman: During your tenure as FCC chairman, you have supported the free market over government regulation as the best way to preserve free expression and speech while also bringing new benefits to Internet users. The Hands Off the Internet coalition has supported this view, as we believe it is consistent with America�s traditional �light regulatory touch� Internet policies that have enjoyed strong bipartisan support for more than a decade. As you know, the cornerstones of today�s open Internet are the four principles embedded in the FCC�s August 2005 net neutrality policy statement: 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and 4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. These principles are the necessary safety net to protect consumers and the openness and freedom of the Internet. Comcast�s actions toward BitTorrent: Initial reports and subsequent confusion demand FCC investigation Comcast stands accused of violating the FCC�s four principles. The company has responded by offering the rationale for the actions it took. Now the ball is in your court. The FCC must determine if any of its four principles have in fact been violated. If not, and the process has been fair and open, then so be it. If after reviewing the facts, the FCC determines that the company has been in violation, then the FCC must determine the remedy. With both outcomes, the process works and the integrity of the four principles are intact. The FCC is on firm ground to investigate this possible violation of the open Internet >From a legal standpoint, Mr. Chairman, we believe the FCC has clear authority to enforce its four principles. Title 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 specifically grants the FCC the power to: �regulat[e] interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio [and to] perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders� to fulfill this mission. In 2005, in the Brand X case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC�s authority, writing that provisions in the Communications Act: �give the Commission the authority to promulgate binding legal rules�. [Also,] the Commission has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations [on Internet Service Providers under its authority] � to regulate interstate and foreign communications�.� Finally, as you testified to the Senate Commerce Committee on September 12, 2006 when asked if the FCC had authority to stop an Internet provider from blocking or degrading access: �The Commission does have authority under Title 1 of the Communications Act, and indeed last summer the Supreme Court� stated that the Commission has ancillary authority to adopt additional rules over the infrastructure providers of broadband access�. So I think we do have that authority.� We believe you do, too. Mr. Chairman, we were on record during the 109th Congress in support of codifying these principles into federal law. Though the legislation was held up and did not pass into law, we remain committed to these Four Principles and we urge you to move expeditiously to resolve any possible violations and uphold their integrity. Sincerely, Mike McCurry Co-Chair Christopher Wolf Co-Chair -- And Now from the Far Side: [*To bring this up to date, transpose G.W.Bush for Ron Reagan (Skippy)] Well, the first thing I want to say is��Mandate my ass!� Because it seems as though we've been convinced that 26% of the registered voters, not even 26% of the American people, but 26% of the registered voters form a mandate � or a landslide. 21% voted for Skippy and 3, 4% voted for somebody else who might have been running. But, oh yeah, I remember. In this year that we have now declared the year from Shogun to Reagan, I remember what I said about Reagan�meant it. Acted like an actor�Hollyweird. Acted like a liberal. Acted like General Franco when he acted like governor of California, then he acted like a republican. Then he acted like somebody was going to vote for him for president. And now we act like 26% of the registered voters is actually a mandate. We're all actors in this I suppose. What has happened is that in the last 20 years, America has changed from a producer to a consumer. And all consumers know that when the producer names the tune�the consumer has got to dance. That's the way it is. We used to be a producer � very inflexible at that, and now we are consumers and, finding it difficult to understand. Natural resources and minerals will change your world. The Arabs used to be in the 3rd World. They have bought the 2nd World and put a firm down payment on the 1st one. Controlling your resources we'll control your world. This country has been surprised by the way the world looks now. They don't know if they want to be Matt Dillon or Bob Dylan. They don't know if they want to be diplomats or continue the same policy - of nuclear nightmare diplomacy. John Foster Dulles ain't nothing but the name of an airport now. The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can � even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment � someone always came to save America at the last moment � especially in �B� movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for Ronald Reagan � and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at � like a �B� movie. Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous �B� movie. The producer underwritten by all the millionaires necessary will be Casper �The Defensive� Weinberger � no more animated choice is available. The director will be Attila the Haig, running around frantically declaring himself in control and in charge. The ultimate realization of the inmates taking over at the asylum. The screenplay will be adapted from the book called �Voodoo Economics� by George �Papa Doc� Bush. Music by the �Village People� the very military "Macho Man." �Company!!!� �Macho, macho man!� � Two-three-four.� � He likes to be � well, you get the point.� �Huuut! Your left! Your left! Your left�right, left, right, left, right�!� A theme song for saber-rallying and selling wars door-to-door. Remember, we're looking for the closest thing we can find to John Wayne. Clich�s abound like kangaroos � courtesy of some spaced out Marlin Perkins, a Reagan contemporary. Clich�s like, �itchy trigger finger� and �tall in the saddle� and �riding off or on into the sunset.� Clich�s like, �Get off of my planet by sundown!� More so than clich�s like, �he died with his boots on.� Marine tough the man is. Bogart tough the man is. Cagney tough the man is. Hollywood tough the man is. Cheap stick tough. And Bonzo's substantial. The ultimate in synthetic selling: A Madison Avenue masterpiece � a miracle � a cotton-candy politician�Presto! Macho! �Macho, macho man!� Put your orders in America. And quick as Kodak your leaders duplicate with the accent being on the nukes - cause all of a sudden we have fallen prey to selective amnesia - remembering what we want to remember and forgetting what we choose to forget. All of a sudden, the man who called for a blood bath on our college campuses is supposed to be Dudley �God-damn� Do-Right? �You go give them liberals hell Ronnie.� That was the mandate. To the new �Captain Bly� on the new ship of fools. It was doubtlessly based on his chameleon performance of the past - as a liberal democrat � as the head of the Studio Actor's Guild. When other celluloid saviors were cringing in terror from McCarthy � Ron stood tall. It goes all the way back from Hollywood to hillbilly. From liberal to libelous, from �Bonzo� to Birch idol�born again. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights�it's all wrong. Call in the cavalry to disrupt this perception of freedom gone wild. God damn it�first one wants freedom, then the whole damn world wants freedom. Nostalgia, that's what we want�the good ol' days�when we gave'em hell. When the buck stopped somewhere and you could still buy something with it. To a time when movies were in black and white � and so was everything else. Even if we go back to the campaign trail, before six-gun Ron shot off his face and developed hoof-in-mouth. Before the free press went down before full-court press. And were reluctant to review the menu because they knew the only thing available was � Crow. Lon Chaney, our man of a thousand faces - no match for Ron. Doug Henning does the make-up - special effects from Grecian Formula 16 and Crazy Glue. Transportation furnished by the David Rockefeller of Remote Control Company. Their slogan is, �Why wait for 1984? You can panic now...and avoid the rush.� So much for the good news� As Wall Street goes, so goes the nation. And here's a look at the closing numbers � racism's up, human rights are down, peace is shaky, war items are hot - the House claims all ties. Jobs are down, money is scarce � and common sense is at an all-time low on heavy trading. Movies were looking better than ever and now no one is looking because, we're starring in a �B� movie. And we would rather had John Wayne�we would rather had John Wayne. "You don't need to be in no hurry. You ain't never really got to worry. And you don't need to check on how you feel. Just keep repeating that none of this is real. And if you're sensing, that something's wrong, Well just remember, that it won't be too long Before the director cuts the scene�yea." �This ain't really your life, Ain't really your life, Ain't really ain't nothing but a movie.� [Refrain repeated about 25 times or more in an apocalyptic crescendo with a military cadence.] �This ain't really your life, Ain't really your life, Ain't really ain't nothing but a movie.� - Lyrics by Gil Scott-Heron - Title: 'B Movie' http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=mqljBdwZkwk%3D ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 1 18:08:02 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:08:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <003101c8344e$3f3aa300$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <017601c8343a$64c9bf70$2e5d3e50$@com> <401411.97372.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <003101c8344e$3f3aa300$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <20071201230802.GB22186@hserus.net> Kieren McCarthy [01/12/07 11:13 -0800]: >If anything the NCUC and ALAC should be discussing how they can better work >together. To be frank, ICANN's board and staff should be discussing how best to make use of ALAC rather than have people like John Levine join it and then feel bound to resign later. ALAC, as such, is a group of people several of whom I know in other areas, and respect for their acumen and their technical skiis, long involvement with the Internet etc. Further, so far it has been completely apolitical. Not making the best possible use of ALAC would be a criminal waste of money. Half serious counter proposal - once you beef up ALAC, disband NCUC? You can always rely on internet governance project | caucus policy statements to reflect their viewpoint.. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Dec 1 19:49:32 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:49:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> Can we separate domain name owners from internet users? As George has reminded us, almost ALL users will never register a domain name. So maybe we can leave the domain owners issues aside for a bit and refer to the users issues? For example - if we talk about easy and comfortable access to content online for users (the main thing that I think users want), we'd need to definitely talk about native scripts and local content issues. Pricing of access is also an issue - if it is unaffordable to get online, then that is definitely a user issue. I think that back and forth about ICANN's structure, how it should have been and why what currently obtains is worse than what should/could have been is far less important than on the ground issues for users. Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 15:20 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky > Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, > and how? > > George Sadowsky wrote: > > > At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread on > > this list, I have to comment on your comment below. I found it an > > amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not as > > productive as it could be. > > > > 99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! Instead, > if > > they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a sea of > > extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they couldn't > > have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago. > > The context in which I use the world "powerless" is in the context of > existing and future bodies of internet governance. > > For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to > select > ISP's and the like. > > But we users have virtually no voice in the body that extracts over > half > a billion dollars (US$) out of the pockets of domain name buyers every > year and, at the same, time subjects us to the kangaroo court system of > the UDRP and the privacy-busting Whois. > > The fear and concern that I am expressing is that in bodies of internet > governance - and remember a body of governance is a body that exercises > a near plenary form of power - that in these bodies, current and > present, internet users are denied the means to hold that body, and the > decision makers within it, accountable for its actions. > > In other words, my intent is the word "powerless" is interpreted in the > context of bodies 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > 11/30/2007 21:26 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 21:26 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Dec 1 20:34:54 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are unwieldy. I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data gathering). Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: > Irony] > > Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the > almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the > ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get > cross-boundary co-operation currently. > > That’s a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved > solely by > governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical > co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms > at > least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are > substantial of > course. > . > > 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: > Irony] > > Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: > > >A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following > inputs > >1. Governmental > >2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) > >3. Technical innovators and standards groups > >4. Public interest groups > >Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. > > Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on > interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or > stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to > other > civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) > > Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask > for. > > CoE convention on cybercrime - > http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm > > ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying > them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- > toolki > t-background.pdf > > And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess > how > ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html > > >Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each > group > > At an international level? What you would get at that level is again > coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each > others > initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all > the > citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public > toilet > or how much to spend to improve a local park. > > srs > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > 30/11/2007 > 12:12 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > 30/11/2007 > 12:12 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > 11/30/2007 21:26 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 21:26 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 21:02:09 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 02:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> Message-ID: Hi, on the strand on cybercrime: a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible future roles. Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules for ISP operation), and so on. The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to satisfy country A, and so on. Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details. The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues (banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of consolidation among banks that exists transnationally. Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless they are very cyber-savvy. (And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.) I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) 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, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 > From: Jacqueline A. Morris > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > Jacqueline A. Morris > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' , > 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > > There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some > bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and > also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain > instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are > unwieldy. > I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government > cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can > sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for > cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to > what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data > gathering). > Jacqueline > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' >> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: >> Irony] >> >> Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the >> almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the >> ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get >> cross-boundary co-operation currently. >> >> That’s a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved >> solely by >> governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical >> co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms >> at >> least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are >> substantial of >> course. >> . >> >> 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: >> Irony] >> >> Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: >> >>> A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following >> inputs >>> 1. Governmental >>> 2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) >>> 3. Technical innovators and standards groups >>> 4. Public interest groups >>> Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. >> >> Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on >> interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or >> stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to >> other >> civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) >> >> Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask >> for. >> >> CoE convention on cybercrime - >> http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm >> >> ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying >> them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- >> toolki >> t-background.pdf >> >> And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess >> how >> ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html >> >>> Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each >> group >> >> At an international level? What you would get at that level is again >> coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each >> others >> initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all >> the >> citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public >> toilet >> or how much to spend to improve a local park. >> >> srs >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: >> 30/11/2007 >> 12:12 >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: >> 30/11/2007 >> 12:12 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: >> 11/30/2007 21:26 >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 > 21:26 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 1 21:27:15 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:27:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> Message-ID: <20071202022715.GA30759@hserus.net> Alejandro Pisanty [02/12/07 02:02 +0000]: > I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil society in > this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) * Capacity building and education for the general public (and others) * Providing technical expertise * Any WSIS C2/C4/C6 (capacity bldg, access etc) initiatives have security built in - for example, if you distribute PCs and connectivity to disadvantaged areas, please ensure that you also provide hardware firewalls (if only $50 firewall enabled broadband routers), FOSS (or rather, FLOSS, as my friend Rishab Aiyer Ghosh puts it - Free/Libre and Open Source Software) would be an appropriate choice for range of options, security etc and finally * Active contribution to cybersecurity (WSIS action line C5) initiatives * Though opinions, comments etc would also be great ... anything else? srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sat Dec 1 21:38:06 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 02:38:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <20071202022715.GA30759@hserus.net> References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> <20071202022715.GA30759@hserus.net> Message-ID: Suresh, in Spain, there is an Association of Bank Users, sort of a consumers' union for bank clients, which the banks hate and gets a lot done for the consumers. Does that get a ball rolling? Recall other related examples? And I absolutely agree with your list. Point is, it begs the addition of academic institutions which are seriously concerned with security and cybercrime and have expertise in these fields; CERTs which are not strictly governmental; and again, does this pull a longer string? There's another angle I consider very important. It is not only the list of stakeholders and their specific functions, but also the way they interact, that can give rise to effective mechanisms. A systemic (organized, ordered, with clear recognition of components, incentives/drivers, feedback cycles, robustness-enhancing redundance mechanisms, etc.) view is demanded. Bit of work. Worthwhile. 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, 1 Dec 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:27:15 -0800 > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > To: Alejandro Pisanty > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > Jacqueline A. Morris , > 'Ian Peter' > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > > Alejandro Pisanty [02/12/07 02:02 +0000]: > >> I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil society in >> this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) > > * Capacity building and education for the general public (and others) > > * Providing technical expertise > > * Any WSIS C2/C4/C6 (capacity bldg, access etc) initiatives have security > built in - for example, if you distribute PCs and connectivity to > disadvantaged areas, please ensure that you also provide hardware firewalls > (if only $50 firewall enabled broadband routers), FOSS (or rather, FLOSS, > as my friend Rishab Aiyer Ghosh puts it - Free/Libre and Open Source > Software) would be an appropriate choice for range of options, security etc > > and finally > > * Active contribution to cybersecurity (WSIS action line C5) initiatives > * Though opinions, comments etc would also be great > > ... anything else? > > srs > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 1 22:00:55 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:00:55 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> <20071202022715.GA30759@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20071202030055.GA31652@hserus.net> Alejandro Pisanty [02/12/07 02:38 +0000]: > in Spain, there is an Association of Bank Users, sort of a consumers' union > for bank clients, which the banks hate and gets a lot done for the > consumers. Oh yes - public pressure and advocacy - when done right, and when devoid of politics + abuse of process (tendentious litigation one one side of the spectrum, poisonously worded "public policy documents" on the other) - does work wonders to prod industry into action. Takes rather more public pressure than civ soc - or industry - can mostly generate to get governments moving fast enough, or in the right direction, though. > And I absolutely agree with your list. Point is, it begs the addition of > academic institutions which are seriously concerned with security and That was implicit when I talked about civ soc. Sorry for not expanding to a laundry list of orgs but I like to keep email short. > There's another angle I consider very important. It is not only the list of > stakeholders and their specific functions, but also the way they interact, > that can give rise to effective mechanisms. A systemic (organized, ordered, > with clear recognition of components, incentives/drivers, feedback cycles, > robustness-enhancing redundance mechanisms, etc.) view is demanded. Bit of > work. Worthwhile. Actually igf style dynamic coalitions can produce far better results, especially if they continue to work outside IGF meetings and throughout the year. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 22:35:12 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:35:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> Message-ID: In the greater scheme of things, even confining talk to Internet "users" may be too narrow, as everyone in society will eventually be affected by the political ramifications of Internet policy, even if they are not direct users themselves. Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, and whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people to be able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to choose among competing service providers in the market). It is important to understand that whatever *processes* we set up to govern Internet policy are not confined to any specific *topics* of governance, and that a structure set up to govern domain name policy, for example, may be applied to other policies once it has established authority to govern at all. So, when discussing representation of political interests (including the political interests of the general public at large), it may be less effective to break down the realm of governance into topic-oriented sub-realms. That could allow nefarious structures to sneak in under the radar because they are seemingly being applied to only narrow-interest topics. This is a dangerous strategy, if one is trying to protect the public interest, because a lot of mischief can be done beyond the realm of civil society attention, if CS decides not to pay attention to process as it applies to *all* topics of Internet governance. What we are doing here is *institution building*. Once the institution is in place and its authority has been firmly established, its application can be reapplied to other topics quite widely. This is precisely why, for example, gTLD policy *processes* and *authoritative structures* are of concern to the entire general public, and not just domain name registrants. Dan At 8:49 PM -0400 12/1/07, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >Can we separate domain name owners from internet users? As George has >reminded us, almost ALL users will never register a domain name. So maybe we >can leave the domain owners issues aside for a bit and refer to the users >issues? >For example - if we talk about easy and comfortable access to content online >for users (the main thing that I think users want), we'd need to definitely >talk about native scripts and local content issues. Pricing of access is >also an issue - if it is unaffordable to get online, then that is definitely >a user issue. >I think that back and forth about ICANN's structure, how it should have been >and why what currently obtains is worse than what should/could have been is >far less important than on the ground issues for users. > >Jacqueline > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 15:20 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky >> Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, >> and how? >> >> George Sadowsky wrote: >> >> > At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread on >> > this list, I have to comment on your comment below. I found it an >> > amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not as >> > productive as it could be. >> > >> > 99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! Instead, >> if >> > they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a sea of >> > extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they couldn't >> > have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago. >> >> The context in which I use the world "powerless" is in the context of >> existing and future bodies of internet governance. >> >> For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >> select >> ISP's and the like. >> >> But we users have virtually no voice in the body that extracts over >> half >> a billion dollars (US$) out of the pockets of domain name buyers every >> year and, at the same, time subjects us to the kangaroo court system of >> the UDRP and the privacy-busting Whois. >> >> The fear and concern that I am expressing is that in bodies of internet >> governance - and remember a body of governance is a body that exercises >> a near plenary form of power - that in these bodies, current and >> present, internet users are denied the means to hold that body, and the >> decision makers within it, accountable for its actions. >> >> In other words, my intent is the word "powerless" is interpreted in the >> context of bodies 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 >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: >> 11/30/2007 21:26 >> > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 >21:26 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 1 22:44:13 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 03:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> Message-ID: Dan, great note. I fully disagree at this stage, but it sets one of the key points of controversy starkly so I'm glad you've sent it out. I do not think that we (who "we" anyway?) are ready to build an overall encompassing, overarching structure for Internet governance. I think that we are still in an early learning stage about what the problems are, who the people who have to come together for each and through which representation, what mechanisms, structures, weights for each stakeholder group, etc. It is still the time to build problem-specific mechanisms, and if needed structures, test them, improve them, and then begin to compare features to see if there really emerge more general patterns. The contrary belongs too much or too closely to the "world government" delusion. 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, 1 Dec 2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:35:12 -0800 > From: Dan Krimm > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? > > In the greater scheme of things, even confining talk to Internet "users" > may be too narrow, as everyone in society will eventually be affected by > the political ramifications of Internet policy, even if they are not direct > users themselves. Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as > whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, and > whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people to be > able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to choose > among competing service providers in the market). > > It is important to understand that whatever *processes* we set up to govern > Internet policy are not confined to any specific *topics* of governance, > and that a structure set up to govern domain name policy, for example, may > be applied to other policies once it has established authority to govern at > all. > > So, when discussing representation of political interests (including the > political interests of the general public at large), it may be less > effective to break down the realm of governance into topic-oriented > sub-realms. That could allow nefarious structures to sneak in under the > radar because they are seemingly being applied to only narrow-interest > topics. > > This is a dangerous strategy, if one is trying to protect the public > interest, because a lot of mischief can be done beyond the realm of civil > society attention, if CS decides not to pay attention to process as it > applies to *all* topics of Internet governance. > > What we are doing here is *institution building*. Once the institution is > in place and its authority has been firmly established, its application can > be reapplied to other topics quite widely. This is precisely why, for > example, gTLD policy *processes* and *authoritative structures* are of > concern to the entire general public, and not just domain name registrants. > > Dan > > > > At 8:49 PM -0400 12/1/07, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >> Can we separate domain name owners from internet users? As George has >> reminded us, almost ALL users will never register a domain name. So maybe we >> can leave the domain owners issues aside for a bit and refer to the users >> issues? >> For example - if we talk about easy and comfortable access to content online >> for users (the main thing that I think users want), we'd need to definitely >> talk about native scripts and local content issues. Pricing of access is >> also an issue - if it is unaffordable to get online, then that is definitely >> a user issue. >> I think that back and forth about ICANN's structure, how it should have been >> and why what currently obtains is worse than what should/could have been is >> far less important than on the ground issues for users. >> >> Jacqueline >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] >>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 15:20 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, >>> and how? >>> >>> George Sadowsky wrote: >>> >>>> At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread on >>>> this list, I have to comment on your comment below. I found it an >>>> amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not as >>>> productive as it could be. >>>> >>>> 99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! Instead, >>> if >>>> they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a sea of >>>> extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they couldn't >>>> have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago. >>> >>> The context in which I use the world "powerless" is in the context of >>> existing and future bodies of internet governance. >>> >>> For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>> select >>> ISP's and the like. >>> >>> But we users have virtually no voice in the body that extracts over >>> half >>> a billion dollars (US$) out of the pockets of domain name buyers every >>> year and, at the same, time subjects us to the kangaroo court system of >>> the UDRP and the privacy-busting Whois. >>> >>> The fear and concern that I am expressing is that in bodies of internet >>> governance - and remember a body of governance is a body that exercises >>> a near plenary form of power - that in these bodies, current and >>> present, internet users are denied the means to hold that body, and the >>> decision makers within it, accountable for its actions. >>> >>> In other words, my intent is the word "powerless" is interpreted in the >>> context of bodies 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 >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: >>> 11/30/2007 21:26 >>> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 >> 21:26 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 2 00:46:44 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:46:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> Message-ID: Alx, Ready or not (and in this context, probably not), here it comes. Such is the way of the Internet's technical and business evolution, and so it should be no surprise that it should happen with governance too. I agree that we (whoever "we" are) are still in a very early learning stage about Internet governance in general, and I actually think that building a new "world government" is a particularly bad idea. I don't know if that is exactly what you mean by "delusion" but I hope so. Nevertheless, the Internet by design has a "global footprint" and thus any "governance" structure set up for it as a whole necessarily *must* be understood as a "global governance" structure in practice. This is *precisely* the danger we face in the IG endeavor. There is simply no way to avoid the fact that Internet Governance is either going to spill over into general political World Governance, or else it must formally constrain itself to policy areas of a strictly technical nature without allowing technical policies to pre-empt general non-technical political dynamics and thus political jurisdictions. This proceeds from the understanding that there is overlap between some technical issues and some general political issues. There are: (a) purely technical issues, (b) purely non-technical general political issues, and (c) issues that are both technical and generally political. So the choice I see is this: (A) Confine any and all institutions of Internet Governance to purely technical matters, leaving all matters of non-technical policy (including non-technical general political ramifications of technical policies) to other jurisdictions of governance. For example: Don't try to resolve trademark disputes or disputes about "morality" of *semantic characteristics of any kind* within the institutions of IG, because those are matters of general political import. This should be formally defined in the bylaws of any IG institution, and strictly enforced one way or another, to be determined. Or: (B) Recognize that policies that may have originated out of technical considerations may have ineliminable general political ramifications, and thus any institutions that are set up to address technical policy in the "expansive" sense will necessarily tread on the ground of "world governance" and we had better keep that in mind if we wish to avoid profound unanticipated consequences. I don't know what the specific resolution is here, and I am trying to learn more about the options as they are discussed on this list. All I'm trying to do here is present a reality that ought to be taken into account one way or another if the result is to be effective. So, I don't yet have an opinion on how this translates into specific relationships of ALAC and NCUC within ICANN, for example (ICANN's domain of jurisdiction has something to do with this, of course). But I do think that it is probably the case that ultimately the stakeholders for an increasing number of issues that are being addressed in IG venues must include the broadest definition of the general public, one way or another, and with some effective manner of representation. For example: * Net neutrality is a matter of general public interest. * Affordable access to the Internet is a matter of general public interest. * Control over the facilities and processes of information propagation in general is a matter of general public interest. * The overall structure of Internet architecture ultimately is a matter of general public interest, to the extent that it affects the issues listed above. This is not to say that the general public "is interested in" (as in "is aware of") these issues, but simply that the outcome of these issues affects the general public in ways that affect their political status generally, whether they are aware of it or not, and thus they should be effectively represented somehow in whatever processes determine such policies. I'd be curious to hear your direct response to the point I made below, which I will recopy here for your convenience: ">> ... Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as >> whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, and >> whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people to be >> able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to choose >> among competing service providers in the market)." Are you saying that no members of the general non-Internet-using (or non-domain-registering) public have a stake in (gTLD policy or) any policy that affects Internet access? I would think that it is fairly obvious that they do. So then the question is, in what way can they be *represented* effectively in the policy-making process (since there are too many of them to participate directly, and the transaction costs of participation prevent most of them from doing so anyway, even if they wanted to)? Bottom line: Defining who is a deserving stakeholder for any particular policy topic may indeed depend on the *outcome* of the policy-making process itself, *unless* all IG institutions formally and strictly confine themselves to avoiding any policies with any significant non-technical and generally political ramifications. But is this confinement really even feasible and/or desirable in the first place? This I fairly doubt. So, what do you suggest doing about it? This is not so much a "controversy" at root (though there certainly is controversy surrounding it), but rather it is a very difficult *conundrum* that deserves to be addressed fully on its own profound terms. I don't have the answer for it, at this point, but I suggest that ultimately we cannot avoid finding a workable answer for it if we hope to do justice. If, as you suggest, we cannot feasibly tackle this comprehensively head-on at this stage, then we ought to keep in mind that separate topic-oriented approaches need to be explicitly, formally, and strictly confined in such a way that they do not spill over into general political ramifications. This would confine ICANN, for example, much more strictly than it has behaved in the past. (But who is going to do the confining, and who enforces violations of that confinement? Ultimately a political question, anyway.) But, that may preclude precisely the solutions that might be best for the general public and the world at large. You seem to be saying you want "us" to build this in narrowly-drawn pieces from the bottom up (technically), and I am saying that "we" probably cannot do this effectively without constant appeal to the bird's-eye-view from the top down (politically), if only to determine what policy realms to avoid in the technical policy-making process. At the end of the day, while I believe everyone here understands that the whole IG endeavor is quite difficult, it may be that many people here don't really understand just how *tremendously* difficult this challenge really is. We should all be humble in the face of this challenge, which is "not mocked." Dan PS -- One of the positively worst things we could possibly do is "build an overall encompassing, overarching structure for Internet governance" while simultaneously claiming (counter to actual fact) that it is really only a narrowly-drawn institution addressing strictly non-political technical matters. There are some here who would claim that this is precisely what has already been done, and that is why it presents such a profound institutional threat. By allowing political criteria to be imposed on technical policy decisions, but then disavowing the political impact, it both cripples possible structures of fully public representation while allowing privileged political forces to establish genuinely political outcomes under the radar. What do we do about the technical/political overlap, which is growing every day? At 3:44 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: >Dan, > >great note. I fully disagree at this stage, but it sets one of the key >points of controversy starkly so I'm glad you've sent it out. > >I do not think that we (who "we" anyway?) are ready to build an overall >encompassing, overarching structure for Internet governance. > >I think that we are still in an early learning stage about what the >problems are, who the people who have to come together for each and >through which representation, what mechanisms, structures, weights for >each stakeholder group, etc. > >It is still the time to build problem-specific mechanisms, and if needed >structures, test them, improve them, and then begin to compare features to >see if there really emerge more general patterns. > >The contrary belongs too much or too closely to the "world government" >delusion. > >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, 1 Dec 2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:35:12 -0800 >> From: Dan Krimm >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and >>how? >> >> In the greater scheme of things, even confining talk to Internet "users" >> may be too narrow, as everyone in society will eventually be affected by >> the political ramifications of Internet policy, even if they are not direct >> users themselves. Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as >> whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, and >> whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people to be >> able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to choose >> among competing service providers in the market). >> >> It is important to understand that whatever *processes* we set up to govern >> Internet policy are not confined to any specific *topics* of governance, >> and that a structure set up to govern domain name policy, for example, may >> be applied to other policies once it has established authority to govern at >> all. >> >> So, when discussing representation of political interests (including the >> political interests of the general public at large), it may be less >> effective to break down the realm of governance into topic-oriented >> sub-realms. That could allow nefarious structures to sneak in under the >> radar because they are seemingly being applied to only narrow-interest >> topics. >> >> This is a dangerous strategy, if one is trying to protect the public >> interest, because a lot of mischief can be done beyond the realm of civil >> society attention, if CS decides not to pay attention to process as it >> applies to *all* topics of Internet governance. >> >> What we are doing here is *institution building*. Once the institution is >> in place and its authority has been firmly established, its application can >> be reapplied to other topics quite widely. This is precisely why, for >> example, gTLD policy *processes* and *authoritative structures* are of >> concern to the entire general public, and not just domain name registrants. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> At 8:49 PM -0400 12/1/07, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >>> Can we separate domain name owners from internet users? As George has >>> reminded us, almost ALL users will never register a domain name. So >>>maybe we >>> can leave the domain owners issues aside for a bit and refer to the users >>> issues? >>> For example - if we talk about easy and comfortable access to content >>>online >>> for users (the main thing that I think users want), we'd need to definitely >>> talk about native scripts and local content issues. Pricing of access is >>> also an issue - if it is unaffordable to get online, then that is >>>definitely >>> a user issue. >>> I think that back and forth about ICANN's structure, how it should have >>>been >>> and why what currently obtains is worse than what should/could have been is >>> far less important than on the ground issues for users. >>> >>> Jacqueline >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 15:20 >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, >>>> and how? >>>> >>>> George Sadowsky wrote: >>>> >>>>> At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread on >>>>> this list, I have to comment on your comment below. I found it an >>>>> amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not as >>>>> productive as it could be. >>>>> >>>>> 99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! Instead, >>>> if >>>>> they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a sea of >>>>> extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they couldn't >>>>> have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago. >>>> >>>> The context in which I use the world "powerless" is in the context of >>>> existing and future bodies of internet governance. >>>> >>>> For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>>> select >>>> ISP's and the like. >>>> >>>> But we users have virtually no voice in the body that extracts over >>>> half >>>> a billion dollars (US$) out of the pockets of domain name buyers every >>>> year and, at the same, time subjects us to the kangaroo court system of >>>> the UDRP and the privacy-busting Whois. >>>> >>>> The fear and concern that I am expressing is that in bodies of internet >>>> governance - and remember a body of governance is a body that exercises >>>> a near plenary form of power - that in these bodies, current and >>>> present, internet users are denied the means to hold that body, and the >>>> decision makers within it, accountable for its actions. >>>> >>>> In other words, my intent is the word "powerless" is interpreted in the >>>> context of bodies 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 >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: >>>> 11/30/2007 21:26 >>>> >>> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: >>>11/30/2007 >>> 21:26 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 2 01:16:25 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 06:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> Message-ID: Dan, thanks for your note and appreciation for the amount of thought you are putting into this thread. I'll try to cut short to a few issues: > I agree that we (whoever "we" are) are still in a very early learning stage > about Internet governance in general, and I actually think that building a > new "world government" is a particularly bad idea. I don't know if that is > exactly what you mean by "delusion" but I hope so. This it is indeed. Plenty literature against "one global government" and I won't delve deep since you agree. > > Nevertheless, the Internet by design has a "global footprint" and thus any > "governance" structure set up for it as a whole necessarily *must* be > understood as a "global governance" structure in practice. This is > *precisely* the danger we face in the IG endeavor. > "Problem-domain-specific" is not at odds with "global." Proven by IETF and ICANN. > There is simply no way to avoid the fact that Internet Governance is either > going to spill over into general political World Governance, or else it > must formally constrain itself to policy areas of a strictly technical > nature without allowing technical policies to pre-empt general > non-technical political dynamics and thus political jurisdictions. > Red herring. > This proceeds from the understanding that there is overlap between some > technical issues and some general political issues. There are: (a) purely > technical issues, (b) purely non-technical general political issues, and > (c) issues that are both technical and generally political. > > So the choice I see is this: > > (A) Confine any and all institutions of Internet Governance to purely > technical matters, leaving all matters of non-technical policy (including > non-technical general political ramifications of technical policies) to > other jurisdictions of governance. For example: Don't try to resolve > trademark disputes or disputes about "morality" of *semantic > characteristics of any kind* within the institutions of IG, because those > are matters of general political import. This should be formally defined > in the bylaws of any IG institution, and strictly enforced one way or > another, to be determined. > > Or: > > (B) Recognize that policies that may have originated out of technical > considerations may have ineliminable general political ramifications, and > thus any institutions that are set up to address technical policy in the > "expansive" sense will necessarily tread on the ground of "world > governance" and we had better keep that in mind if we wish to avoid > profound unanticipated consequences. > > I don't know what the specific resolution is here, and I am trying to learn > more about the options as they are discussed on this list. All I'm trying > to do here is present a reality that ought to be taken into account one way > or another if the result is to be effective. > > > So, I don't yet have an opinion on how this translates into specific > relationships of ALAC and NCUC within ICANN, for example (ICANN's domain of > jurisdiction has something to do with this, of course). But I do think > that it is probably the case that ultimately the stakeholders for an > increasing number of issues that are being addressed in IG venues must > include the broadest definition of the general public, one way or another, > and with some effective manner of representation. > > For example: > * Net neutrality is a matter of general public interest. As shown in this list, ill-defined, too many meanings by now. Many strictly under national law. But yes, in some of the definitions, general public interest. > * Affordable access to the Internet is a matter of general public interest. As extensively studied (cfr. WGIG, e.g.), yes, but mostly under national umbrella. Only interconnection costs touch this cross-border. > * Control over the facilities and processes of information propagation in > general is a matter of general public interest. Again, mostly under national umbrellas. The route of a new global bill of rights is the only global approach with some resonance here. I am very skeptical that it will go far or do much good though. > * The overall structure of Internet architecture ultimately is a matter of > general public interest, to the extent that it affects the issues listed > above. No effect on my argument. > > This is not to say that the general public "is interested in" (as in "is > aware of") these issues, but simply that the outcome of these issues > affects the general public in ways that affect their political status > generally, whether they are aware of it or not, and thus they should be > effectively represented somehow in whatever processes determine such > policies. > > I'd be curious to hear your direct response to the point I made below, > which I will recopy here for your convenience: > > ">> ... Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as >>> whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, and >>> whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people to be >>> able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to choose >>> among competing service providers in the market)." > No contest, but how do you bring these people into the decision-making structure? Many of us have jumped through hoops to try to attract people to domain-name issues, for example, and after a decade we know for sure that dear few will come. Karl will argue that by campaigning for elections this can be done. I dispute the assertion if it is to relate to learning about the policy matters at hand and providing meaningful input. Re choice for domain-name registration, man, with gTLDs and some ccTLDs the situation is that of l'embaras du choix, not scarcity of options! > Are you saying that no members of the general non-Internet-using (or > non-domain-registering) public have a stake in (gTLD policy or) any policy > that affects Internet access? I would think that it is fairly obvious that > they do. So then the question is, in what way can they be *represented* > effectively in the policy-making process (since there are too many of them > to participate directly, and the transaction costs of participation prevent > most of them from doing so anyway, even if they wanted to)? > > Bottom line: Defining who is a deserving stakeholder for any particular > policy topic may indeed depend on the *outcome* of the policy-making > process itself, *unless* all IG institutions formally and strictly confine > themselves to avoiding any policies with any significant non-technical and > generally political ramifications. But is this confinement really even > feasible and/or desirable in the first place? > > This I fairly doubt. So, what do you suggest doing about it? > > This is not so much a "controversy" at root (though there certainly is > controversy surrounding it), but rather it is a very difficult *conundrum* > that deserves to be addressed fully on its own profound terms. > > I don't have the answer for it, at this point, but I suggest that > ultimately we cannot avoid finding a workable answer for it if we hope to > do justice. > > If, as you suggest, we cannot feasibly tackle this comprehensively head-on > at this stage, then we ought to keep in mind that separate topic-oriented > approaches need to be explicitly, formally, and strictly confined in such a > way that they do not spill over into general political ramifications. This > would confine ICANN, for example, much more strictly than it has behaved in > the past. I hope this does not mean that you are still buying the story that ICANN has ruled on content, e.g. re .xxx - or what confinement are you talking about? (hint: a fact-based reply is preferred; if you need to ask questions, do, and we might get this cleared finally for good.) (But who is going to do the confining, and who enforces > violations of that confinement? Ultimately a political question, anyway.) > But, that may preclude precisely the solutions that might be best for the > general public and the world at large. > > You seem to be saying you want "us" to build this in narrowly-drawn pieces > from the bottom up (technically), and I am saying that "we" probably cannot > do this effectively without constant appeal to the bird's-eye-view from the > top down (politically), if only to determine what policy realms to avoid in > the technical policy-making process. > That is not an irresolvable conflict. You can have a broader bird's eye view without a confining structure. I consider your PS answered above where it says "red herring." Yours, Alejandro Pisanty > At the end of the day, while I believe everyone here understands that the > whole IG endeavor is quite difficult, it may be that many people here don't > really understand just how *tremendously* difficult this challenge really > is. We should all be humble in the face of this challenge, which is "not > mocked." > > Dan > > PS -- One of the positively worst things we could possibly do is "build an > overall encompassing, overarching structure for Internet governance" while > simultaneously claiming (counter to actual fact) that it is really only a > narrowly-drawn institution addressing strictly non-political technical > matters. There are some here who would claim that this is precisely what > has already been done, and that is why it presents such a profound > institutional threat. By allowing political criteria to be imposed on > technical policy decisions, but then disavowing the political impact, it > both cripples possible structures of fully public representation while > allowing privileged political forces to establish genuinely political > outcomes under the radar. > > What do we do about the technical/political overlap, which is growing every > day? > > > > At 3:44 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: >> Dan, >> >> great note. I fully disagree at this stage, but it sets one of the key >> points of controversy starkly so I'm glad you've sent it out. >> >> I do not think that we (who "we" anyway?) are ready to build an overall >> encompassing, overarching structure for Internet governance. >> >> I think that we are still in an early learning stage about what the >> problems are, who the people who have to come together for each and >> through which representation, what mechanisms, structures, weights for >> each stakeholder group, etc. >> >> It is still the time to build problem-specific mechanisms, and if needed >> structures, test them, improve them, and then begin to compare features to >> see if there really emerge more general patterns. >> >> The contrary belongs too much or too closely to the "world government" >> delusion. >> >> 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, 1 Dec 2007, Dan Krimm wrote: >> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:35:12 -0800 >>> From: Dan Krimm >>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and >>> how? >>> >>> In the greater scheme of things, even confining talk to Internet "users" >>> may be too narrow, as everyone in society will eventually be affected by >>> the political ramifications of Internet policy, even if they are not direct >>> users themselves. Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as >>> whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, and >>> whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people to be >>> able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to choose >>> among competing service providers in the market). >>> >>> It is important to understand that whatever *processes* we set up to govern >>> Internet policy are not confined to any specific *topics* of governance, >>> and that a structure set up to govern domain name policy, for example, may >>> be applied to other policies once it has established authority to govern at >>> all. >>> >>> So, when discussing representation of political interests (including the >>> political interests of the general public at large), it may be less >>> effective to break down the realm of governance into topic-oriented >>> sub-realms. That could allow nefarious structures to sneak in under the >>> radar because they are seemingly being applied to only narrow-interest >>> topics. >>> >>> This is a dangerous strategy, if one is trying to protect the public >>> interest, because a lot of mischief can be done beyond the realm of civil >>> society attention, if CS decides not to pay attention to process as it >>> applies to *all* topics of Internet governance. >>> >>> What we are doing here is *institution building*. Once the institution is >>> in place and its authority has been firmly established, its application can >>> be reapplied to other topics quite widely. This is precisely why, for >>> example, gTLD policy *processes* and *authoritative structures* are of >>> concern to the entire general public, and not just domain name registrants. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> At 8:49 PM -0400 12/1/07, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >>>> Can we separate domain name owners from internet users? As George has >>>> reminded us, almost ALL users will never register a domain name. So >>>> maybe we >>>> can leave the domain owners issues aside for a bit and refer to the users >>>> issues? >>>> For example - if we talk about easy and comfortable access to content >>>> online >>>> for users (the main thing that I think users want), we'd need to definitely >>>> talk about native scripts and local content issues. Pricing of access is >>>> also an issue - if it is unaffordable to get online, then that is >>>> definitely >>>> a user issue. >>>> I think that back and forth about ICANN's structure, how it should have >>>> been >>>> and why what currently obtains is worse than what should/could have been is >>>> far less important than on the ground issues for users. >>>> >>>> Jacqueline >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 15:20 >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, >>>>> and how? >>>>> >>>>> George Sadowsky wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread on >>>>>> this list, I have to comment on your comment below. I found it an >>>>>> amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not as >>>>>> productive as it could be. >>>>>> >>>>>> 99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! Instead, >>>>> if >>>>>> they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a sea of >>>>>> extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they couldn't >>>>>> have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago. >>>>> >>>>> The context in which I use the world "powerless" is in the context of >>>>> existing and future bodies of internet governance. >>>>> >>>>> For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>>>> select >>>>> ISP's and the like. >>>>> >>>>> But we users have virtually no voice in the body that extracts over >>>>> half >>>>> a billion dollars (US$) out of the pockets of domain name buyers every >>>>> year and, at the same, time subjects us to the kangaroo court system of >>>>> the UDRP and the privacy-busting Whois. >>>>> >>>>> The fear and concern that I am expressing is that in bodies of internet >>>>> governance - and remember a body of governance is a body that exercises >>>>> a near plenary form of power - that in these bodies, current and >>>>> present, internet users are denied the means to hold that body, and the >>>>> decision makers within it, accountable for its actions. >>>>> >>>>> In other words, my intent is the word "powerless" is interpreted in the >>>>> context of bodies 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 >>>>> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: >>>>> 11/30/2007 21:26 >>>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: >>>> 11/30/2007 >>>> 21:26 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 2 02:32:14 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:32:14 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Innovation Message-ID: <1990014219@web.de> Hi there, For IG senior citizens like Wolfgang and me this discussions sounds quite familiar. Quite frankly, for two reasons I believe that the issue has lost some of it's importance: a) Some years back, many among us believed that we in the IG / ICANN community were crafting the new world order, or at least create the United Nations of the digital age. Today, we're discussing CityTLDs. See the difference? The IG has become regionalized, which I think is a pretty good development. To use my favorite example: The parliament of Berlin has voted down the .berlin proposal with a majority decision. Does anybody think that such a local decision should be ignored by an ICANN ALAC? I don't believe in the concept of a world government, and I also do not believe in a global Internet user representation. Can there be a better balance of participation and representation than in a sitiuation were your neighbourhood MoP lives next door. So, wherever it fits, the concept of "think global, act local" is a pretty good one even for the Internet. MacLuhan once talked about the global village. I think he was terribly wrong, because we will never share the same values and believes around the world. To the contrarary: In the Internet age, the village becomes global: Local values and believes can be made heard and respected worldwide. b) The idea of a seperate form of participation and representation does only make sense as long your facing a subcultural development which, due to its innovative nature, is not sufficiently covered by the existing political structures. Regarding the Internet, I guess we are reaching the point where it becomes a mainstream issue, directly or indirectly effecting every citizen. So, if the electorate of the Internet community equals society at- large, the outcome of IG elections would produce the same core values and believes than general elections. I'm very much in favour of the fact that, for example, the "automotive community" is doing it's own e lections and decisions on safety standards and clean air requirements. The inclusion of external effects is one of the greatest improvements in the difficult history of the democracy, and even the Internet community will finally have to move into that direction. Seperate decision making procedures pretty much look like an attempt to camouflage vested ecenomic interests. Michael _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 2 02:51:36 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:51:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> Message-ID: <47526408.4050801@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > I agree that we (whoever "we" are) are still in a very early learning stage > about Internet governance in general, Some say that governance of matters related to internet is new. Is that really the case? Many of these same issues came up with telephony, and before that, with telegraphy, and before that with everything from the handling of trade documents (bills of lading, letters of credit, that sort of thing), and if we reach far back we can even see the issues of transnational issues arising in the development of double entry bookkeeping by the renaissance Italian bankers to govern their far flung enterprises. Governance in terms of the control of power is nothing new - Even Moses discovered (when he struck the stone and demanded that it bring forth water) that he could be called to account for abuse of his delegation of authority. For at least 250 years there has been developing a broad and deep understanding about the nature of governance and methods to try to keep its powers within their designated channels and limits. In that sense internet governance is nothing new - the same issues about power exist, the same aspects of human nature are still at work, and the same potential solutions regarding the constraint of that power also apply. Yet, perhaps because the internet was born during trailing years of the flower power era, there is a sense that the net is somehow different. But as we can easily see, even on the internet people and institutions still want money and authority, institutions still want to grow their budgets and org charts, and there are still contests to be the biggest and meanest. A lot of people like to wave around the words "public private partnership" as if that actually meant something good. But it does not. Rather it tends to mean the gifting of plenary governmental grades of power to a body that adheres to the closed and exclusionary, not to mention the often very self interested, norms of private for-profit corporations. We've seen how ICANN, formed in a moment of panic about what might happen when the US government's authority over Network Solutions was to end in 1998, has grown into something that covers the domain name landscape like kudsu and intrudes into matters that relate to the internet and DNS only through a long and questionable chain of indirections and presumptions. Why, for example, should oversight of the technical stability of DNS require the creation of an entire system of trademark law (the UDRP)? We seem to have forgotten what we learned in the 1700's, that bodies of governance should have powers that are very clearly delineated; that the exercise of those powers must be shared among competing, and even mutually suspicious, elements; that there be means for the general populace to change those in authority and even to adjust the structure of the system of governance itself; and that governance is a matter for all, not for some chosen few. We will find few, perhaps none, of these lessons expressed in today's bodies of internet governance. One might argue that the internet is too technical for techniques and principles of governance past. While it is true that the words and subject matter may be new, bodies of governance have long been established and found workable on very deep and arcane matters as diverse as medicine, structural engineering, or aircraft flight safety. Do you remember the 1936 movie "Things To Come"? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come ) That film expressed a kind of technological hubris, that technology, being pure and clean, will overcome the ills of dirty "politics". Today's approach to internet governance seems to derive from much of that same well. Yet after August 6, 1945 can anyone say that technology is really divorced from politics? To finish up - internet governance is not really anything new. We should not ignore the past ignore the methods that have been learned, applied, and refined through centuries. Do we really want to test Satyandra's rule that those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it? --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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun Dec 2 08:23:45 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:23:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> Message-ID: All, I'd like to ask some questions, perhaps naive, regarding the international (cyber)crime landscape. perhaps the collective intelligence of the group can provide answers. When viewing the Internet Governance landscape, some of have pointed out that for many issues that are truly international, there exist international organizations that focus on them in one way or another. Examples include WTO, WHO, WMO, OECD, ISO, etc. We may not all agree with what these organizations are doing or how or how well they do it, but they have staked out their area of focus and are not severely challenged in doing so. Cybercrime is clearly one of the major issues that Internet Governance needs to address. It strikes at the heart of the reliability, security and effectiveness of the Internet. It is truly international in sscope; lthere needs to be a concerted and coherent effort on the art of all nations to render it impotent. So where is the international organization that claims (cyber)crime as its target? IMHO the obvious target is Interpol. Yet I don't see strong evidence of Interpol's involvement in cybercrime. why not? Some possible reasons: (1) It's happening, but I don't see it because I'm not looking in the right places (2) It's happening, but purposely being kept secret for the purposes of effective operations (3) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't see it as a high priority or doesn't see it as a part of its mandate (4) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't have the resources to address the issue effectively -- technical, legal, or financial. (5) None of the above. Seriously, I would like to understand if our existing international organizations are capable or could be made capable of really assisting in this area, or not. This would give us some evidence regarding in which directions it would be most effective to proceed. What do we collectively know about Interpol, and possibly other similar organizations that could provide a basis for a concerted attack on cybercrime? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:02 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: >Hi, > >on the strand on cybercrime: > >a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of >stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more >fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible >future roles. > >Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. >Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning >here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and >judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then >e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime >prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, >education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules >for ISP operation), and so on. > >The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is >mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other >cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. > >Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of >the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a >crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be >captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless >his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you >have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to >recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the >control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to >satisfy country A, and so on. > >Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details. > >The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) >to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is >recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues >(banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) >may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic >enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but >also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of >consolidation among banks that exists transnationally. > >Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly >speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the >victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of >the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises >which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it >more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, >preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless >they are very cyber-savvy. > >(And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no >cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.) > >I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil >society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) > >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, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > >>Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 >>From: Jacqueline A. Morris >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >> Jacqueline A. Morris >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' , >> 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' >>Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] >> >>There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some >>bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and >>also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain >>instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are >>unwieldy. >>I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government >>cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can >>sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for >>cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to >>what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data >>gathering). >>Jacqueline >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' >>>Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: >>>Irony] >>> >>>Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the >>>almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the >>>ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get >>>cross-boundary co-operation currently. >>> >>>That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved >>>solely by >>>governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical >>>co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms >>>at >>>least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are >>>substantial of >>>course. >>>. >>> >>>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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >>>Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >>>Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' >>>Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: >>>Irony] >>> >>>Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: >>> >>>>A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following >>>inputs >>>>1. Governmental >>>>2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) >>>>3. Technical innovators and standards groups >>>>4. Public interest groups >>>>Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. >>> >>>Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on >>>interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or >>>stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to >>>other >>>civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) >>> >>>Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask >>>for. >>> >>>CoE convention on cybercrime - >>>http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm >>> >>>ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying >>>them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - >>>http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html >>>http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- >>>toolki >>>t-background.pdf >>> >>>And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess >>>how >>>ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. >>>http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html >>> >>>>Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each >>>group >>> >>>At an international level? What you would get at that level is again >>>coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each >>>others >>>initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all >>>the >>>citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public >>>toilet >>>or how much to spend to improve a local park. >>> >>> srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 2 08:38:48 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:38:48 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> Message-ID: <002201c834e8$ad2ca3a0$0785eae0$@net> Well, there is a multitude of organizations. ITU is the UN agency that handles WSIS action line C5 - which covers cybersecurity Interpol certainly does quite a lot on coordinating between law enforcement agencies on cybercrime issues. In fact, see this interview with their secretary general Ronald Noble - on ABC 60 minutes. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861 &cl=5007247&ch=4227541&src=news A lot of additional cooperation also goes on through MLATs - bilateral "mutual legal assistance treaties" between national police agencies (such as the US DoJ). Other organizations that do work to some extent in this area are ENISA (http://enisa.europa.eu) and the CoE (through their convention on cybercrime, and a network of 24x7 hotline PoCs that works with / extends the G8's similar hotline). The international organizations that deal specifically with this are more than capable. Then, there's international cooperation on child porn - public private, this one - http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com As I said though, several individual countries' law enforcement agencies may range all the way down the spectrum from "don't know" to "don't care". And individual countries may not have extradiation treaties as well .. so that issues of rather more significance than cybercrime (such as seeking the arrest of someone who put plutonium in a guy's sushi not too long back) may run into these very same issues. srs From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Jacqueline A. Morris Cc: 'Ian Peter'; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] So where is the international organization that claims (cyber)crime as its target? IMHO the obvious target is Interpol. Yet I don't see strong evidence of Interpol's involvement in cybercrime. why not? Some possible reasons: (1) It's happening, but I don't see it because I'm not looking in the right places (2) It's happening, but purposely being kept secret for the purposes of effective operations (3) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't see it as a high priority or doesn't see it as a part of its mandate (4) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't have the resources to address the issue effectively -- technical, legal, or financial. (5) None of the above. Seriously, I would like to understand if our existing international organizations are capable or could be made capable of really assisting in this area, or not. This would give us some evidence regarding in which directions it would be most effective to proceed. What do we collectively know about Interpol, and possibly other similar organizations that could provide a basis for a concerted attack on cybercrime? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:02 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: Hi, on the strand on cybercrime: a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible future roles. Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules for ISP operation), and so on. The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to satisfy country A, and so on. Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details. The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues (banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of consolidation among banks that exists transnationally. Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless they are very cyber-savvy. (And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.) I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) 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, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 From: Jacqueline A. Morris Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jacqueline A. Morris To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' , 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are unwieldy. I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data gathering). Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get cross-boundary co-operation currently. That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved solely by governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms at least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are substantial of course. . 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs 1. Governmental 2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) 3. Technical innovators and standards groups 4. Public interest groups Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to other civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask for. CoE convention on cybercrime - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- toolki t-background.pdf And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess how ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group At an international level? What you would get at that level is again coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each others initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all the citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public toilet or how much to spend to improve a local park. srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 2 09:09:21 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:09:21 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> Message-ID: <002f01c834ec$f142eb40$d3c8c1c0$@net> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the > UK and also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in > certain instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are > unwieldy. MLAT based enforcement requests can be fast. 1. A different agency than the police might hold the MLAT, and not all members of the police might be aware of the MLAT or how best to use it (especially junior to midlevel officers tasked with investigating cases) 2. Dual criminality is something that needs to be kept in mind (so someone from Thai law enforcement chasing after Youtube for an insulting video about their king might not get much luck out of the MLAT, while another law enforcement officer looking for leads on a scam artist running an online pyramid scheme, say, might have far better results) srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun Dec 2 09:13:31 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:13:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <002201c834e8$ad2ca3a0$0785eae0$@net> References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> <002201c834e8$ad2ca3a0$0785eae0$@net> Message-ID: Suresh, Thank you very much. This is quite interesting. It's worth listening to Ron Noble's interview. He is the head of Interpol. He pleads emotionally, to the point of breaking down and crying, for governments to understand that he has a billion dollar program, not a million dollar program. He cites budgets of comparable international institutions and shows what a pittance Interpol gets compared to them. If the world believes (whatever that means) that Interpol is part of the solution against cybercrime and not part of the problem. it is certainly not putting its money where its mouth is. Is there any evidence that Interpol is not a worthwhile investment? I haven't seen any. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 8:38 PM +0700 12/2/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Well, there is a multitude of organizations. > >ITU is the UN agency that handles WSIS action line C5 - which covers >cybersecurity > >Interpol certainly does quite a lot on coordinating between law >enforcement agencies on cybercrime issues. In fact, see this >interview with their secretary general Ronald Noble - on ABC 60 >minutes. > >http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5007247&ch=4227541&src=news > >A lot of additional cooperation also goes on through MLATs - >bilateral "mutual legal assistance treaties" between national police >agencies (such as the US DoJ). > >Other organizations that do work to some extent in this area are >ENISA (http://enisa.europa.eu) and the CoE (through their >convention on cybercrime, and a network of 24x7 hotline PoCs that >works with / extends the G8's similar hotline). The international >organizations that deal specifically with this are more than capable. > >Then, there's international cooperation on child porn - public >private, this one - >http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com > > >As I said though, several individual countries' law enforcement >agencies may range all the way down the spectrum from "don't know" >to "don't care". And individual countries may not have >extradiation treaties as well .. so that issues of rather more >significance than cybercrime (such as seeking the arrest of someone >who put plutonium in a guy's sushi not too long back) may run into >these very same issues. > > srs > > >From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:24 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Jacqueline A. Morris >Cc: 'Ian Peter'; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' >Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > >So where is the international organization that claims (cyber)crime >as its target? IMHO the obvious target is Interpol. Yet I don't >see strong evidence of Interpol's involvement in cybercrime. why >not? Some possible reasons: > > >(1) It's happening, but I don't see it because I'm not looking in >the right places > >(2) It's happening, but purposely being kept secret for the purposes >of effective operations > >(3) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't see it as a high >priority or doesn't see it as a part of its mandate > >(4) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't have the resources >to address the issue effectively -- technical, legal, or financial. > >(5) None of the above. > > > >Seriously, I would like to understand if our existing international >organizations are capable or could be made capable of really >assisting in this area, or not. This would give us some evidence >regarding in which directions it would be most effective to proceed. > >What do we collectively know about Interpol, and possibly other >similar organizations that could provide a basis for a concerted >attack on cybercrime? > >Regards, > >George > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >At 2:02 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > >Hi, > >on the strand on cybercrime: > >a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of >stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more >fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible >future roles. > >Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. >Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning >here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and >judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then >e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime >prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, >education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules >for ISP operation), and so on. > >The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is >mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other >cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. > >Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of >the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a >crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be >captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless >his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you >have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to >recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the >control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to >satisfy country A, and so on. > >Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details. > >The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) >to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is >recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues >(banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) >may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic >enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but >also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of >consolidation among banks that exists transnationally. > >Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly >speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the >victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of >the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises >which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it >more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, >preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless >they are very cyber-savvy. > >(And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no >cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.) > >I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil >society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) > >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, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > >Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 >From: Jacqueline A. Morris >Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > Jacqueline A. Morris >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' , > 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' >Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > >There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some >bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and >also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain >instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are >unwieldy. >I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government >cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can >sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for >cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to >what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data >gathering). >Jacqueline > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' >Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: >Irony] > >Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the >almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the >ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get >cross-boundary co-operation currently. > >That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved >solely by >governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical >co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms >at >least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are >substantial of >course. >. > >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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: > >Irony] > >Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: > >A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following > >inputs >1. Governmental >2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) >3. Technical innovators and standards groups >4. Public interest groups >Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. > > >Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on >interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or >stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to >other >civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) > >Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask >for. > >CoE convention on cybercrime - >http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm > >ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying >them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - >http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html >http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- >toolki >t-background.pdf > >And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess >how >ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. >http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html > >Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each > >group > >At an international level? What you would get at that level is again >coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each >others >initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all >the >citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public >toilet >or how much to spend to improve a local park. > > srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 2 10:06:58 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:06:58 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> <002201c834e8$ad2ca3a0$0785eae0$@net> Message-ID: <004801c834f4$fe6fbf20$fb4f3d60$@net> You would not see Interpol's involvement. Nor would your average civ soc igovernance type person who has a much broader interest in access / ICT, ICANN governance etc issues rather than being focused on cybercrime. Even then, you would have to look hard for them .. Interpol isn't set up to, or meant to interact with or engage with civil society. They are purely set up to facilitate coordination between law enforcement agencies, and to provide a mechanism for warrants from one country to be propagated to other countries (Interpol's "red corner" notices). And of course, capacity building efforts to some extent. They don't have investigation and arrest powers and are not the global cops . there are no global cops in the law enforcement sense. That said, if you go to the right public private events on cybercrime you would definitely get to talk to / interact with Interpol people, and those I have met, I respect for their acumen and insight into this issue. Given what I know of what Interpol does (and that barely scratches the surface) - whatever funding they get is put to far better use than expense paid junkets (the bane of many an international organization). srs From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 9:14 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Jacqueline A. Morris' Cc: 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Suresh, Thank you very much. This is quite interesting. It's worth listening to Ron Noble's interview. He is the head of Interpol. He pleads emotionally, to the point of breaking down and crying, for governments to understand that he has a billion dollar program, not a million dollar program. He cites budgets of comparable international institutions and shows what a pittance Interpol gets compared to them. If the world believes (whatever that means) that Interpol is part of the solution against cybercrime and not part of the problem. it is certainly not putting its money where its mouth is. Is there any evidence that Interpol is not a worthwhile investment? I haven't seen any. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 8:38 PM +0700 12/2/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Well, there is a multitude of organizations. ITU is the UN agency that handles WSIS action line C5 - which covers cybersecurity Interpol certainly does quite a lot on coordinating between law enforcement agencies on cybercrime issues. In fact, see this interview with their secretary general Ronald Noble - on ABC 60 minutes. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861 &cl=5007247&ch=4227541&src=news A lot of additional cooperation also goes on through MLATs - bilateral "mutual legal assistance treaties" between national police agencies (such as the US DoJ). Other organizations that do work to some extent in this area are ENISA (http://enisa.europa.eu) and the CoE (through their convention on cybercrime, and a network of 24x7 hotline PoCs that works with / extends the G8's similar hotline). The international organizations that deal specifically with this are more than capable. Then, there's international cooperation on child porn - public private, this one - http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com As I said though, several individual countries' law enforcement agencies may range all the way down the spectrum from "don't know" to "don't care". And individual countries may not have extradiation treaties as well .. so that issues of rather more significance than cybercrime (such as seeking the arrest of someone who put plutonium in a guy's sushi not too long back) may run into these very same issues. srs From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Jacqueline A. Morris Cc: 'Ian Peter'; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] So where is the international organization that claims (cyber)crime as its target? IMHO the obvious target is Interpol. Yet I don't see strong evidence of Interpol's involvement in cybercrime. why not? Some possible reasons: (1) It's happening, but I don't see it because I'm not looking in the right places (2) It's happening, but purposely being kept secret for the purposes of effective operations (3) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't see it as a high priority or doesn't see it as a part of its mandate (4) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't have the resources to address the issue effectively -- technical, legal, or financial. (5) None of the above. Seriously, I would like to understand if our existing international organizations are capable or could be made capable of really assisting in this area, or not. This would give us some evidence regarding in which directions it would be most effective to proceed. What do we collectively know about Interpol, and possibly other similar organizations that could provide a basis for a concerted attack on cybercrime? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:02 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: Hi, on the strand on cybercrime: a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible future roles. Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules for ISP operation), and so on. The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to satisfy country A, and so on. Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details. The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues (banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of consolidation among banks that exists transnationally. Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless they are very cyber-savvy. (And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.) I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) 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, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 From: Jacqueline A. Morris Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jacqueline A. Morris To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' , 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are unwieldy. I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data gathering). Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get cross-boundary co-operation currently. That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved solely by governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms at least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are substantial of course. . 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs 1. Governmental 2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) 3. Technical innovators and standards groups 4. Public interest groups Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to other civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask for. CoE convention on cybercrime - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- toolki t-background.pdf And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess how ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group At an international level? What you would get at that level is again coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each others initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all the citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public toilet or how much to spend to improve a local park. srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Dec 2 14:41:22 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:41:22 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <004801c834f4$fe6fbf20$fb4f3d60$@net> Message-ID: <0f1c01c8351b$5ce68720$8b00a8c0@IAN> Interpol properly funded would be able to handle the end of all of this – international co-operation on arrests – But that’s a small part of the picture Crime prevention and surveillance are major activities. They need industry co-operation, technical innovation and standards involvement in co-operation with legislators and crime prevention authorities. Way beyond Interpol’s brief. And surveillance (nasty word but a major part of crime prevention) also needs the involvement of civil libertarians and privacy groups to ensure some appropriate balance between rights and surveillance action. So I think we come to some sort of multistakeholder structure not yet in existence. I must say that in Rio I went to the cybercrime convention organized by Council of Europe (the only session devoted entirely to cybercrime) and left 45 minutes after the advertised starting time when the session had not yet got underway. This is such an important issue. Trust in the Internet is greatly reduced because we are not handling cybercrime well. WE do need to be proactive in this area. Is this an area for another dynamic coalition to get things moving? The ITU pamphlet on this is a nice glossy with a good high level strategy, but I think some complementary action (with their involvement if possible) might be productive. Just to give a quick outline of the ITU goals here, they cover Model cybercrime legislation Organizational structures Security criteria and accreditation of software applications and systems Surveillance and incident response Universal digital identity system Capacity building International co-operation. 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 _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 03 December 2007 02:07 To: 'George Sadowsky'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Jacqueline A. Morris' Cc: 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] You would not see Interpol’s involvement. Nor would your average civ soc igovernance type person who has a much broader interest in access / ICT, ICANN governance etc issues rather than being focused on cybercrime. Even then, you would have to look hard for them .. Interpol isn’t set up to, or meant to interact with or engage with civil society. They are purely set up to facilitate coordination between law enforcement agencies, and to provide a mechanism for warrants from one country to be propagated to other countries (Interpol’s “red corner” notices). And of course, capacity building efforts to some extent. They don’t have investigation and arrest powers and are not the global cops … there are no global cops in the law enforcement sense. That said, if you go to the right public private events on cybercrime you would definitely get to talk to / interact with Interpol people, and those I have met, I respect for their acumen and insight into this issue. Given what I know of what Interpol does (and that barely scratches the surface) – whatever funding they get is put to far better use than expense paid junkets (the bane of many an international organization). srs From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 9:14 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Jacqueline A. Morris' Cc: 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Suresh, Thank you very much. This is quite interesting. It's worth listening to Ron Noble's interview. He is the head of Interpol. He pleads emotionally, to the point of breaking down and crying, for governments to understand that he has a billion dollar program, not a million dollar program. He cites budgets of comparable international institutions and shows what a pittance Interpol gets compared to them. If the world believes (whatever that means) that Interpol is part of the solution against cybercrime and not part of the problem. it is certainly not putting its money where its mouth is. Is there any evidence that Interpol is not a worthwhile investment? I haven't seen any. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 8:38 PM +0700 12/2/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Well, there is a multitude of organizations. ITU is the UN agency that handles WSIS action line C5 - which covers cybersecurity Interpol certainly does quite a lot on coordinating between law enforcement agencies on cybercrime issues. In fact, see this interview with their secretary general Ronald Noble - on ABC 60 minutes. HYPERLINK "http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5007247&ch=4227 541&src=news"http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=500 7247&ch=4227541&src=news A lot of additional cooperation also goes on through MLATs - bilateral "mutual legal assistance treaties" between national police agencies (such as the US DoJ). Other organizations that do work to some extent in this area are ENISA (http://enisa.europa.eu) and the CoE (through their convention on cybercrime, and a network of 24x7 hotline PoCs that works with / extends the G8's similar hotline). The international organizations that deal specifically with this are more than capable. Then, there's international cooperation on child porn - public private, this one - HYPERLINK "http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com"http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com As I said though, several individual countries' law enforcement agencies may range all the way down the spectrum from "don't know" to "don't care". And individual countries may not have extradiation treaties as well .. so that issues of rather more significance than cybercrime (such as seeking the arrest of someone who put plutonium in a guy's sushi not too long back) may run into these very same issues. srs From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Jacqueline A. Morris Cc: 'Ian Peter'; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] So where is the international organization that claims (cyber)crime as its target? IMHO the obvious target is Interpol. Yet I don't see strong evidence of Interpol's involvement in cybercrime. why not? Some possible reasons: (1) It's happening, but I don't see it because I'm not looking in the right places (2) It's happening, but purposely being kept secret for the purposes of effective operations (3) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't see it as a high priority or doesn't see it as a part of its mandate (4) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't have the resources to address the issue effectively -- technical, legal, or financial. (5) None of the above. Seriously, I would like to understand if our existing international organizations are capable or could be made capable of really assisting in this area, or not. This would give us some evidence regarding in which directions it would be most effective to proceed. What do we collectively know about Interpol, and possibly other similar organizations that could provide a basis for a concerted attack on cybercrime? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:02 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: Hi, on the strand on cybercrime: a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible future roles. Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules for ISP operation), and so on. The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to satisfy country A, and so on. Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details. The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues (banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of consolidation among banks that exists transnationally. Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless they are very cyber-savvy. (And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.) I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) 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, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 From: Jacqueline A. Morris Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jacqueline A. Morris To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' , 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are unwieldy. I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data gathering). Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get cross-boundary co-operation currently. That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved solely by governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms at least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are substantial of course. . 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs 1. Governmental 2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) 3. Technical innovators and standards groups 4. Public interest groups Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to other civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask for. CoE convention on cybercrime - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- toolki t-background.pdf And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess how ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group At an international level? What you would get at that level is again coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each others initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all the citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public toilet or how much to spend to improve a local park. srs No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 01/12/2007 12:05 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 01/12/2007 12:05 -------------- 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 Sun Dec 2 16:05:52 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??? In-Reply-To: 401411.97372.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com Message-ID: Danny, What happend after this? In the end, How did this pan out?? Where does NeuStar stand today??? Ref.: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2/00 1021.html [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation Jacqueline A. Morris jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Jun 14 10:40:54 EDT 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Danny My email was to inform you that it is not ONLY a NA concern, and that the rest of the regions are working on cc issues as well. This was informational and there is no reason to threaten the existence of the NARALO. The NA region is part of the global AtLarge, and should be interested in working together with the rest of the world, and not only in isolation. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:42 AM To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation Hi Jacqueline, Sorry to disagree, but the NeuStar contract with the USG is scheduled to expire by the end of October (posing a potential redelegation issue), and frankly we don't have the luxury of waiting for the ALAC and the CCNSO to come to grips with the global aspects of the problem. This is a timely regional issue for us that we should be at liberty to handle by way of positing an ICANN obligation in the MOU (which is within our rights to request). The RALOs exist to deal with regional concerns. Let us handle this matter in our own fashion or let's just scrap the RALO concept. regards, Danny --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" wrote: > Hi Danny > This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set > up several meetings with > ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work > together on issues such as > this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO > MoU, but rather is a > global issue that ALL regions should work on > together. > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: > Redelegation > > I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency > in > the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever > seen > a detailed redelegation request posted for > consideration prior to action being taken by the > Board? > > The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last > go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes > to > declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm > > I certainly don't want the relevant Internet > community > being kept in the dark should the delegation of the > .us namespace become an issue. > > I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN > has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the > receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request > (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided > (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for > interested parties to have some voice in selecting > the > designated manager.") > ___________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > --- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - > Release Date: 6/13/2007 > 12:50 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Dec 2 16:32:42 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:32:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??? In-Reply-To: sympa.1196629456.26046.157@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Danny, How come I can't find Amounts($) in 'Contractor Costs' ???? - NeuStar Contract for Management of .us Internet Domain. Modification 001 to the contract with NeuStar, November 1, 2007 Ref.: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/usTLD2007.html [See PDF Here] N. Contractor Costs: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/usTLD2007_19_N_Costs.pdf Why the Black-Out ??? (Figures are blacked out) Did NTIA see it as a National Security Issue ??? It glares at me like Nixon's 18� Minute Watergate tape gap. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 2 17:32:40 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (dan at musicunbound.com) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:32:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <47526408.4050801@cavebear.com> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> <47526408.4050801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46142.171.64.197.205.1196634760.squirrel@webmail.musicunbound.com> > Dan Krimm wrote: > >> I agree that we (whoever "we" are) are still in a very early learning >> stage >> about Internet governance in general, > > Some say that governance of matters related to internet is new. Is that > really the case? Many of these same issues came up with telephony, and > before that, with telegraphy, Sure, there are a lot of precedents that can and ought to apply to IG. My favorite is the principle of common carriage as applied to telephony (common carriage is my preferred definition of "net neutrality" in principle, whatever details are required to get us to "nondiscrimination" in terms of gatekeeper interference with transit). That said, I agree with Alx that there are some important aspects that are new about the Internet, and chief among them in my mind is the global footprint, which seems to be causing most of the the problems with respect to confusion (and opportunity) over governance authority. It is precisely the international aspect that has constituted most of the terra nova in network regulation, and locating new governance institutions in international space and defining their range and authority is the challenge here. While there are precedents in international governance such as the UN, WIPO, even the establishment of the EC/EU regional governance process, deciding exactly how this particular jurisdiction should be handled may not necessarily derive directly and without modification from any precedents. Then, again, maybe we don't have to invent a whole new wheel (just a new spoke or two), and it might make a good deal of sense to appeal to existing governance structures such as they are already in place, to the extent that they might be productively applied to the specific needs of the Internet. The more we try to create from scratch, the more we are doing exactly what Alx is complaining about: creating new "world government" that may be unnecessary (and in some respects inferior to existing precedents). It may not be all that novel a challenge in principle, but that makes it no less challenging in practice. To the extent that there *is* new ground being covered here, I would allow that we are at any early stage, and the challenges are not insignificant. The devil is most certainly in the details, and those details are what is so contentious. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Dec 2 18:05:36 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:05:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??? In-Reply-To: sympa.1196631102.25467.860@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Oh ... Oooooh OK, I get it now, sorry I'm a little slow to catch on ... So let me get this striaght: The FCC is putting up the 700 MHz "beachfront property" for Auction. [ http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ ] So as a results, Google and Verison are going to the mat for the space-race. Ref.: Google to battle telecom giants for wireless Web http://www.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_7609218 Mean while NeuStar cinches the contract with the NTIA for the next 3yrs, and operates the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) [ Assigns blocks of phone numbers to all qualified telecommunications companies in the 19 countries in North America, and manages area code utilization and relief. ] [ http://www.neustar.biz/ |http://www.nanpa.com/ ] - The Auction Now then, Google brings Vint Cerf onboard, it already has a phone in the works, a content network, and a huge wad of dough. Verison then aquires Paul Lacouture to its Board of Directors. Lacouture is the former executive vice president of engineering and technology at Verizon Telecom, having retired in August 2007. In his new role, Lacouture joins NeuStar directors James Cullen, former president and COO of Bell Atlantic Corporation; Ross Ireland, former senior executive vice president of Services and CTO of SBC Communications Inc.; Dr. Kenneth Pickar, Visiting Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the California Institute of Technology; Jeff Ganek, Chairman and CEO of NeuStar; Hellene Runtagh, former CEO and President of Berwind Group; Joel Friedman, former president of Accenture's Business Process Outsourcing organization; and Michael Rowny, chairman of Rowny Capital and former president and CEO of MCI's International Ventures, Alliances, and Correspondent group. The company's board now totals 8 members, 7 of whom are non-employee directors. [ http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NEF06002112007-1.htm ] How nice. So as NeuStar expands its global reach, they Join the UIQ Alliance, UIQ Technology creates and licenses the open software platform UIQ to leading mobile phone manufacturers. Our flexible and customizable user interface and development platform is pre-integrated and tested with Symbian OS, the leading industry standard operating system for smartphones. [ http://www.uiq.com/aboutus.html | Members: http://www.uiq.com/partner_directory.html ] In fact they (NeuStar, Inc.) announced that it has partnered with leading mobile phone operator SFR to bring Windows Live Messenger to SFR�s 18 million customers in France. [ http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=54161 ] So NeuStar has put itself in fine position in both the US and European Markets, NeuStar's the Man, if Google or Verison wins the 700 MHz Beachfront. I wonder if they will be selling Beachfront Condos or TimeShares??? Ref.: Will wireless carriers really open their networks? [ http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/att-verizon-really-open-their/story.aspx? guid=E8841127-57FF-41CC-8C23-FB682B3E6BF3&dist=SecMostMailed ] Well I'll be damned, ain't that something, all though people do'en all that for US. Hummm kinda brings a tear to my eyes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 2 18:20:04 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (dan at musicunbound.com) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:20:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <01ca01c8347d$3606c9b0$a2145d10$@com> Message-ID: <52445.171.64.197.205.1196637604.squirrel@webmail.musicunbound.com> Alx, A few responses: >> Nevertheless, the Internet by design has a "global footprint" and thus >> any >> "governance" structure set up for it as a whole necessarily *must* be >> understood as a "global governance" structure in practice. This is >> *precisely* the danger we face in the IG endeavor. >> > > "Problem-domain-specific" is not at odds with "global." Proven by IETF and > ICANN. Maybe demonstrated in one specific context by IETF, but I'm not so sure this is "proven" by ICANN, which has a different domain of authority and structure of regulation. We have just agreed that we don't want "world government" -- so are you now amending that to say: "well, world government is okay as long as it is "problem-domain-specific"? Ultimately, of course, the real problems are how to define a "specific problem domain" without spilling over into "non-specific" political ramifications (more below). >> There is simply no way to avoid the fact that Internet Governance is >> either >> going to spill over into general political World Governance, or else it >> must formally constrain itself to policy areas of a strictly technical >> nature without allowing technical policies to pre-empt general >> non-technical political dynamics and thus political jurisdictions. >> > > Red herring. I would disagree here. Let me explain. ICANN has jurisdiction over gTLDs in DNS among other things. There is nothing in ICANN's bylaws that suggests that, say, trademark issues or "morality" regulation should be part of ICANN's "problem-specific" domain. However, ICANN's authority over DNS regulation, in the form of agreements with ISPs (whether directly or through registries/registrars) constitutes a sort of gatekeeper leverage, because these agreements are considered esential to the operation of an ISP (I'll set aside for now the question of just how essential they really are). So, if ICANN decides that "content policy [A]" must be a provision of any ISP agreement, and that any ISP signing this agreement may not interconnect with any network that does not adhere to "content policy [A]", that gives ICANN a de facto leverage over essentially any "content policies" that it wants to promulgate, regardless of whether they are directly related to its problem-specific mandate. It can simply proclaim that "content policy [A]" is "significantly related" to its mandate for "problem-specific domain" and suck it into its realm of authority without further explanation or defense. Bottom line: "problem domain specificity" is ultimately too fungible to be well-defined, and that is exactly where the danger lies in unchecked expansion of domain of authority. So if you have a global footprint, and no well-defined constraints on the de facto political reach of "problem domain" then you have a de facto world government, which we both want to avoid (either de facto or de juris, right?). So I would say this is not a red herring. >> This proceeds from the understanding that there is overlap between some >> technical issues and some general political issues. There are: (a) >> purely >> technical issues, (b) purely non-technical general political issues, and >> (c) issues that are both technical and generally political. ... >> So, I don't yet have an opinion on how this translates into specific >> relationships of ALAC and NCUC within ICANN, for example (ICANN's domain >> of >> jurisdiction has something to do with this, of course). But I do think >> that it is probably the case that ultimately the stakeholders for an >> increasing number of issues that are being addressed in IG venues must >> include the broadest definition of the general public, one way or >> another, >> and with some effective manner of representation. ... >> ">> ... Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as >>>> whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, >>>> and >>>> whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people >>>> to be >>>> able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to >>>> choose >>>> among competing service providers in the market)." >> > > No contest, but how do you bring these people into the decision-making > structure? Many of us have jumped through hoops to try to attract people > to domain-name issues, for example, and after a decade we know for sure > that dear few will come. What "attraction" are you talking about? Direct participation, or direct choice in representation by direct paarticipants? Also, there may well be intrinsic attraction that is opposed by transaction costs of participation, thus working against that inherent attraction. Remove the obstacles to participation, or representation, and that inherent interest may well emerge more than in the past. Granted, this must be tested explicitly, but without a test we are both merely making untested claims. In any case, this is precisely the quesiton. I don't pretend I have the final answer, but I do suggest we must find a productive answer in order to yield a just result. > Karl will argue that by campaigning for elections this can be done. I > dispute the assertion if it is to relate to learning about the policy > matters at hand and providing meaningful input. My own judgment is that the reality lies somewhere between the extremes. It depends on how much one must understand about an issue in order to have a meaningful opinion on the matter. I would suggest that it is possible (and desirable) to have such opinions without full techno-geek understanding, as long as the parameters of political ramifications can be fairly and accurately distilled by representatives and/or advocates and/or others like the fourth estate. (Yes, this gets politics into the process, but y'know, that's inevitable. Get used to it, as politics are already deeply immersed in the process today.) > Re choice for domain-name registration, man, with gTLDs and some ccTLDs > the situation is that of l'embaras du choix, not scarcity of options! No effect on my argument. ;-) >> Bottom line: Defining who is a deserving stakeholder for any particular >> policy topic may indeed depend on the *outcome* of the policy-making >> process itself, *unless* all IG institutions formally and strictly >> confine >> themselves to avoiding any policies with any significant non-technical >> and >> generally political ramifications. But is this confinement really even >> feasible and/or desirable in the first place? >> >> This I fairly doubt. So, what do you suggest doing about it? >> >> This is not so much a "controversy" at root (though there certainly is >> controversy surrounding it), but rather it is a very difficult >> *conundrum* >> that deserves to be addressed fully on its own profound terms. >> >> I don't have the answer for it, at this point, but I suggest that >> ultimately we cannot avoid finding a workable answer for it if we hope >> to >> do justice. >> >> If, as you suggest, we cannot feasibly tackle this comprehensively >> head-on >> at this stage, then we ought to keep in mind that separate >> topic-oriented >> approaches need to be explicitly, formally, and strictly confined in >> such a >> way that they do not spill over into general political ramifications. >> This >> would confine ICANN, for example, much more strictly than it has behaved >> in >> the past. > > I hope this does not mean that you are still buying the story that ICANN > has ruled on content, e.g. re .xxx - or what confinement are you talking > about? (hint: a fact-based reply is preferred; if you need to ask > questions, do, and we might get this cleared finally for good.) ICANN's proposed gTLD policy from GNSO on the table for the Board (I'm including this in "past behavior") clearly adresses *semantic characteristics (trademarks and morality) of TLDs*. What "problem domain" under its explicit mandate (i.e., bylaws) can possibly justify this? And, once semantic regulation is established as a precedent at ICANN, what is there to stop regulation from being applied by ICANN to anything else that has semantic characteristics, such as "content"? As noted above, as long as ICANN proclaims that this is "related" to its problem-domain mandate, it seems that it could include these provisions associated with enforcement of its direct mandate, practically speaking under current bylaws. Answer: No one can really say. Even the bylaws are ultimately fungible. So who controls the bylaws and who can change them in the future, and to whom are they politically accountable? How can we (or "someone"...) assure that ICANN cannot decide to apply semantic regulation to content itself in the future? This depends on the power of coercion and political authority governing ICANN's authority of governance, whatever that is. > (But who is going to do the confining, and who enforces >> violations of that confinement? Ultimately a political question, >> anyway.) >> But, that may preclude precisely the solutions that might be best for >> the >> general public and the world at large. >> >> You seem to be saying you want "us" to build this in narrowly-drawn >> pieces >> from the bottom up (technically), and I am saying that "we" probably >> cannot >> do this effectively without constant appeal to the bird's-eye-view from >> the >> top down (politically), if only to determine what policy realms to avoid >> in >> the technical policy-making process. >> > > That is not an irresolvable conflict. You can have a broader bird's eye > view without a confining structure. I would suggest that without a formal structure to address the bird's eye view, the bird's eye view is politically without impact. The point is that the bird's eye view needs to have political impact, thus the formal constraints. > I consider your PS answered above where it says "red herring." I have responded to your claim of red herring above, so that re-institutes my PS and so I've included it for reference below. :-) >> PS -- One of the positively worst things we could possibly do is "build >> an >> overall encompassing, overarching structure for Internet governance" >> while >> simultaneously claiming (counter to actual fact) that it is really only >> a >> narrowly-drawn institution addressing strictly non-political technical >> matters. There are some here who would claim that this is precisely >> what >> has already been done, and that is why it presents such a profound >> institutional threat. By allowing political criteria to be imposed on >> technical policy decisions, but then disavowing the political impact, it >> both cripples possible structures of fully public representation while >> allowing privileged political forces to establish genuinely political >> outcomes under the radar. >> >> What do we do about the technical/political overlap, which is growing >> every >> day? Best, 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 2 19:21:28 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:21:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <0f1c01c8351b$5ce68720$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <004801c834f4$fe6fbf20$fb4f3d60$@net> <0f1c01c8351b$5ce68720$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20071203002128.GA13291@hserus.net> Ian Peter [03/12/07 06:41 +1100]: >So I think we come to some sort of multistakeholder structure not yet in >existence. I must say that in Rio I went to the cybercrime convention >organized by Council of Europe (the only session devoted entirely to >cybercrime) and left 45 minutes after the advertised starting time when the >session had not yet got underway. Please dont judge CoE by that. Rio and Athens had their share of logistics issues, that's a known fact. Their convention [1] has a great deal of potential and [2] has several countries already signed up to it, and other countries actively looking to ratify it in the near future. >Is this an area for another dynamic coalition to get things moving? The ITU >pamphlet on this is a nice glossy with a good high level strategy, but I >think some complementary action (with their involvement if possible) might >be productive. Stopspamalliance was created as antispam but is increasingly focused on cybercrime. And it includes several key stakeholders in the cybercrime and spam issues. Joining it would be a good idea. >Just to give a quick outline of the ITU goals here, they cover >Model cybercrime legislation >Organizational structures >Security criteria and accreditation of software applications and systems >Surveillance and incident response >Universal digital identity system >Capacity building >International co-operation. My botnet project covers mainly capacity building and intl cooperation but spans quite a few of the others (e&oe the word "universal" - I am a more "here and now" kind of person). Again, this is one (of a few other) practical implementations of these ideas that are in progress. For another one, please see http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html Back to the botnet toolkit, again, the project URL is http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html If anybody here has operational suggestions on how best you can contribute to this (I know Guru has read the paper, and presumably liked it, judging from his initial comments) - please feel free to email me, or send your comments to the ITU project address cybmail at itu.int In particular - ITU has two pilots at a nationwide level scheduled for the botnet toolkit in 2008, the first being in Malaysia, in 1Q08. I met quite a few stakeholders in Malaysia from govt / industry / the technical community, but only some civ soc (a local professor who is active in the regional research networking / v6 community, a couple of people who ran the HackInTheBox conference in Malaysia, etc). If you know any potential stakeholders in this (in particular ICT access / capacity building organizations active in Malaysia) that I have not met please feel free to email me offlist. thanks srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 3 03:58:18 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:58:18 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <20071203002128.GA13291@hserus.net> Message-ID: <12f801c8358a$b0dc84a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Thanks for the links Suresh - the botnet project looks interesting. Do you thing the spam dynamic coalition should expand to cybercrime or should we be looking at something else? There seem to be a lot of common participants and interest groups... 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 03 December 2007 11:21 To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Jacqueline A. Morris' Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Ian Peter [03/12/07 06:41 +1100]: >So I think we come to some sort of multistakeholder structure not yet in >existence. I must say that in Rio I went to the cybercrime convention >organized by Council of Europe (the only session devoted entirely to >cybercrime) and left 45 minutes after the advertised starting time when the >session had not yet got underway. Please dont judge CoE by that. Rio and Athens had their share of logistics issues, that's a known fact. Their convention [1] has a great deal of potential and [2] has several countries already signed up to it, and other countries actively looking to ratify it in the near future. >Is this an area for another dynamic coalition to get things moving? The ITU >pamphlet on this is a nice glossy with a good high level strategy, but I >think some complementary action (with their involvement if possible) might >be productive. Stopspamalliance was created as antispam but is increasingly focused on cybercrime. And it includes several key stakeholders in the cybercrime and spam issues. Joining it would be a good idea. >Just to give a quick outline of the ITU goals here, they cover >Model cybercrime legislation >Organizational structures >Security criteria and accreditation of software applications and systems >Surveillance and incident response >Universal digital identity system >Capacity building >International co-operation. My botnet project covers mainly capacity building and intl cooperation but spans quite a few of the others (e&oe the word "universal" - I am a more "here and now" kind of person). Again, this is one (of a few other) practical implementations of these ideas that are in progress. For another one, please see http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html Back to the botnet toolkit, again, the project URL is http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html If anybody here has operational suggestions on how best you can contribute to this (I know Guru has read the paper, and presumably liked it, judging from his initial comments) - please feel free to email me, or send your comments to the ITU project address cybmail at itu.int In particular - ITU has two pilots at a nationwide level scheduled for the botnet toolkit in 2008, the first being in Malaysia, in 1Q08. I met quite a few stakeholders in Malaysia from govt / industry / the technical community, but only some civ soc (a local professor who is active in the regional research networking / v6 community, a couple of people who ran the HackInTheBox conference in Malaysia, etc). If you know any potential stakeholders in this (in particular ICT access / capacity building organizations active in Malaysia) that I have not met please feel free to email me offlist. thanks srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 20:34 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 20:34 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 3 04:11:23 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:41:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <12f801c8358a$b0dc84a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <20071203002128.GA13291@hserus.net> <12f801c8358a$b0dc84a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <004c01c8358c$7c0a6a10$741f3e30$@net> It effectively has expanded to a broad interest in cybercrime - though the limiting factor is that the government / international org actors there are all focused on civil, not criminal enforcement. However, criminal law enforcement organizations do show up at conferences organized by these stakeholders, and most of the stakeholders routinely interact with them at various levels. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 2:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Cc: 'George Sadowsky'; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Jacqueline A. Morris' > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: > Irony] > > Thanks for the links Suresh - the botnet project looks interesting. > > Do you thing the spam dynamic coalition should expand to cybercrime or > should we be looking at something else? There seem to be a lot of > common participants and interest groups... > > 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: 03 December 2007 11:21 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; > 'Jacqueline A. Morris' > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: > Irony] > > Ian Peter [03/12/07 06:41 +1100]: > > >So I think we come to some sort of multistakeholder structure not yet > in > >existence. I must say that in Rio I went to the cybercrime convention > >organized by Council of Europe (the only session devoted entirely to > >cybercrime) and left 45 minutes after the advertised starting time > when the > >session had not yet got underway. > > Please dont judge CoE by that. Rio and Athens had their share of > logistics > issues, that's a known fact. Their convention [1] has a great deal of > potential and [2] has several countries already signed up to it, and > other > countries actively looking to ratify it in the near future. > > >Is this an area for another dynamic coalition to get things moving? > The ITU > >pamphlet on this is a nice glossy with a good high level strategy, but > I > >think some complementary action (with their involvement if possible) > might > >be productive. > > Stopspamalliance was created as antispam but is increasingly focused on > cybercrime. And it includes several key stakeholders in the cybercrime > and > spam issues. Joining it would be a good idea. > > >Just to give a quick outline of the ITU goals here, they cover > >Model cybercrime legislation > >Organizational structures > >Security criteria and accreditation of software applications and > systems > >Surveillance and incident response > >Universal digital identity system > >Capacity building > >International co-operation. > > My botnet project covers mainly capacity building and intl cooperation > but > spans quite a few of the others (e&oe the word "universal" - I am a > more > "here and now" kind of person). > > Again, this is one (of a few other) practical implementations of these > ideas that are in progress. For another one, please see > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html > > Back to the botnet toolkit, again, the project URL is > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html > > If anybody here has operational suggestions on how best you can > contribute > to this (I know Guru has read the paper, and presumably liked it, > judging > from his initial comments) - please feel free to email me, or send your > comments to the ITU project address cybmail at itu.int > > In particular - ITU has two pilots at a nationwide level scheduled for > the > botnet toolkit in 2008, the first being in Malaysia, in 1Q08. > > I met quite a few stakeholders in Malaysia from govt / industry / the > technical community, but only some civ soc (a local professor who is > active > in the regional research networking / v6 community, a couple of people > who > ran the HackInTheBox conference in Malaysia, etc). If you know any > potential stakeholders in this (in particular ICT access / capacity > building organizations active in Malaysia) that I have not met please > feel > free to email me offlist. > > thanks > srs > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: > 02/12/2007 > 20:34 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: > 02/12/2007 > 20:34 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 2 12:07:55 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:07:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Message-ID: Hi George, Suresh and all, I'm trying to catch up with the huge amount of mails exchanged on this list in only few days.. But on this issue particularly, the feeling I've got from the last Octopus Interface conference I attended last June, specially from Interpol presentation and the harsh critics it received from an audience almost only composed by LEAs, it seems that Interpol is seen as too "closed" in its ways of operation and too slow-acting. LEA representatives were all complaining about Interpol bureaucracy, making it far less effective in their opinion than, say, networks of 24/7 LEAs points of contact. FYI: Octopus is the European (CoE and EC) programme against corruption and organized crime. more info at: http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/ combating_economic_crime/3_technical_cooperation/OCTOPUS/ That said, I've got the impression that the recent discussion on cybercrime on this list is rather mixing apples and oranges: one cannot address in the same way phishing (and all its versions depending on which technology is used), spam, different kinds of transnational organized crime commited using computers and networks (including money laundering), the issue of infrastructure security (involving in its turn different issues whether you consider, say, a nuclear plant or any other critical infrastructure on the one hand and the security of SMEs networks and computers on the other hand), etc. Moreover, this shouldn't be mixed up with issues mainly dealing with conflicts of rights, conflicts of jurisdictions and the absence of dual criminality (e.g. someone mentioned illegal gambling in a discussion on spam). Each category involve different problems, and different possible solutions, or at least different ways of addressing these problems. Best, Meryem Le 2 déc. 07 à 15:13, George Sadowsky a écrit : > Suresh, > > Thank you very much. This is quite interesting. > > It's worth listening to Ron Noble's interview. He is the head of > Interpol. He pleads emotionally, to the point of breaking down and > crying, for governments to understand that he has a billion dollar > program, not a million dollar program. He cites budgets of > comparable international institutions and shows what a pittance > Interpol gets compared to them. > > If the world believes (whatever that means) that Interpol is part > of the solution against cybercrime and not part of the problem. it > is certainly not putting its money where its mouth is. > > Is there any evidence that Interpol is not a worthwhile > investment? I haven't seen any. > > 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Dec 3 09:41:23 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:41:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brazilian activist awarded with the International Service Human Rights Award Message-ID: <20071203144126.C98A327621D@mail.gn.apc.org> Dear all Brazilian journalist, Rosangela Berman Bieler, director of the Interamerican Institute on Disability and Inclusive Development will be recognised with a major human rights award on Wednesday in London. Rosangela presented during the APC public event on access just prior to the IGF, and we take great pleasure in congratulating rosangela on receiving this award. feel free to distrute the following brief press note.. karen ENGLISH, PORTUGUESE, SPANISH ----------------------------------------- Brazilian activist awarded with the International Service Human Rights Award Brazilian journalist, Rosangela Berman Bieler, director of the Interamerican Institute on Disability and Inclusive Development, will be awarded on 5th of December with the International Service Human Rights Award in the category Defense of Human Rights of People with Disabilities. The award ceremony will take place at the House of Commons in London (UK). Rosangela Berman Bieler has been recognized for her 30-years achievements for the promotion of an inclusive society which promotes and respects the diversity, the inclusion, the equality of opportunities and the independent living for all. “In the midst of the historical approval of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities”, declared Matthew Snell, Chief Executive of International Service, the British development agency, the award promoter, “we recognize the strategic important of the disability perspective, associated to the core human rights issues and challenges of the present times”. More info, please contact International Service Field Director in Brazil, Luca Sinesi: luca at isbrasil.org.br International Site: www.internationalservice.org.uk International Service Human Rights Awards The first International Service human rights awards were held in 2003 as part of International Service 50th anniversary celebrations. Since then the ceremony has become one of the key events in the British overseas development calendar. ----------------------------------------- Ativista Brasileira ganha Prêmio Internacional de Direitos Humanos A jornalista brasileira Rosangela Berman Bieler, diretora do Instituto Inter-Americano sobre Deficiência e Desenvolvimento Inclusivo, receberá no dia 5 de Dezembro em Londres, Inglaterra, o Prêmio de Direitos Humanos do International Service na categoria Defesa dos Direitos Humanos das Pessoas com Deficiência. A cerimônia de entrega será realizada na House of Commons, a Câmara de Deputados do Parlamento Inglês. Rosangela Berman Bieler foi premiada pelos 30 anos de lutas conduzidas junto a milhares de latino-americanos com deficiências para a afirmação de uma sociedade inclusiva que promova e respeite a diversidade, a inclusão, a equiparação de oportunidades, a vida independente e a autonomia pessoal. “Em ocasião da aprovação histórica da Convenção da ONU pelos direitos das pessoas com deficiência”, declarou Matthew Snell, chefe executivo do International Service, agencia de cooperação britânica promotora do premio, “reconhecemos a grande importância da inclusão da área da deficiência associada aos grandes temas de direitos humanos da atualidade”. Para mais informações, contate o representante do International Service no Brasil, Luca Sinesi: luca at isbrasil.org.br Site internacional: www.internationalservice.org.uk Prêmio de Direitos Humanos do International Service O primeiro Prêmio foi realizado em 2003 para celebrar os 50 anos de atividades do International Service. Desde então, a cerimônia se tornou um dos principais eventos da cooperação internacional britânica. ----------------------------------------- Militante brasilera gana Premio Internacional de Derechos Humanos La periodista brasilera Rosangela Berman Bieler, directora del Instituto Inter-Americano sobre Discapacidad y Desarrollo Inclusivo, recibirá el día 5 de Diciembre en Londres, Inglaterra, el Premio de Derechos Humanos del Servicio Internacional en la categoría de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos de las Personas con Discapacidad. La ceremonia de entrega se realizará en la Cámara de Diputados del Parlamento Ingles (House of Commons). Rosangela Berman Bieler fue premiada en reconocimiento a 30 años de luchas conducidas junto a miles de latino-americanos con discapacidad en la afirmación de una sociedad inclusiva que promueva el respeto a la diversidad, la inclusion, la equiparacion de oportunidades, la vida independente e la autonomia personal. “En ocasion de la aprovacion histórica de la Convencion de la ONU por los derechos de las personas con discapacidad”, declaro Matthew Snell, jefe ejecutivo del Servicio International, la agencia de cooperacion britanica promotora del premio, “reconocemos la gran importancia de la inclusion en el área de la discapacidad asociada a los grandes temas de derechos humanos en la actualidad”. Para mas informaciones, contacte al representante de Servicio Internacional en Brasil, Luca Sinesi: luca at isbrasil.org.br Sitio Web: www.internationalservice.org.uk Premio de Derechos Humanos del Servicio Internacional El primer Premio fue realizado en 2003 para celebrar los 50 años de actividades del Servicio Internacional. Desde entonces, la ceremonia se convirtió en uno de los principales eventos de la cooperación internacional británica. -------------- 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 Mon Dec 3 10:21:44 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:21:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD95@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <049801c83363$78faa450$6aefecf0$@com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD95@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, I did not have much time for even reading the rich/complex postings here, even though I wanted to. Here I am. I was also involved from the very beginning of ICANN and its AtLarge formation, being the member of MAC, MITF, NAIS, drafting group for ALAC, interim ALAC and now new ALAC elected from AP-RALO. The first election was not perfect - as NAIS reported, there were many problems including one happend in my region and country. The Japanese government and industry organized a very systematic campaign, nothing against the rule explicitly, but with different cultural understanding about the election. Half of the members registered are from Japan. Almost half of all who voted globally were from Japan, and they dominated the Asian region by far. A capture? Yes or No depends on where you stand. This sent a strong cautious signal, together with some other regions' activities. Then 911 came, and as some already wrote "forget about democracy" and came the "reform - effectiveness, security", etc. Just before ALSC led by Bildt and NAIS came to consensus on the new election of AtLarge, so-called "palace de coup" happened, in Feb 2002. No AtLarge, no democracy, no users was the original blue print of the reform. ALAC was a last desparate effort to bring AtLarge back to ICANN process, a compromise from both ends. The "stupid" three-tier structure of ALS, RALO and ALAC came from the lessons learned from the previous election and relationship (or lack of) between elected Board members (as Wolfgang wrote) and voters or consituencies who elected them. ICANN staff destroyed all the membership data as soon as the election was over, intentionally, so there were no real means to keep the membership). There was more empahsis put on "participation" than "representation" (by election) in NAIS report as well as some other people's mind. In a way, global election was totally unaccpetable at that time in most ICANN constituencies minds. Then came WSIS, civil society participation, IGC, and attacks to ICANN from some governments, which gave re-birth to the voices of users within ICANN process. While intriem ALAC in the early days suffering from lack of interests, resources, and hostlie attitudes from most ICANN constituencies. Now, after WGIG/IGF, five RALOs were setup, thanks to ICANN's generous funding to bring all ALS reps to one meeting in the region. And there no longer is interim ALAC. Do we, new ALAC have sustainable mechanisms? I honestly don't know. Why ALAC now is not active in policy areas? Well, we are trying, with 13 of 15 members are all new - less than a year with ALAC. Many don't know about the history, and may feel little need to know. (we organized a ALAC one-day workshop at ICANN LA meeting to address these, including briefing on ALAC history). One other element I would bring attention is, perhaps, AtLarge is the only ICANN component with strict geographic balance, similar to RIRs, and thus even where there is little "bottom-up" movement in the civil society, in most developing parts of the world, the out-reach work by ICANN staff and ICANN community and NomCom gave ways to more participation from civil society groups. Are they effective? I don't think so. Are there better ways? "Self-organizing" is the great principle, but it could sometimes result only those who have resources can play the game. "Civil society" has little history in some parts of Asia, for example, thus just relying on that may not work well unless there is some good incentives (such as election/voting on the Board). Coming ALAC review (which is very slow), should give collective wisdom, hopefully. izumi 2007/12/1, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang : > Two comments to two aspects of the discussion: > > Accountability of elected representatives: > > Yes, we had five elected AT Large Directors in 2000. I organized from Melbourne onwards until 2002 at seven ICANN Meetings the so-called "Dialogue with At Large Directors" together with Hans Klein. With the exception of one occasion, we never managed to bring all five ALM directors into a dialogue with their constituencies. Very often they had "higher priorities" than talking to their voters during the one week of an ICANN meeting. Karl came nearly everytime, Kato (the Asian At Large director from Fujitsu) and Campos (the Latin America Director from the Bank of Brasil) came frequently. Nii from Africa as often as he could. But Andy Mueller Maguhn ignored it widely. And when Andy, who got such an enourmes support in the elections, ended its mandate as director in 2002 he totaly disappeared from the scene. He did not undertake any effort to fight for a improved at large representation with his knowledge as former ICANN director. Karl did it. Andy did not. Karl voted very often "against", Andy voted very often "abstain". How can election guarantee that you get at the end indeed the people who behave in a responsible way? I know that among all the bad procedures you have at your disposal, fair, free and transparent elections are the best you can get. But while elections are important and an empowring instrument, they do not settle all problems. > > Empowering of Internet Users: > In the reform process ICANN moved from one extreme to another: The original plan in 1998 was to have nine voting At Large Directors. After four years in 2002 you got just one non voting AL liaison. The background for this movement is - as described elswhere - mainly political. We know this. A big fear and mistrust by some political (and probably also economic) groups was in favour of an exclusion of AL to minimize the risk that uncontrollable voices can make their way to the decisions making process. Within WSIS it was a long way until governments recognized civil society as a main stakeholder and accepted multistakeholderism as a principle. During PrepCom1 at WSIS I in 2002 in Geneva, the doors were closed and CS had no access even to the Plenary. There were a lot of turbulences in front of the closed doors in the ICCG in Geneva. One conclusion which was drawn by CS folks in Geneva was that they have to counter the governmental argument that CS is just a bunch of "individual noise makers" who have no mandate from anybody. The result was the start of a process of self-organisation among CS which procuded the CS Plenary, the CS Bureau, the CS Content & Themes and about 30 caucuses and working groups. One was the CS Internet Governance Caucus (co-chaired first by YJ and me after WSIS I by Jeanette and Adam and now by Parminder and Vittorio). The self organisation of the caucus paved the way for the recognition by the other stakeholders. The IGC became a respected partner in the process, was asked to nominate members for the WGIG and published reasonable statements. It had been the IGC-WGIG members which became a driving force in the WGIG process itself, which paved the way for the Tunis Agenda. In fact, two milestones of WGIG were initiatited and drafted by CS people: the IG definition and the proposal for an Internet Governance Forum. > > Can be lessons learned for ICANN? Yes. > 1. do your homework in pushing foreward the self-organization process using the existing structures for innovative actions > 2. pratice what you preach with regard to bottom up, > 3. draft understandable and rational language with substantial proposals > 4. make concrete contributions in the acting bodies. > One outcome from the ALAC review process could be to change the Advisory Committee status into a supporting organisation status which would than allow an ALSO to send two voting directors to the Board. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > Sendt: fr 30-11-2007 16:12 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Emne: RE: [governance] Innovation > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > > > > It is good to hear that people are getting interested. > > > > Was it you who mentioned previously that you thought that the Director > > elected for LA in year 2000 did not fully represent the Caribbean area? > > Yes, it was. And I note that yet again you write LA, not LAC. So - if as you > say, the Director was elected for LA - not LAC, obviously they didn't > represent the Caribbean at ALL, as there isn't even the single letter that > includes us in the regional name. > > > Do you think that the ALAC - a channel in which your regions views > > are > > filtered and then filtered and then filtered again - is as good as > > having a Director you can chose and elect? > > > I disagree with the premise - I don't think that the views are " filtered > and then filtered and then filtered again". And honestly, once one elects a > Director, until the next election, there's no accountability - or that's > what I am accustomed to here. The elected person or persons can choose to > put forward the regional views or their personal ones, as they want. At the > end, they can be voted out, but the next person will do exactly the same > thing. In the current case, all the views are going forward, without > filtration. > > > Back here in the US there was a thing known as a "company union" - see > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union > > OK... I don't see the analogy, but ... > > > If you were drowning, as internet users are, in a sea of powerlessness, > > and if given a choice between the ALAC, and its nearly vacuous ability > > to hold ICANN to account, and real elections for real identifiable > > people - including themselves if they chose to run, don't you think > > that many, perhaps most would chose elections? > > Yet again, I disagree with the base concept here. I think that Internet > users in the Caribbean are drowning in a sea of lack of information, lack of > infrastructure, lack of affordable technology; not powerlessness that can be > fixed with a vote. We need information, outreach, we need to know and > understand what the issues are. Then we can determine what we think about > those issues and then we can say- this is what we want/need. An election > system won't do that IMO. NGOs and information campaigns and technology > transfer and training programs will. And the ALSes can work on that, and > they can get support from ICANN and other organizations to do that. > > Honestly, I think that you are coming from a place that is so different to > the reality here that it's almost impossible to relate. > > Jacqueline > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 > 20:32 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 10:44:50 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:44:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C5F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> <017601c8343a$64c9bf70$2e5d3e50$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C5F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd0712030744m2161922h7b4c9a9896a198ea@mail.gmail.com> Milton, two questions : - when you say "non-commercial users" in NCUC, do you still mean "non-commercial domain owners" or "general internet users" ? - regarding constituencies, you mention their supposed "relatively homogeneous interests" (or something like it). Does that mean that you consider constituencies within ICANN as being a way to structure interest groups ? And does not this lead to the "siloed" approach that I have often described as one of the major limitations in ICANN's PDP (in the gNSO in particular, hence the proposal to move to a working group model) ? Best Bertrand On Dec 1, 2007 7:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Jacky: > You're talking apples and oranges, or perhaps fish and bicycles. > > The NCUC has a clear and simple focus: we represent noncommercial > organizations. ALAC is supposed to represent anyone and everyone, including > commercial actors and potentially commercial organizations. So, you can't > merge NCUC and ALAC without completely destroying the balance of > constituencies in the GNSO and undermining the nature of NCUC. > > Under the proposed structure of ICANN's GNSO, there will be 4 constituency > groupings: registries, registrars (both domain name supplier interests); and > commercial and noncommercial users. > > It is relatively easy for the NGOs and public interest groups focused on > human rights in a "noncommercial users constituency" to come to an agreement > on policy. Likewise it is relatively easy for registries and registrars to > determine what their interests are and to represent a policy perspective. > But if ALAC was as broadly representative of "individual internet users" as > it is supposed to be, it would be very difficult for them to represent a > point of view, because individual internet users in the aggregate don't have > a common point of view. As I recall, you don't even think users in North > America or Asia can adequately understand or represent users in the > Caribbean. > > In general, the At Large's attempt to be the home for individual internet > users cannot be confused with a "constituency" structure in which the > groupings are balanced and presumed to be made up on relatively homogeneous > groups with a common outlook on or interest in policy issues. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 11:51 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Vittorio Bertola' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > > > Why suggest dropping the broad focus and keeping the narrow? To me it > > would > > make more sense to do the opposite. So in that case, how about dropping > > the > > NCUC as the ALAC is broader-based, and those who want to focus on gTLD > > issues in the GNSO can, but we won't be restricted? Or making the NCUC a > > sub-group of At Large, for those who want to focus on GNSO issues? > > Jacqueline > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 22:38 > > > To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > > > > > Vittorio stated > > > > > > >A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups > > > >have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > > > >perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > > > > > > I remain unconvinced at the necessity for both an ALAC and a NCUC in a > > > sensible and efficient structure for channeling what might effectively > > > be > > > called relevant civil society input to a names and numbers > > > organisation. > > > > > > Alx added > > > > > > >the NCUC (originally non-commercial domain-name holders, which we > > > later > > > >expanded to represent non-commercial interest in generic domain > names) > > > is > > > >focused on generic domain names, whereas the ALAC covers all that > > > ICANN > > > >does and may attract the general user, i.e. not only generic names > but > > > also > > > >ccTLD names, IP addresses, etc. > > > > > > Historically relevant because of the forces at play and the insistence > > > of > > > Esther Dyson, but in a greenfields situation would you ever come up > > > with a > > > structure like that? I don't see great differentiation between those > > > interest areas and those likely to want to be involved. > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > > Sent: 01 December 2007 13:12 > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > > > > > Ian Peter ha scritto: > > > > Sorry to raise yet another heresy, > > > > > > > > But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users > > > Constituency > > > and > > > > a Business Users Constituency? Don't they cover all users who would > > > get > > > > involved in ALAC? > > > > > > > > I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are > analyzing > > > > structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an > > > ALAC > > > and > > > > a NCUC? > > > > > > In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of > > > the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic > > > and > > > NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as > > > well) > > > do not always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had > in > > > the At Large several people from consumer organizations and technical > > > groups pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those of > > > the NCUC and of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating full > > > disclosure and authentication of whoever is behind a website, > including > > > individuals. > > > > > > A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups > > > have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > > > perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > > > -- > > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > > > 30/11/2007 > > > 12:12 > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: > > > 30/11/2007 > > > 12:12 > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > > > 11/30/2007 21:26 > > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > > 11/30/2007 > > 21:26 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: > > 12/1/2007 12:05 PM > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: > 12/1/2007 12:05 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 > -- ____________________ 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 3 11:04:47 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:04:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Message-ID: Hi folks, It's end of semester for us academics, so extra hard to keep up with list of late. But on the cybercrime issue I agree with George that it is a big area where the existing bodies and practices have serious gaps, between the US CERT and other US federal efforts of DOJ/FBI & the banks, and an apparently overloaded/underfunded Interpol without a tradition of involving civilians; spam and phishing are just a few of the manifestations of a broader set of issues that fall between the cracks of the existing bodies, and which passing along a model cybercrime convention from the EU on its own won't resolve. I can tell you a funny story re a meeting I was at with Scotland Yard and UK ISPs a couple years ago off-list sometime, but that will only illustrate how vast this gap is... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> suresh at hserus.net 12/02/07 10:06 AM >>> You would not see Interpol's involvement. Nor would your average civ soc igovernance type person who has a much broader interest in access / ICT, ICANN governance etc issues rather than being focused on cybercrime. Even then, you would have to look hard for them .. Interpol isn't set up to, or meant to interact with or engage with civil society. They are purely set up to facilitate coordination between law enforcement agencies, and to provide a mechanism for warrants from one country to be propagated to other countries (Interpol's "red corner" notices). And of course, capacity building efforts to some extent. They don't have investigation and arrest powers and are not the global cops . there are no global cops in the law enforcement sense. That said, if you go to the right public private events on cybercrime you would definitely get to talk to / interact with Interpol people, and those I have met, I respect for their acumen and insight into this issue. Given what I know of what Interpol does (and that barely scratches the surface) - whatever funding they get is put to far better use than expense paid junkets (the bane of many an international organization). srs From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 9:14 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Jacqueline A. Morris' Cc: 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Suresh, Thank you very much. This is quite interesting. It's worth listening to Ron Noble's interview. He is the head of Interpol. He pleads emotionally, to the point of breaking down and crying, for governments to understand that he has a billion dollar program, not a million dollar program. He cites budgets of comparable international institutions and shows what a pittance Interpol gets compared to them. If the world believes (whatever that means) that Interpol is part of the solution against cybercrime and not part of the problem. it is certainly not putting its money where its mouth is. Is there any evidence that Interpol is not a worthwhile investment? I haven't seen any. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 8:38 PM +0700 12/2/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Well, there is a multitude of organizations. ITU is the UN agency that handles WSIS action line C5 - which covers cybersecurity Interpol certainly does quite a lot on coordinating between law enforcement agencies on cybercrime issues. In fact, see this interview with their secretary general Ronald Noble - on ABC 60 minutes. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861 &cl=5007247&ch=4227541&src=news A lot of additional cooperation also goes on through MLATs - bilateral "mutual legal assistance treaties" between national police agencies (such as the US DoJ). Other organizations that do work to some extent in this area are ENISA (http://enisa.europa.eu) and the CoE (through their convention on cybercrime, and a network of 24x7 hotline PoCs that works with / extends the G8's similar hotline). The international organizations that deal specifically with this are more than capable. Then, there's international cooperation on child porn - public private, this one - http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com As I said though, several individual countries' law enforcement agencies may range all the way down the spectrum from "don't know" to "don't care". And individual countries may not have extradiation treaties as well .. so that issues of rather more significance than cybercrime (such as seeking the arrest of someone who put plutonium in a guy's sushi not too long back) may run into these very same issues. srs From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Jacqueline A. Morris Cc: 'Ian Peter'; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] So where is the international organization that claims (cyber)crime as its target? IMHO the obvious target is Interpol. Yet I don't see strong evidence of Interpol's involvement in cybercrime. why not? Some possible reasons: (1) It's happening, but I don't see it because I'm not looking in the right places (2) It's happening, but purposely being kept secret for the purposes of effective operations (3) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't see it as a high priority or doesn't see it as a part of its mandate (4) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't have the resources to address the issue effectively -- technical, legal, or financial. (5) None of the above. Seriously, I would like to understand if our existing international organizations are capable or could be made capable of really assisting in this area, or not. This would give us some evidence regarding in which directions it would be most effective to proceed. What do we collectively know about Interpol, and possibly other similar organizations that could provide a basis for a concerted attack on cybercrime? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:02 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: Hi, on the strand on cybercrime: a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible future roles. Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules for ISP operation), and so on. The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to satisfy country A, and so on. Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details. The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues (banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of consolidation among banks that exists transnationally. Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless they are very cyber-savvy. (And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.) I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) 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, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 From: Jacqueline A. Morris Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jacqueline A. Morris To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' , 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are unwieldy. I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data gathering). Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get cross-boundary co-operation currently. That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved solely by governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms at least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are substantial of course. . 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs 1. Governmental 2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) 3. Technical innovators and standards groups 4. Public interest groups Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to other civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask for. CoE convention on cybercrime - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- toolki t-background.pdf And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess how ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group At an international level? What you would get at that level is again coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each others initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all the citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public toilet or how much to spend to improve a local park. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 2 13:37:43 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 11:37:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am replying late to this again because I am travelling at the moment with only intermittent Internet access; I have just found a hot spot to use in Laramie, Wyoming, which is a town that doesn't even support GSM mobile phones. Talk about the digital divide. ;-) On 27/11/2007, at 5:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > When secretary general renewed the AG on August 20 he asked the > group to suggest means for rotating its membership ("based on > recommendations from the various interested groups"). Thoughts? Rotating its membership won't be sufficient to cure the ills of this dysfunctional and ineffectual body. Legitimising it through greater accountability (through the direct selection of its members by the stakeholder groups) and transparency (see below), and empowering it to make decisions rather simply to advise the Secretariat (which currently often acts without reference to the Advisory Group, eg. in the introduction of discussants), are the first necessary steps towards its reform. > We should also be considering means to enhance transparency and > flow of information. AG's immediate reaction to the secretary > general's request was to publish notes of its closed meeting. Was > this adequate? No. It included such unenlightening accounts as, "The group had a first exchange of views of its own role and function and its renewal". Plainly, the Advisory Group mailing list should be made public and the physical meetings should be opened, recorded and archived. In fact, while the Secretariat makes important decisions about the IGF's structure and processes privately without reference to the Advisory Group, even this level of transparency may not be sufficient. But certainly, we can have no faith that anything less will be. > Observers are another possibility, but there are costs/problems. > My main concern with observers is the AG already works too slowly, > I think it would do less in a larger setting. And it makes Chatham > house rule essentially meaningless (like it or not, Chatham house > rule is important for governments in particular.) This is not an intergovernmental organisation, it is a multi- stakeholder organisation. Why should its processes be tailored to the preferences of governments alone? Apart from which, since Advisory Group members are currently appointed in their personal rather than representative capacities anyway, the exclusion of observers in order to maintain the confidentiality of speakers' identities makes no sense. Neither is it equitable, given that intergovernmental observers are already allowed, while others are excluded. > What worked well in Rio, what worked less well, what went badly? > > Badly: funding for participation. Remote participation, more specifically. This is an issue for the OCDC mailing list more specifically than this one, so I will restrict myself very briefly to a quote from an article by Michael Froomkin about ICANN that has very striking application to the IGF: > ICANN’s chief failures have been in institutional design. It > is particularly striking how little ICANN, unlike the IETF, uses the > Internet as a tool for making decisions. Of course, just because > some- > thing relates to or uses the Internet does not tell us much about its > ability to generate legitimacy. ICANN’s decisions are made at quar- > terly Board meetings held on four different continents. Decisions of > the Board and of many of the ICANN-supporting organizations occur > at the physical meetings. Very few members of the Board, and even > fewer of the staff, participate either in the public online fora > hosted by > ICANN or in the unofficial ICANN fora. In contrast, the IETF rec- > ognizes that participants cannot attend its equally far-flung > meetings, > and subjects everything discussed in person to ratification in an > online > discussion. (End Froomkin quote, resume Adam quote.) > People mentioned the schedule was too crammed with activities, no > time to stop and talk. How can we take open call for workshops > etc, and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard > process.) By not making an uncoordinated open call for workshops in the first place. Decide, through the open consultation process, what workshop topics would be consistent with the IGF's mandate, and what criteria their organisers ought to satisfy. Then, for those classes of workshop for which there is not an existing dynamic coalition, a volunteer from amongst those interested in coordinating a workshop on each topic should act as a central point of contact for the others. > Were the best practise sessions useful? Were the open sessions > useful? Not particularly, because they were too self-serving. Taking the ICANN session as an example, whereas the IGF's mandate speaks of discourse (a bidirectional process), since ICANN has no interest in deferring to what the IGF thinks this was reduced to a dry, unidirectional trade show presentation. To be useful, best practice sessions and open fora must allow for and encourage the airing of critical perspectives, and not only during question time. > Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? > Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental > changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have > been well received. We need to be realistic about what can be > changed (in my opinion.) Despite having been off-line for much of the time since Rio, I have read enough of what others have said on this question to say that I agree (so I will be brief here). The IGF is not just about recognising Internet-related public policy issues and fatuously repeating platitudes about them (openness is good, the digital divide is bad); it is about global governance of those issues. This requires the forum to be able to develop policy around those issues. Although in the longer term this means being able to make recommendations, in the shorter term it need only mean that it has the capacity to challenge the preconceived views of the decision- makers who attend by requiring them to expose those preconceptions to reasoned public deliberation. This does not occur in a moderated panel format. Instead, it will be necessary for the topics for discussion to be filtered into a smaller number of discrete issues (which the dynamic coalitions and workshops are potentially the best qualified to do), and for the plenary body debate those issues in a focussed way with the assistance of trained facilitators, preferably beginning in small groups. So I think "openness", "security" et al, if they are to be retained at all, should only be regarded as containers for much more specific issues on which measurable progress can be made towards the development of globally accepted public policy principles. If that occurs, then it will not be necessary to have separate main sessions on global public policy development or the role of the IGF, because these themes will be pervasive. > I think there's a feeling the main sessions were generally flat > compared to Athens -- very few requests to make comments/ask > question, very little remote participation, the main session room > half empty while the workshops quite well attended ... Clearly this is because the main sessions are just talk, whereas the dynamic coalitions (or some of them, anyway) are actually achieving tangible outcomes. People aren't going to invest their limited time and energy providing input into a forum which is not empowered to progress the most important paragraphs of the IGF's mandate. You may feel that to propose major reforms is not realistic, but an IGF that fulfils its mandate as a multi-stakeholder governance network would be a revolutionary development that (still) requires major reform. Just as the suffragettes and abolitionists were not content with tinkering around the edges of the political system as they found it, neither should we be content with similar window- dressing of the existing regimes of global governance. -- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Dec 3 12:53:30 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:53:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??? In-Reply-To: sympa.1196631102.25467.860@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Oh ... Oooooh OK, I get it now, sorry I'm a little slow to catch on ... So let me get this striaght: The FCC is putting up the 700 MHz "beachfront property" for Auction. [ http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ ] So as a results, Google and Verison are going to the mat for the space-race. Ref.: Google to battle telecom giants for wireless Web [ http://www.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_7609218 ] Mean while NeuStar cinches the contract with the NTIA for the next 3yrs, and operates the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) [ Assigns blocks of phone numbers to all qualified telecommunications companies in the 19 countries in North America, and manages area code utilization and relief. ] [ http://www.neustar.biz/ ;|http://www.nanpa.com/ ] - The Auction Now then, Google brings Vint Cerf onboard, it already has a phone in the works, a content network, and a huge wad of dough. NeuStar then aquires Paul Lacouture to its Board of Directors. Lacouture is the former executive vice president of engineering and technology at Verizon Telecom, having retired in August 2007. In his new role, Lacouture joins NeuStar directors James Cullen, former president and COO of Bell Atlantic Corporation; Ross Ireland, former senior executive vice president of Services and CTO of SBC Communications Inc.; Dr. Kenneth Pickar, Visiting Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the California Institute of Technology; Jeff Ganek, Chairman and CEO of NeuStar; Hellene Runtagh, former CEO and President of Berwind Group; Joel Friedman, former president of Accenture's Business Process Outsourcing organization; and Michael Rowny, chairman of Rowny Capital and former president and CEO of MCI's International Ventures, Alliances, and Correspondent group. The company's board now totals 8 members, 7 of whom are non-employee directors. [ http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NEF06002112007-1.htm ] How nice. So as NeuStar expands its global reach, they Join the UIQ Alliance, UIQ Technology creates and licenses the open software platform UIQ to leading mobile phone manufacturers. Our flexible and customizable user interface and development platform is pre-integrated and tested with Symbian OS, the leading industry standard operating system for smartphones. [ http://www.uiq.com/aboutus.html ;| Members: http://www.uiq.com/partner_directory.html ] In fact they (NeuStar, Inc.) announced that it has partnered with leading mobile phone operator SFR to bring Windows Live Messenger to SFR�s 18 million customers in France. [ http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=54161 ] So NeuStar has positioned itself in both the US and European Markets, NeuStar's the Man! if Google or Verison wins the 700 MHz Beachfront, they'll be sitting pretty. I wonder if they will be selling Beachfront Condos or TimeShares??? Ref.: Will wireless carriers really open their networks? [ http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/att-verizon-really-open-their/story.aspx? guid=E8841127-57FF-41CC-8C23-FB682B3E6BF3&dist=SecMostMailed ] Well I'll be damned, ain't that something, all though people do'en all that for US. Hummm kinda brings a tear to my eyes. As Paul Harvey used to say: And that's .... The rest of the story, And �good day.� ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 3 12:53:30 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:53:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??? In-Reply-To: sympa.1196631102.25467.860@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Oh ... Oooooh OK, I get it now, sorry I'm a little slow to catch on ... So let me get this striaght: The FCC is putting up the 700 MHz "beachfront property" for Auction. [ http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ ] So as a results, Google and Verison are going to the mat for the space-race. Ref.: Google to battle telecom giants for wireless Web http://www.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_7609218 Mean while NeuStar cinches the contract with the NTIA for the next 3yrs, and operates the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) [ Assigns blocks of phone numbers to all qualified telecommunications companies in the 19 countries in North America, and manages area code utilization and relief. ] [ http://www.neustar.biz/ |http://www.nanpa.com/ ] Now then, Google Brings Vint Cerf onboard, it already has a phone in the works, a content network, and a huge wad of dough. NeuStar then aquires Paul Lacouture to its Board of Directors. Lacouture is the former executive vice president of engineering and technology at Verizon Telecom, having retired in August 2007. In his new role, Lacouture joins NeuStar directors James Cullen, former president and COO of Bell Atlantic Corporation; Ross Ireland, former senior executive vice president of Services and CTO of SBC Communications Inc.; Dr. Kenneth Pickar, Visiting Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the California Institute of Technology; Jeff Ganek, Chairman and CEO of NeuStar; Hellene Runtagh, former CEO and President of Berwind Group; Joel Friedman, former president of Accenture's Business Process Outsourcing organization; and Michael Rowny, chairman of Rowny Capital and former president and CEO of MCI's International Ventures, Alliances, and Correspondent group. The company's board now totals 8 members, 7 of whom are non-employee directors. [ http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NEF06002112007-1.htm ] How nice. So as NeuStar expands its global reach, they Join the UIQ Alliance, UIQ Technology creates and licenses the open software platform UIQ to leading mobile phone manufacturers. Our flexible and customizable user interface and development platform is pre-integrated and tested with Symbian OS, the leading industry standard operating system for smartphones. [ http://www.uiq.com/aboutus.html | Members: http://www.uiq.com/partner_directory.html ] In fact they (NeuStar, Inc.) announced that it has partnered with leading mobile phone operator SFR to bring Windows Live Messenger to SFR�s 18 million customers in France. [ http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=54161 ] So NeuStar has positioned itself in both the US and European Markets, NeuStar's the Man ... if Google or Verison wins the 700 MHz Beachfront! I wonder if they will be selling Beachfront Condos or TimeShares??? Ref.: Will wireless carriers really open their networks? [ http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/att-verizon-really-open-their/story.aspx? guid=E8841127-57FF-41CC-8C23-FB682B3E6BF3&dist=SecMostMailed ] Well I'll be damned, ain't that something, all though people do'en all that for US. Hummm kinda brings a tear to my eyes. Danny, as Paul Harvey used to say: And that's the rest of the Story, and "good day"! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 3 12:53:33 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:53:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??? In-Reply-To: sympa.1196629456.26046.157@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Oh ... Oooooh OK, I get it now, sorry I'm a little slow to catch on ... So let me get this striaght: The FCC is putting up the 700 MHz "beachfront property" for Auction. [ http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ ] So as a results, Google and Verison are going to the mat for the space-race. Ref.: Google to battle telecom giants for wireless Web http://www.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_7609218 Mean while NeuStar cinches the contract with the NTIA for the next 3yrs, and operates the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) [ Assigns blocks of phone numbers to all qualified telecommunications companies in the 19 countries in North America, and manages area code utilization and relief. ] [ http://www.neustar.biz/ |http://www.nanpa.com/ ] The Auction Now then, Google Brings Vint Cerf onboard, it already has a phone in the works, a content network, and a huge wad of dough. NeuStar then aquires Paul Lacouture to its Board of Directors. Lacouture is the former executive vice president of engineering and technology at Verizon Telecom, having retired in August 2007. In his new role, Lacouture joins NeuStar directors James Cullen, former president and COO of Bell Atlantic Corporation; Ross Ireland, former senior executive vice president of Services and CTO of SBC Communications Inc.; Dr. Kenneth Pickar, Visiting Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the California Institute of Technology; Jeff Ganek, Chairman and CEO of NeuStar; Hellene Runtagh, former CEO and President of Berwind Group; Joel Friedman, former president of Accenture's Business Process Outsourcing organization; and Michael Rowny, chairman of Rowny Capital and former president and CEO of MCI's International Ventures, Alliances, and Correspondent group. The company's board now totals 8 members, 7 of whom are non-employee directors. [ http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NEF06002112007-1.htm ] How nice. So as NeuStar expands its global reach, they Join the UIQ Alliance, UIQ Technology creates and licenses the open software platform UIQ to leading mobile phone manufacturers. Our flexible and customizable user interface and development platform is pre-integrated and tested with Symbian OS, the leading industry standard operating system for smartphones. [ http://www.uiq.com/aboutus.html | Members: http://www.uiq.com/partner_directory.html ] In fact they (NeuStar, Inc.) announced that it has partnered with leading mobile phone operator SFR to bring Windows Live Messenger to SFR�s 18 million customers in France. [ http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=54161 ] So NeuStar has positioned itself in both the US and European Markets, NeuStar's the Man ... if Google or Verison wins the 700 MHz Beachfront! I wonder if they will be selling Beachfront Condos or TimeShares??? Ref.: Will wireless carriers really open their networks? [ http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/att-verizon-really-open-their/story.aspx? guid=E8841127-57FF-41CC-8C23-FB682B3E6BF3&dist=SecMostMailed ] Well I'll be damned, ain't that something, all though people do'en all that for US. Hummm kinda brings a tear to my eyes. Danny, as Paul Harvey used to say: And that's the rest of the Story, and "good day"! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Dec 3 13:15:51 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:15:51 +0100 Subject: fine-grained control of personal data (was: Re: [governance] Publishers Seeking Web Controls - washingtonpost.com) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <475447D7.4000206@zedat.fu-berlin.de> yehudakatz at mailinator.com schrieb: > Publishers Seeking Web Controls - washingtonpost.com News Organizations > Propose Tighter Search Engine Rules > > By Anick Jesdanun Associated Press Friday, November 30, 2007; D02 > There is an interesting innovation buried in this article: > Sites could try to limit how long search engines may retain copies in > their indexes, This is was discussed at the IGF session on emerging issues: "The internet must learn how to forget." Now, could somebody please develop something like this for personal data? Bottom line: I want to be able to tell entities that collect information about me how long they can keep it. I want to be able to tell them what they can do with this. This would allow more granularity than the usual opt-in or opt-out, where the other side basically dictates the terms of use of my date and I can only agree or not. Conceptually, these ideas have been around for a while. The technology for handling this at the back-end is also there, e.g. EPAL , though there are some patent issues, as far as I am aware. This is also called "sticky policy" because meta-information on possible uses travels with the data. Recently even an iconography (similar to creative commons) has been suggested: (from IGF 2006) Next steps would have to be: - a good front-end / GUI for this. - standard applications that incprporate these ideas - usage of this by many data handlers Any hints on who else is working on this? Or further ideas? 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 3 15:03:57 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:03:57 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <18b701c835e7$ab661290$8b00a8c0@IAN> Meryem, I totally agree with you as regards the issues and the necessary structures - but do note Suresh's comments that the Anti Spam Coalition is tending to move towards addressing cybercrime issues outside its immediate area of concentration - perhaps it’s the combination of regulators and industry exploring what to do next? As any follower of ICANN would realize, scope creep is pretty common (and probably necessary) where there is a void due to lack of appropriate structures to deal with issues. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] Sent: 03 December 2007 04:08 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Hi George, Suresh and all, I'm trying to catch up with the huge amount of mails exchanged on this list in only few days.. But on this issue particularly, the feeling I've got from the last Octopus Interface conference I attended last June, specially from Interpol presentation and the harsh critics it received from an audience almost only composed by LEAs, it seems that Interpol is seen as too "closed" in its ways of operation and too slow-acting. LEA representatives were all complaining about Interpol bureaucracy, making it far less effective in their opinion than, say, networks of 24/7 LEAs points of contact. FYI: Octopus is the European (CoE and EC) programme against corruption and organized crime. more info at: http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/ combating_economic_crime/3_technical_cooperation/OCTOPUS/ That said, I've got the impression that the recent discussion on cybercrime on this list is rather mixing apples and oranges: one cannot address in the same way phishing (and all its versions depending on which technology is used), spam, different kinds of transnational organized crime commited using computers and networks (including money laundering), the issue of infrastructure security (involving in its turn different issues whether you consider, say, a nuclear plant or any other critical infrastructure on the one hand and the security of SMEs networks and computers on the other hand), etc. Moreover, this shouldn't be mixed up with issues mainly dealing with conflicts of rights, conflicts of jurisdictions and the absence of dual criminality (e.g. someone mentioned illegal gambling in a discussion on spam). Each category involve different problems, and different possible solutions, or at least different ways of addressing these problems. Best, Meryem Le 2 déc. 07 à 15:13, George Sadowsky a écrit : > Suresh, > > Thank you very much. This is quite interesting. > > It's worth listening to Ron Noble's interview. He is the head of > Interpol. He pleads emotionally, to the point of breaking down and > crying, for governments to understand that he has a billion dollar > program, not a million dollar program. He cites budgets of > comparable international institutions and shows what a pittance > Interpol gets compared to them. > > If the world believes (whatever that means) that Interpol is part > of the solution against cybercrime and not part of the problem. it > is certainly not putting its money where its mouth is. > > Is there any evidence that Interpol is not a worthwhile > investment? I haven't seen any. > > 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 20:34 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 20:34 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 3 15:57:53 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:57:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 12/2/07 6:07 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" wrote: > That said, I've got the impression that the recent discussion on > cybercrime on this list is rather mixing apples and oranges: one > cannot address in the same way phishing (and all its versions > depending on which technology is used), spam, different kinds of > transnational organized crime commited using computers and networks > (including money laundering), the issue of infrastructure security > (involving in its turn different issues whether you consider, say, a > nuclear plant or any other critical infrastructure on the one hand > and the security of SMEs networks and computers on the other hand), > etc. Moreover, this shouldn't be mixed up with issues mainly dealing > with conflicts of rights, conflicts of jurisdictions and the absence > of dual criminality (e.g. someone mentioned illegal gambling in a > discussion on spam). Each category involve different problems, and > different possible solutions, or at least different ways of > addressing these problems. I agree, we're dealing with a very distributed architecture with regard to security issues, and I'm a bit concerned/bemused by some of the intergovernmental efforts to treat all the diverse issues and institutions in a overly aggregated manner. As I noted in a talk at a Rio workshop, a potentially problematic case in point is the ITU's Global Cybersecurity Agenda, which seeks to do the following: 1. Elaboration of strategies for the development of a model cybercrime legislation that is globally applicable and interoperable with existing national and regional legislative measures. 2. Elaboration of strategies for the creation of appropriate national and regional organizational structures and policies on cybercrime. 3. Development of a strategy for the establishment of globally accepted minimum security criteria and accreditation schemes for software applications and systems. 4. Development of strategies for the creation of a global framework for watch, warning and incident response to ensure cross-border coordination between new and existing initiatives. 5. Development of strategies for the creation and endorsement of a generic and universal digital identity system and the necessary organizational structures to ensure the recognition of digital credentials for individuals across geographical boundaries. 6. Development of a global strategy to facilitate human and institutional capacity-building to enhance knowledge and know-how across sectors and in all the above-mentioned areas. 7. Advice on potential framework for a global multi-stakeholder strategy for international cooperation, dialogue and coordination in all the above-mentioned areas. This is pretty sweeping. And to chart the course, the ITU is assembling a High-Level Experts Group on Cybersecurity that is to comprise: *Member States - government representatives of countries from the five world regions *Industry - manufacturers, operators, service providers, software developers, security and other information technology firms *Regional and International organizations *Academic and research institutions *Individual experts You will note that there is no designated role for civil society organizations. Before the ITU's 191 member governments go off and decide on model cybercrime legislation that is globally applicable, globally accepted minimum security criteria and accreditation schemes, a global framework for watch warning and incident response, and a framework for a global multi-stakeholder [sic] strategy for international cooperation, it might be good if CS people and fellow travelers were to do some work on these issues and maybe even ask for a seat at the table. Might this be a role for the IGC? Could there be a tie-in to the OECD ministerial as well? 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Dec 3 16:20:00 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:20:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS Nom Com recommendation for the Global Alliance Strategy Council In-Reply-To: <200605221331.k4MDVpfs011030@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200712032119.lB3LJ88T003474@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to inform you that the CS NomCom has finalized today and the selection of the recommendation for the CS membership in the GAID Strategy Council. A letter was sent to the GAID Secretariat to inform it that the following CS representatives are supported to join the GAID Strategy Council, in which 3 or 4 seats are open to rotation: * Mr. Micheal Gurstein (CS affiliations: Global Telecentre Alliance, Telecentres of the Americas Partnership, Telecommunities Canada, Vancouver Community Network, Association for Community Networking; Canada) * Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change, Bangalore; India) * Ms. Viola Krebs (ICVolunteers; Switzerland) * Ms. Linda Misek-Falfoff (Respectful Interfaces; USA) It was noted by the NomCom members that while the gender balance was fully respected, it appeared not possible to find a consensus which completely respected the geographic balance, while this concern was fully taken in consideration by the NomCom members. Let me thank the 5 NomCom members (Ezendu Ariwa, Luis Pouzin, Ginger Paque, Delphine Nana and Hakikur Rahman) for the fact that they all took their function extremely seriously, and gave required time and commitment to make this process very smooth (and pleasant for the facilitator). Keep in mind that the UN Secretary-General will still take the final decision regarding the rotation in the GAID membership. You will be kept informed about the up coming developments in this regard. All the best, Ph 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Mon Dec 3 16:33:16 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:33:16 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Brazilian activist awarded with the International Service Human Rights Award In-Reply-To: <20071203144126.C98A327621D@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20071203144126.C98A327621D@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01E8C512@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Karen, Rosangela is amongst us, a well known Human Rights activist and she is a super candidate for this Award, All of us in the disability movement are proud and happy for Rosangela to be recognised! 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 kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Skickat: den 3 december 2007 15:41 Till: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at cpsr.org Kopia: Karen Higgs; rbb at aol.com Ämne: [governance] Brazilian activist awarded with the International Service Human Rights Award Dear all Brazilian journalist, Rosangela Berman Bieler, director of the Interamerican Institute on Disability and Inclusive Development will be recognised with a major human rights award on Wednesday in London. Rosangela presented during the APC public event on access just prior to the IGF, and we take great pleasure in congratulating rosangela on receiving this award. feel free to distrute the following brief press note.. karen ENGLISH, PORTUGUESE, SPANISH ----------------------------------------- Brazilian activist awarded with the International Service Human Rights Award Brazilian journalist, Rosangela Berman Bieler, director of the Interamerican Institute on Disability and Inclusive Development, will be awarded on 5th of December with the International Service Human Rights Award in the category Defense of Human Rights of People with Disabilities. The award ceremony will take place at the House of Commons in London (UK). Rosangela Berman Bieler has been recognized for her 30-years achievements for the promotion of an inclusive society which promotes and respects the diversity, the inclusion, the equality of opportunities and the independent living for all. "In the midst of the historical approval of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities", declared Matthew Snell, Chief Executive of International Service, the British development agency, the award promoter, "we recognize the strategic important of the disability perspective, associated to the core human rights issues and challenges of the present times". More info, please contact International Service Field Director in Brazil, Luca Sinesi: luca at isbrasil.org.br International Site: www.internationalservice.org.uk International Service Human Rights Awards The first International Service human rights awards were held in 2003 as part of International Service 50th anniversary celebrations. Since then the ceremony has become one of the key events in the British overseas development calendar. ----------------------------------------- Ativista Brasileira ganha Prêmio Internacional de Direitos Humanos A jornalista brasileira Rosangela Berman Bieler, diretora do Instituto Inter-Americano sobre Deficiência e Desenvolvimento Inclusivo, receberá no dia 5 de Dezembro em Londres, Inglaterra, o Prêmio de Direitos Humanos do International Service na categoria Defesa dos Direitos Humanos das Pessoas com Deficiência. A cerimônia de entrega será realizada na House of Commons, a Câmara de Deputados do Parlamento Inglês. Rosangela Berman Bieler foi premiada pelos 30 anos de lutas conduzidas junto a milhares de latino-americanos com deficiências para a afirmação de uma sociedade inclusiva que promova e respeite a diversidade, a inclusão, a equiparação de oportunidades, a vida independente e a autonomia pessoal. "Em ocasião da aprovação histórica da Convenção da ONU pelos direitos das pessoas com deficiência", declarou Matthew Snell, chefe executivo do International Service, agencia de cooperação britânica promotora do premio, "reconhecemos a grande importância da inclusão da área da deficiência associada aos grandes temas de direitos humanos da atualidade". Para mais informações, contate o representante do International Service no Brasil, Luca Sinesi: luca at isbrasil.org.br Site internacional: www.internationalservice.org.uk Prêmio de Direitos Humanos do International Service O primeiro Prêmio foi realizado em 2003 para celebrar os 50 anos de atividades do International Service. Desde então, a cerimônia se tornou um dos principais eventos da cooperação internacional britânica. ----------------------------------------- Militante brasilera gana Premio Internacional de Derechos Humanos La periodista brasilera Rosangela Berman Bieler, directora del Instituto Inter-Americano sobre Discapacidad y Desarrollo Inclusivo, recibirá el día 5 de Diciembre en Londres, Inglaterra, el Premio de Derechos Humanos del Servicio Internacional en la categoría de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos de las Personas con Discapacidad. La ceremonia de entrega se realizará en la Cámara de Diputados del Parlamento Ingles (House of Commons). Rosangela Berman Bieler fue premiada en reconocimiento a 30 años de luchas conducidas junto a miles de latino-americanos con discapacidad en la afirmación de una sociedad inclusiva que promueva el respeto a la diversidad, la inclusion, la equiparacion de oportunidades, la vida independente e la autonomia personal. "En ocasion de la aprovacion histórica de la Convencion de la ONU por los derechos de las personas con discapacidad", declaro Matthew Snell, jefe ejecutivo del Servicio International, la agencia de cooperacion britanica promotora del premio, "reconocemos la gran importancia de la inclusion en el área de la discapacidad asociada a los grandes temas de derechos humanos en la actualidad". Para mas informaciones, contacte al representante de Servicio Internacional en Brasil, Luca Sinesi: luca at isbrasil.org.br Sitio Web: www.internationalservice.org.uk Premio de Derechos Humanos del Servicio Internacional El primer Premio fue realizado en 2003 para celebrar los 50 años de actividades del Servicio Internacional. Desde entonces, la ceremonia se convirtió en uno de los principales eventos de la cooperación internacional británica. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 3 18:59:03 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:59:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071203235903.GA15134@hserus.net> Meryem Marzouki [02/12/07 18:07 +0100]: > from Interpol presentation and the harsh critics it received from an > audience almost only composed by LEAs, it seems that Interpol is seen as > too "closed" in its ways of operation and too slow-acting. LEA Well yes - but as I said, Interpol is a last resort and only when you need global coordination / circulation of alerts to catch a criminal. MLATs - bilateral agreements between national law enforcement - work rather faster, and dont need to be referred through Interpol. > hand), etc. Moreover, this shouldn't be mixed up with issues mainly dealing > with conflicts of rights, conflicts of jurisdictions and the absence of > dual criminality (e.g. someone mentioned illegal gambling in a discussion > on spam). Each category involve different problems, and different possible > solutions, or at least different ways of addressing these problems. They shouldnt be. But they often are, when they are classified as a criminal offense in one country (but not the other). L�se majest� (disrespect to the king) in Thailand can get you upto 10 years hard time. Countries where law enforcement gets sucked into prosecuting this type of offense often find that a substantial part of their international enforcement work goes into trying to get some traction on "crimes" like this. They get no traction - are told to take a hike because of free speech issues - and so resort to things like banning Youtube, and get even more negative headlines in the world press. It is a vicious cycle. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 3 19:08:44 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:08:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071204000844.GB15134@hserus.net> William Drake [03/12/07 21:57 +0100]: >This is pretty sweeping. And to chart the course, the ITU is assembling a >High-Level Experts Group on Cybersecurity that is to comprise: >*Academic and research institutions >*Individual experts > >You will note that there is no designated role for civil society >organizations. Those two can cover quite a lot of civil society among them. And I have seen quite a few of the civil society people (especially privacy focused ones) - Gus Hosein, Rikke Jorgensen etc - at ITU conferences on cybersecurity in the past. That part at least is quite inclusive and broad based. Most of ITU's cybersecurity work - at least under ITU-D - is open for public comment, and there are comment addresses in the documents available for download. And civ soc does have a key role to play in some of these activities (like that botnet project I am working on). Why not start with that, first? Before looking for seats at the table for something that appears to be largely drawing board right now and is anyway broad enough that it is quite likely going to be split into a lot of manageable pieces, quite a few of which will definitely get individual experts (and presumably, CS) involved? Involvement for involvements' sake? Active contribution in some activities that are part of this agenda where ITU would certainly welcome CS involvement? An interesting choice. srs (certainly not speaking for ITU 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 3 23:55:22 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:55:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <01d001c83483$8cca7de0$a65f79a0$@com> <002201c834e8$ad2ca3a0$0785eae0$@net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C696@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> George: Interpol can simply facilitate international cooperation among law enforcement agencies. The more interesting questions revolve around who decides what the laws and policies are at the global level when national laws and jurisdictional fragmentation are inadequate to the task of governing the global internet. Interpol can’t do that. ITU (sort of) can, but (perhaps) would do it badly. OECD aspires to be a norm-setter but is a club that doesn’t include the world and is (like ITU) exclusively inter-governmental. So I’d suggest that we need to build on existing internet operational communities and add a layer of more participatory and (dare I say it) liberal-democratic policy making and institutional development. --M _____ From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 9:14 AM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Jacqueline A. Morris' Cc: 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Suresh, Thank you very much. This is quite interesting. It's worth listening to Ron Noble's interview. He is the head of Interpol. He pleads emotionally, to the point of breaking down and crying, for governments to understand that he has a billion dollar program, not a million dollar program. He cites budgets of comparable international institutions and shows what a pittance Interpol gets compared to them. If the world believes (whatever that means) that Interpol is part of the solution against cybercrime and not part of the problem. it is certainly not putting its money where its mouth is. Is there any evidence that Interpol is not a worthwhile investment? I haven't seen any. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 8:38 PM +0700 12/2/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Well, there is a multitude of organizations. ITU is the UN agency that handles WSIS action line C5 - which covers cybersecurity Interpol certainly does quite a lot on coordinating between law enforcement agencies on cybercrime issues. In fact, see this interview with their secretary general Ronald Noble - on ABC 60 minutes. HYPERLINK "http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5007247&ch=4227541&src=news"http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5007247&ch=4227541&src=news A lot of additional cooperation also goes on through MLATs - bilateral "mutual legal assistance treaties" between national police agencies (such as the US DoJ). Other organizations that do work to some extent in this area are ENISA (http://enisa.europa.eu) and the CoE (through their convention on cybercrime, and a network of 24x7 hotline PoCs that works with / extends the G8's similar hotline). The international organizations that deal specifically with this are more than capable. Then, there's international cooperation on child porn - public private, this one - HYPERLINK "http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com"http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com As I said though, several individual countries' law enforcement agencies may range all the way down the spectrum from "don't know" to "don't care". And individual countries may not have extradiation treaties as well .. so that issues of rather more significance than cybercrime (such as seeking the arrest of someone who put plutonium in a guy's sushi not too long back) may run into these very same issues. srs From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Jacqueline A. Morris Cc: 'Ian Peter'; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] So where is the international organization that claims (cyber)crime as its target? IMHO the obvious target is Interpol. Yet I don't see strong evidence of Interpol's involvement in cybercrime. why not? Some possible reasons: (1) It's happening, but I don't see it because I'm not looking in the right places (2) It's happening, but purposely being kept secret for the purposes of effective operations (3) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't see it as a high priority or doesn't see it as a part of its mandate (4) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't have the resources to address the issue effectively -- technical, legal, or financial. (5) None of the above. Seriously, I would like to understand if our existing international organizations are capable or could be made capable of really assisting in this area, or not. This would give us some evidence regarding in which directions it would be most effective to proceed. What do we collectively know about Interpol, and possibly other similar organizations that could provide a basis for a concerted attack on cybercrime? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:02 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: Hi, on the strand on cybercrime: a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible future roles. Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules for ISP operation), and so on. The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to satisfy country A, and so on. Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details. The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues (banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of consolidation among banks that exists transnationally. Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless they are very cyber-savvy. (And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.) I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.) 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, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400 From: Jacqueline A. Morris Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jacqueline A. Morris To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' , 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are unwieldy. I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data gathering). Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get cross-boundary co-operation currently. That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved solely by governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms at least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are substantial of course. . 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: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs 1. Governmental 2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) 3. Technical innovators and standards groups 4. Public interest groups Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to other civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask for. CoE convention on cybercrime - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation- toolki t-background.pdf And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess how ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group At an international level? What you would get at that level is again coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each others initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all the citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public toilet or how much to spend to improve a local park. srs No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1167 - Release Date: 12/3/2007 12:20 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1167 - Release Date: 12/3/2007 12:20 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 4 00:02:14 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:02:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C698@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> _____ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? Milton, two questions : - when you say "non-commercial users" in NCUC, do you still mean "non-commercial domain owners" or "general internet users" ? The former, as NCUC is currently chartered. NCUC is NOT a substitute for “enfranchising” “general internet users.” - regarding constituencies, you mention their supposed "relatively homogeneous interests" (or something like it). Does that mean that you consider constituencies within ICANN as being a way to structure interest groups ? Yes. - And does not this lead to the "siloed" approach that I have often described as one of the major limitations in ICANN's PDP (in the gNSO in particular, hence the proposal to move to a working group model) ? No. Voting, the exercise of authoritative decision making power, must be based in some way on balanced representation. The _development_ of policy, on the other hand, can be more open and flexible and conduicted in working groups. But in the final analysis there must be some kind of authoritative decision making. By the way, just to have some fun with you in your current incarnation as govt representative, would you say that one-country, one-vote representation in the GAC leads to “major limitations in GAC’s policy development process”? Perhaps GAC working groups should be “open” – especially since the Board seems to pay more attention to them than to the GNSO these days? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1167 - Release Date: 12/3/2007 12:20 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1167 - Release Date: 12/3/2007 12:20 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 4 00:07:05 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:07:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C699@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Bill: Why ask for a seat at the table of an inherently flawed policy process? ITU's approach is fatally top-down. Even if it (miraculously) gets adopted it won't have any effect on an Internet that operates on the basis of distributed decision making among private networks and users. > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > > Before the ITU's 191 member governments go off and decide on model > cybercrime legislation that is globally applicable, globally accepted > minimum security criteria and accreditation schemes, a global framework > for watch warning and incident response, and a framework for a global > multi-stakeholder [sic] strategy for international cooperation, it might > be good if CS people and fellow travelers were to do some work on these > issues and maybe even ask for a seat at the table. Might this be a role > for the IGC? Could there be a tie-in to the OECD ministerial as well? > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1167 - Release Date: 12/3/2007 12:20 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 00:43:51 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:13:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C699@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C699@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <003701c83638$a8db1e20$fa915a60$@net> Why ask for a seat at the table in ICANN for that matter? This - again - sounds like sour grapes. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: > Irony] > > Bill: > Why ask for a seat at the table of an inherently flawed policy process? > ITU's approach is fatally top-down. Even if it (miraculously) gets > adopted it won't have any effect on an Internet that operates on the > basis of distributed decision making among private networks and users. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > > > > Before the ITU's 191 member governments go off and decide on model > > cybercrime legislation that is globally applicable, globally accepted > > minimum security criteria and accreditation schemes, a global > framework > > for watch warning and incident response, and a framework for a global > > multi-stakeholder [sic] strategy for international cooperation, it > might > > be good if CS people and fellow travelers were to do some work on > these > > issues and maybe even ask for a seat at the table. Might this be a > role > > for the IGC? Could there be a tie-in to the OECD ministerial as well? > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1167 - Release Date: > 12/3/2007 12:20 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Dec 4 00:59:42 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 06:59:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <0f1c01c8351b$5ce68720$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <0f1c01c8351b$5ce68720$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4754ECCE.1090406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> --trimmed it to the relevant parts and dumped the annoying full quotes at the bottom-- Ian Peter schrieb: > This is such an important issue. Trust in the Internet is greatly > reduced because we are not handling cybercrime well. WE do need to be > proactive in this area. > > Is this an area for another dynamic coalition to get things moving? > > Just to give a quick outline of the ITU goals here, they cover > > > Model cybercrime legislation > Organizational structures > Security criteria and accreditation of software applications and systems > Surveillance and incident response > Universal digital identity system > Capacity building > International co-operation. Parts of this list (mainly surveillance and identity) are addressed by the Dynamic Coalition on Privacy, but not to the full extent discussed in this thread (yet?). Our work is more geared towards - in the long run - globally applicable principles and organizational structures for internet privacy protection. But part of the privacy problems stems from the fact that privacy infringements are not a (cyber)crime or not even a (cyber)offence in many countries yet, including the U.S. By the way, according to what I have read, cybercrime investigations on average are more successful that offline crime investigations. Can't find the source right now, and surely, these statistics have to be handled with care. But it indicates that on the internet, you are more traceable than offline, contrary to public belief. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Dec 4 01:16:00 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:16:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Message-ID: Hi, In this world of glass houses/semi-transparent processes, I also believe it would be a mistake not to take advantage as Bill and Suresh are suggesting, of what the ITU can do/where it is contributing, even if that is not the whole story. For example, if big chunks of industry think the ITU's next generation networks standards will 'resolve' major parts of the cybersecurity puzzle, I would advise civil society to be paying attention to ITU too. As apparently a few individuals are doing. And if Suresh is offering a way into the labyrinth, some CSers should step through. After you ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> suresh at hserus.net 12/04/07 12:43 AM >>> Why ask for a seat at the table in ICANN for that matter? This - again - sounds like sour grapes. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: > Irony] > > Bill: > Why ask for a seat at the table of an inherently flawed policy process? > ITU's approach is fatally top-down. Even if it (miraculously) gets > adopted it won't have any effect on an Internet that operates on the > basis of distributed decision making among private networks and users. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > > > > Before the ITU's 191 member governments go off and decide on model > > cybercrime legislation that is globally applicable, globally accepted > > minimum security criteria and accreditation schemes, a global > framework > > for watch warning and incident response, and a framework for a global > > multi-stakeholder [sic] strategy for international cooperation, it > might > > be good if CS people and fellow travelers were to do some work on > these > > issues and maybe even ask for a seat at the table. Might this be a > role > > for the IGC? Could there be a tie-in to the OECD ministerial as well? > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1167 - Release Date: > 12/3/2007 12:20 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 01:20:05 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:50:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004f01c8363d$b7996ed0$26cc4c70$@net> Lee McKnight wrote: > For example, if big chunks of industry think the ITU's next generation > networks standards will 'resolve' major parts of the cybersecurity > puzzle, I would advise civil society to be paying attention to ITU too. > As apparently a few individuals are doing. And if Suresh is offering a > way into the labyrinth, some CSers should step through. After you ; ) This is, by the way, an ITU-D BDT effort - in other words, rather different from other work ITU may be doing on (say) standards development. The botnet project will have several IETF / NANOG regulars coming in to conduct hands on workshops, for example. I am not offering a way into the "ITU labyrinth" .. don't have a ball of string handy. And there isn't a Minotaur waiting at the center either. I am just pointing out some ways and means - that already exist - where civ soc can actually participate in some initiatives that the ITU happens to be engaged in. Subtle difference, but it does exist, I assure you. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 4 03:08:15 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:08:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On the ITU cybersecurity stuff: On 12/4/07 7:16 AM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > For example, if big chunks of industry think the ITU's next generation > networks standards will 'resolve' major parts of the cybersecurity > puzzle, I would advise civil society to be paying attention to ITU too. Yes, and the many many other standards bodies like ETSI that are populated by the major telcos, manufacturers, and Verisigns of the world and have been debating and building in security 'solutions' on lawful intercept and a whole host of other issues. It has always been difficult to direct attention to any of this here due to the prevalence of a circa 1995 gestalt that divides the world into "relevant" indigenous Internet bodies we know and love (e.g. IETF) and "irrelevant" old paradigm bodies we don't know or love that just do trivial things like organize the global telecom environment, which of course has no bearing on the Internet (never mind leased circuit regulation, interconnection rules, convergence, net neutrality, etc), especially not in the US where full competition reigns and telcos have no role in access, broadband, etc. On 12/4/07 6:07 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > Bill: > Why ask for a seat at the table of an inherently flawed policy process? > ITU's approach is fatally top-down. Even if it (miraculously) gets adopted it > won't have any effect on an Internet that operates on the basis of distributed > decision making among private networks and users. See above. Re: flawed yes, but fatally---this obviously depends on the issue, the industry players involved, their degree of consensus and support for the approach taken and their ability to implement it, which with respect to security I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about before actually investigating. When law enforcement, national security, and intelligence agencies work with major telcos, manufacturers, applications providers etc it seems odd to just assume this cannot matter at all. Lots of flawed policy processes are nonetheless consequential, no? Re: top down, ok if by this you mean CS is excluded and a number of segments of relevant Internet industries opt not to get involved. But for those industry groupings that opt to be involved, it is as bottom up as any other standards process. On 12/4/07 1:08 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> You will note that there is no designated role for civil society >> organizations. > > Those two can cover quite a lot of civil society among them. And I have > seen quite a few of the civil society people (especially privacy focused > ones) - Gus Hosein, Rikke Jorgensen etc - at ITU conferences on > cybersecurity in the past. That part at least is quite inclusive and broad > based. I've spoken at a number of ITU events too, so what? Means nothing, we're invited as academic/individual experts at the pleasure of event organizers, NOT as civil society that has a standing right to participate as in other UN agencies. The non-inclusion in the High-Level Experts Group and in the security work more generally is a conscious choice made at the very same time that ITU is nominally discussing the Swiss-Argentine proposal to let CS in. This has been discussed here before a number of times over the years and caucus members have agreed statements on it that were presented at ITU meetings, etc. 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 Tue Dec 4 03:09:15 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:09:15 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] References: <004f01c8363d$b7996ed0$26cc4c70$@net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDAF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> One example is the forthcoming ITU Kaleidescope Conference in May 2008 in Geneva. ITU is also trying to improve its relationship with Academia, mainly with the Technical Universities. http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/index.html See also TSAG-TD 496, December 3, 2007. wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sendt: ti 04-12-2007 07:20 Til: 'Lee McKnight'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller' Emne: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Lee McKnight wrote: > For example, if big chunks of industry think the ITU's next generation > networks standards will 'resolve' major parts of the cybersecurity > puzzle, I would advise civil society to be paying attention to ITU too. > As apparently a few individuals are doing. And if Suresh is offering a > way into the labyrinth, some CSers should step through. After you ; ) This is, by the way, an ITU-D BDT effort - in other words, rather different from other work ITU may be doing on (say) standards development. The botnet project will have several IETF / NANOG regulars coming in to conduct hands on workshops, for example. I am not offering a way into the "ITU labyrinth" .. don't have a ball of string handy. And there isn't a Minotaur waiting at the center either. I am just pointing out some ways and means - that already exist - where civ soc can actually participate in some initiatives that the ITU happens to be engaged in. Subtle difference, but it does exist, I assure you. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 4 11:53:53 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:53:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? Message-ID: What happened at the ALAC? Danny Younger expressed his concerns at a timly manner and on the proper Icann list. Anyone??? on the NARALO, ALAC, or CCNSO care to comment about *What Happened*. The results of what happened (or that is, what did'nt happen) are about to cement themselves in the 700MHz spectrum. ___________________________________________________________________ Final Thread: #4 Drop ALAC altogether??? A Primer on the FCC's 700MHz Auction Grant Gross, IDG News Service: PC World / Business Center Monday, December 03, 2007 7:00 PM PST http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/140245/a_primer_on_the_fccs_700mh z_auction.html Companies wishing to bid in the upcoming 700MHz auctions at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission were largely silent about their plans today, the deadline for submitting bid applications. Google on Friday announced it plans to bid on the spectrum, often called "beach front" property because it can carry wireless broadband signals three to four times farther than some other spectrum bands. An AT&T spokesman on Monday confirmed the company's earlier statements saying it intends to bid. A Verizon Wireless spokeswoman declined to comment on the company's bidding plans. Verizon in September had filed a lawsuit against the FCC for its so-called open-access requirements on about a third of the 62MHz of spectrum to be auctioned starting in late January. But last week the company announced it would open up its existing network to outside wireless devices and applications starting in 2008. So Verizon's objections to the FCC's similar open-access rules seem to have subsided. Sprint Nextel does not plan to participate, a spokesman said. "Sprint has all the spectrum it needs to meet its strategic business needs," spokesman Scott Sloat said. Startup Frontline Wireless, made up of wireless industry and government veterans, has also indicated it plans to bid in the auctions. There could be dozens of other bidders, including regional wireless carriers and broadband providers. What Happens Now? The FCC plans to make the names of the auction applicants public by Dec. 28. For one of the first times, the FCC is conducting an anonymous bidding process, so it will not disclose what sections of spectrum applicants intend to bid on. The auctions begin on Jan. 24, but they could last several weeks. Auctions go on as long as bidders keep bidding; the FCC's last major auctions, its advanced wireless services auctions in 2006, lasted about five weeks. If reserve prices aren't met on parts of spectrum, the FCC will re-auction those bands. The auction is conducted electronically with numerous rounds per day, with time frames for rounds growing shorter as bidding activity heats up. Why Is This Auction Important? The 700MHz auctions represent the last large chunk of spectrum available for the FCC to auction in the foreseeable future. In addition, the spectrum, now used to carry over-the-air television signals, can be used to carry long-range wireless broadband traffic. Many people, including FCC Chairman Kevin Martin have said the auction represents a golden opportunity to create a nationwide broadband network in competition with the providers of cable modem and DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) and fiber-based services. Some consumer groups have called the auctions the "last, best hope" for a third pipe that competes with cable operators such as Comcast and DSL and fiber-based providers such as AT&T and Verizon Communications. While many observers see the spectrum as optimal for wireless broadband, some carriers may use it for traditional wireless voice traffic as well. Some plans for the spectrum will likely include networks that merge traditional wireless voice with high-speed data services. Google seemed to be headed in that direction when it launched an open-development handset coalition in early November. In addition, about 20MHz of spectrum will go toward a nationwide voice and data network for public safety agencies, including police and fire departments. The U.S. Congress set aside about half of that spectrum for a public safety umbrella group, and the other half will be auctioned, with the winning bidder required to build a nationwide network that serves commercial and public-safety needs. Several lawmakers and public-safety officials pushed hard for the spectrum after communication problems during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. and later disasters. Public-safety agencies, using a wide variety of devices on different bands of spectrum, weren't able to communicate with each other. The FCC didn't require that bidders build certain types of networks, except that a voice and data network is envisioned for the public-safety network. And customers taking advantage of the open-access rules on about a third of the spectrum are likely to connect a variety of devices to the network. Beyond that, the FCC has required geographic or population-based build-out requirements on much of the spectrum. What's Being Auctioned? For sale is 62MHz of spectrum in the 700MHz band. In late 2005, after a decade of debate, Congress passed a law requiring U.S. TV stations to move to all-digital broadcasts and abandon analog spectrum between channels 52 and 69. The deadline for TV stations to end broadcasts in the 700MHz band is February 2009. The spectrum is broken up into five blocks. The C block, a 22MHz of spectrum that has the open-access rules, is broken up into 12 regional licenses across the U.S. A bidder can win one or more of those regional licenses. The A block is 12MHz, broken up into 176 smaller regions called economic areas, as is the 6MHz E block. The 12MHz B block is broken up into 734 local areas called cellular market areas. Again, bidders can win multiple regional or local licenses. Finally, 10MHz of spectrum in the D block, paired with about 10MHz set aside for public safety, is a nationwide license. Congress has budgeted the auctions to raise at least $10 billion, but many observers expect them to cost much more. The FCC set the reserve price for the C block of spectrum at $4.6 billion. ___________________________________________________________________ Previous related thread[s]: #1 (Begining to End) ref: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-12/msg00042.html Danny, What happend after this? In the end, How did this pan out?? Where does NeuStar stand today??? Ref.: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2/00 1021.html [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation Jacqueline A. Morris jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Jun 14 10:40:54 EDT 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Danny My email was to inform you that it is not ONLY a NA concern, and that the rest of the regions are working on cc issues as well. This was informational and there is no reason to threaten the existence of the NARALO. The NA region is part of the global AtLarge, and should be interested in working together with the rest of the world, and not only in isolation. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:] ; Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:42 AM To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation Hi Jacqueline, Sorry to disagree, but the NeuStar contract with the USG is scheduled to expire by the end of October (posing a potential redelegation issue), and frankly we don't have the luxury of waiting for the ALAC and the CCNSO to come to grips with the global aspects of the problem. This is a timely regional issue for us that we should be at liberty to handle by way of positing an ICANN obligation in the MOU (which is within our rights to request). The RALOs exist to deal with regional concerns. Let us handle this matter in our own fashion or let's just scrap the RALO concept. regards, Danny --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" wrote: > Hi Danny > This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set > up several meetings with > ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work > together on issues such as > this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO > MoU, but rather is a > global issue that ALL regions should work on > together. > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: > Redelegation > > I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency > in > the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever > seen > a detailed redelegation request posted for > consideration prior to action being taken by the > Board? > > The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last > go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes > to > declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm > > I certainly don't want the relevant Internet > community > being kept in the dark should the delegation of the > .us namespace become an issue. > > I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN > has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the > receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request > (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided > (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for > interested parties to have some voice in selecting > the > designated manager.") > -------------------------------------------------------- > > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann. org ___________________________________________________________________ Followup Thread: #2 ref: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-12/msg00043.html Danny, How come I can't find Amounts($) in 'Contractor Costs' ???? - NeuStar Contract for Management of .us Internet Domain. Modification 001 to the contract with NeuStar, November 1, 2007 Ref.: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/usTLD2007.html [See PDF Here] N. Contractor Costs: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/usTLD2007_19_N_Costs.pdf Why the Black-Out ??? (Figures are blacked out) Did NTIA see it as a National Security Issue ??? It glares at me like Nixon's 18� Minute Watergate tape gap. ___________________________________________________________________ Followup Thread: #3 http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-12/msg00057.html Oh ... Oooooh OK, I get it now, sorry I'm a little slow to catch on ... So let me get this striaght: The FCC is putting up the 700 MHz "beachfront property" for Auction. [ http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ ;] So as a results, Google and Verison are going to the mat for the space-race. Ref.: Google to battle telecom giants for wireless Web http://www.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_7609218 Mean while NeuStar cinches the contract with the NTIA for the next 3yrs, and operates the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) [ Assigns blocks of phone numbers to all qualified telecommunications companies in the 19 countries in North America, and manages area code utilization and relief. ] [ http://www.neustar.biz/ ;|http://www.nanpa.com/ ;] The Auction Now then, Google Brings Vint Cerf onboard, it already has a phone in the works, a content network, and a huge wad of dough. NeuStar then aquires Paul Lacouture to its Board of Directors. Lacouture is the former executive vice president of engineering and technology at Verizon Telecom, having retired in August 2007. In his new role, Lacouture joins NeuStar directors James Cullen, former president and COO of Bell Atlantic Corporation; Ross Ireland, former senior executive vice president of Services and CTO of SBC Communications Inc.; Dr. Kenneth Pickar, Visiting Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the California Institute of Technology; Jeff Ganek, Chairman and CEO of NeuStar; Hellene Runtagh, former CEO and President of Berwind Group; Joel Friedman, former president of Accenture's Business Process Outsourcing organization; and Michael Rowny, chairman of Rowny Capital and former president and CEO of MCI's International Ventures, Alliances, and Correspondent group. The company's board now totals 8 members, 7 of whom are non-employee directors. [ http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NEF06002112007-1.htm ] How nice. So as NeuStar expands its global reach, they Join the UIQ Alliance, UIQ Technology creates and licenses the open software platform UIQ to leading mobile phone manufacturers. Our flexible and customizable user interface and development platform is pre-integrated and tested with Symbian OS, the leading industry standard operating system for smartphones. [ http://www.uiq.com/aboutus.html ;| Members: http://www.uiq.com/partner_directory.html ;] In fact they (NeuStar, Inc.) announced that it has partnered with leading mobile phone operator SFR to bring Windows Live Messenger to SFR�s 18 million customers in France. [ http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=54161 ;] So NeuStar has positioned itself in both the US and European Markets, NeuStar's the Man ... if Google or Verison wins the 700 MHz Beachfront! I wonder if they will be selling Beachfront Condos or TimeShares??? Ref.: Will wireless carriers really open their networks? [ http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/att-verizon-really-open-their/story.aspx? guid=E8841127-57FF-41CC-8C23-FB682B3E6BF3&dist=SecMostMailed ] Well I'll be damned, ain't that something, all though people do'en all that for US. Hummm kinda brings a tear to my eyes. Danny, as Paul Harvey used to say: And that's the rest of the Story, and "good day"! ___________________________________________________________________ Final Thread: #4 (Top of Page) --- 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 dan at musicunbound.com Tue Dec 4 15:27:50 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:27:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <003701c83638$a8db1e20$fa915a60$@net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C699@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <003701c83638$a8db1e20$fa915a60$@net> Message-ID: The fundamental question here is simply one of relative benefit: Is there more to be gained from participation in this process at ITU than there is to be lost by risking unrecoverable resources and contributing potentially false legitimacy to the outcome? This must be a matter of individual judgment in each institutional case. ICANN and ITU are not institutionally structured in the same way (different parameters and dynamics of political influence and control over resulting policy), thus the cost/benefit tradeoff for CS may well resolve differently between the two cases. Apples and oranges. I see nothing involving grapes. ;-) Given that CS has limited resources to apply to influencing policy surrounding the Internet, it may need to pick and choose where it applies those resources very carefully. If ITU's proceedings here are just the red cape in a bullfight, then the CS bull would be remiss in charging at it with all of the energy that it could be directing at the matador instead. So, Suresh, can you address Milton's substantive claim that ITU's likely policy output (apparently a "top-down" approach to organizing the fight against cybercrime) is unlikely to make a difference? I'm sure I would personally learn something from a structured analysis here. Dan PS -- Somehow we ended up talking about ICANN again, even though this particular topic is actually not about ICANN at all. How in the world did that happen? I'm still scratching my head. At 11:13 AM +0530 12/4/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Why ask for a seat at the table in ICANN for that matter? > >This - again - sounds like sour grapes. > > srs > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:37 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: >> Irony] >> >> Bill: >> Why ask for a seat at the table of an inherently flawed policy process? >> ITU's approach is fatally top-down. Even if it (miraculously) gets >> adopted it won't have any effect on an Internet that operates on the >> basis of distributed decision making among private networks and users. >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >> > >> > Before the ITU's 191 member governments go off and decide on model >> > cybercrime legislation that is globally applicable, globally accepted >> > minimum security criteria and accreditation schemes, a global >> framework >> > for watch warning and incident response, and a framework for a global >> > multi-stakeholder [sic] strategy for international cooperation, it >> might >> > be good if CS people and fellow travelers were to do some work on >> these >> > issues and maybe even ask for a seat at the table. Might this be a >> role >> > for the IGC? Could there be a tie-in to the OECD ministerial as well? >> > >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1167 - Release Date: >> 12/3/2007 12:20 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 20:37:49 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:37:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net> yehudakatz at mailinator.com [04/12/07 08:53 -0800]: >Anyone??? on the NARALO, ALAC, or CCNSO care to comment about >*What Happened*. > >The results of what happened (or that is, what did'nt happen) >are about to cement themselves in the 700MHz spectrum. I am sorry but just how do you tie spectrum allocation food fights up with ICANN politics? Yes I read your earlier email but your logic still escapes me. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 20:47:15 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:47:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C699@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <003701c83638$a8db1e20$fa915a60$@net> Message-ID: <20071205014715.GD30100@hserus.net> Dan Krimm [04/12/07 12:27 -0800]: >So, Suresh, can you address Milton's substantive claim that ITU's likely >policy output (apparently a "top-down" approach to organizing the fight >against cybercrime) is unlikely to make a difference? I'm sure I would >personally learn something from a structured analysis here. This is not a top down process as such - at least in the context of the botnet project. Part is top down of course but there's a lot of flow from other directions - bottom up, grassroots etc. And this is not a policy initiative as much as it is an education / capacity building / outreach initiative. Trying to mandate the way countries set policy is way too overreaching a goal for the one year scope of this project. Putting countries in touch with (say) the CoE so that their framework on cybercrime may get extended ... now that's a bit different. Milton's claim is not as substantive as it appears to be, from my perspective. >PS -- Somehow we ended up talking about ICANN again, even though this >particular topic is actually not about ICANN at all. How in the world did >that happen? I'm still scratching my head. Wasn't that the Peters Principle of Internet Governance? With the corollary that any mention of ICANN in a non ICANN related thread (topic drift etc etc) would be equivalent to Godwin's law - "mention hitler and the thread ends"? :) srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Dec 5 01:22:29 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:22:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net Message-ID: Simply, Icann's Alac/Ralo system is just a placebo, my post was to illustrate for the General Manger (Kieran) that participation in the 'ground-up" position with Icann's system dose not work. And I would also add that Danny Younger was the GM's chosen example of how a person 'participates'. - Basically it shows the powerlessness of the User(s). This was a done-deal, done long ago, and those on the ALAC who were to safeguard our interest and also 'safeguard the process' ... were not there. Danny was basically told; 'Talk-to-the-Hand.' -- >how do you tie spectrum allocation food fights up with >ICANN politics? The Nets' next Wave - the 'wireless wave' will be a paramount paradigm shift. Television's paradigm nexus, wasn't because it delivered pictures & sound, it was because it was 'wireless' ... un-tethered ... you could get it almost anywhere. To quote the article: ...Some consumer groups have called the auctions the "last, best hope" for a third pipe that competes with cable operators such as Comcast and DSL and fiber-based providers such as AT&T and Verizon Communications. ... *** for a third pipe *** The Third Pipe: That 'pipe' is going to grow into the largest flow of traffic yet to be seen. It will reach the very edges, of each human hand. THIS was not something to let side by. You tell me, In any part of the World today: How many Mobile Cell Phone Vendors do you see? pushing the gambit of mobile-devices & plans � Yea you bet their coming out your ears, and they all need a share of �spectrum allocation� too access �ip-base-content�. And we haven�t even begun to see the number of un-tethered-mobile-devices, yet to come. So long as they operate mobile-to-base or mobile-to-mobile there will be an IP NetPlex. You don't need any imagination to see that. -- Note to Danny, Your the Man ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 01:45:49 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:45:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2007 9:22 AM, wrote: > Simply, > > Icann's Alac/Ralo system is just a placebo, my post was to illustrate for > the General Manger (Kieran) that participation in the 'ground-up" position > with Icann's system dose not work. > > And I would also add that Danny Younger was the GM's chosen example of how a > person 'participates'. > > - > Basically it shows the powerlessness of the User(s). > > This was a done-deal, done long ago, and those on the ALAC who were to > safeguard our interest and also 'safeguard the process' > ... were not there. Danny was basically told; 'Talk-to-the-Hand.' > > -- > > >how do you tie spectrum allocation food fights up with > >ICANN politics? > > You tell me, In any part of the World today: How many Mobile Cell Phone Vendors > do you see? pushing the gambit of mobile-devices & plans … > Yea you bet their coming out your ears, and they all need a share of "spectrum > allocation" too access "ip-base-content". And we haven't even begun to see the > number of un-tethered-mobile-devices, yet to come. So long as they operate > mobile-to-base or mobile-to-mobile there will be an IP NetPlex. > > You don't need any imagination to see that. Perhaps, but it is a stretch of my imagination to tie any of the above (pipes, content, data over wireless/mobile telephony) to ICANN. -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Dec 5 08:44:18 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:44:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net Message-ID: <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 02:22 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > Simply, > > Icann's Alac/Ralo system is just a placebo, my post was to illustrate > for > the General Manger (Kieran) that participation in the 'ground-up" > position > with Icann's system dose not work. I don't see how... > > And I would also add that Danny Younger was the GM's chosen example of > how a > person 'participates'. And he does. > > - > Basically it shows the powerlessness of the User(s). > > This was a done-deal, done long ago, and those on the ALAC who were to > safeguard our interest and also 'safeguard the process' > ... were not there. Danny was basically told; 'Talk-to-the-Hand.' > Really - I must have missed that email from the ALAC Chair, Cheryl... And being acquainted with her, I doubt that she would ever have said anything like that... >From re-reading the email list - Danny raised an issue, there was no traction from other At Large participants, maybe it wasn't important to the others, maybe for other reasons. For whatever reason, there was no follow up from the At Large membership. It's definitely a bottom-up process - ALAC can't be bottom-up and yet force an issue if the region or other members aren't interested. Compare this to the Summit idea - that came from Sebastien in Lisbon, gained a lot of interest from ALSes in San Juan and is now a major project across all regions. (It did hit some procedural bumps on the way, but they are mainly past) - that's bottom-up. I thank that if you have interest in an issue that you believe should be an At Large issue, then bottom-up suggests that you get other members to buy into your issue, and ask ALAC to step into the process when necessary. It's interesting that there's complaints about not enough bottom-up processes and too many top-down ones, but there's also complaints when the bottom-up process doesn't function like a top-down one. Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1169 - Release Date: 12/3/2007 22:56 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Dec 5 09:15:11 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:15:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: McTim, Most web-programmers will understand/see this, Today most "integrated development environment (IDE)s" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_development_environment contain or have plugins intergrated for Mobile devices. The IDE's are what we use to build the net, the web-programmers tools, and the IDE's dictate what technology the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) Host. [For example: .Net 3.5 or PHP on IIS7 or Lamp (the ISPs 'Package')] This trend began with wap, sms, xml technologies etc... it has metamorphosed into what we call today as Web/Enterprise 2.0 (Ajax / i.e.; XMLHttpRequest), which means basically the complied-programming (asp.net|php|etc) is a server-side feed to the end users GUI via ajax for portability. In layman terms: the websites (content) are now designed to server a greater variety of devices (terminals). Telco's market "Services", believe me you the net will flow will emerging technologies like Web 2.0, connected by the 700 mhz spectrum (wireless), it is the "last-mile" Internet connection out in the boonies. The final �Push of the Content-Push� Why would you spend a minimum of 4.5 Billion dollars for a slice of the spectrum, if it didn't connect to an Internet address? if it did not deliver web based Content? Stop into a T-Mobil or Cingular shop and take a look at what�s available. All the latest devices are net accessible, and there�s more to come! Your counter argument is telling us that Icann has nothing to do with; VoIP, Messaging, mobile streaming media experiences and the future sea of applications. Eyes-Wide-Shut, you haven't seen anything yet. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Streaming Media to Mobile Audiences: circa 2004 http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=8565&page=2&c=29 Facebook | Mobile: http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2915120374&b ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 09:38:25 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:08:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> Message-ID: <014901c8374c$7fcd1cd0$7f675670$@net> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > It's interesting that there's complaints about not enough bottom-up > processes and too many top-down ones, but there's also complaints when > the bottom-up process doesn't function like a top-down one. Or perhaps .. "this process doesn't work the way I want it to work, doesn't raise the issues I want it to raise, so it is bad, flawed, incompetent, etc etc etc" srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Dec 5 11:14:05 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:14:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: 00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com Message-ID: The Process: Jacqueline, My point(and more importantly Danny's at that moment) was the 'Process' of bottom-up was not being implemented, and as the counter balance too the 'Process' of top-down, there was no 'contest' to which it (Neustar technologies) was subject to. Hummm, think of it as a new-drug, the FDA just approved without any Independent Laboratory�s approval. Now the drug's on the market and come to find out, there are some horrible consequences (it was FDA rubber stamped). In our instance the FDA is the NTIA and the Drug Company is Neustar, the Pharmacies are the Telco�s. Icann's ALAC had an 'oversite' duty & function and they failed (for whatever reasons, I don't mean to point fingers / ad-hominem) This list is the - Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - We had a *Responsibility* and failed. And the Cynics will say, that it was run-through with a new-process, which real is the old-process of big-business getting what it wants. So, It is imperative that we strike a 'balance' with 'the-process-of-development' to instill 'Responsibility'. I don't care how its imitated, bottom-up or top-down. I feel we need to find something new. Something that works, We failed the People, thats it period. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 11:14:52 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:14:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2007 5:15 PM, wrote: > McTim, > Most web-programmers will understand/see this, I suspect that most web-programmers don't know what ICANN is, that's my experience. > Today most "integrated development environment (IDE)s" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_development_environment > contain or have plugins intergrated for Mobile devices. > > The IDE's are what we use to build the net, nit: the net is much more than the web the web-programmers tools, > and the IDE's dictate what technology the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) > Host. and these technologies have nowt to do with ICANN. > [For example: .Net 3.5 or PHP on IIS7 or Lamp (the ISPs 'Package')] > > This trend began with wap, sms, xml technologies etc... it has metamorphosed > into > what we call today as Web/Enterprise 2.0 (Ajax / i.e.; XMLHttpRequest), > which means basically the complied-programming (asp.net|php|etc) is a > server-side feed to the end users GUI via ajax for portability. In layman > terms: > the websites (content) are now designed to server a greater variety of devices > (terminals). I used to be a content-monkey for 2 dot coms, ICANN has no say in these deployments, nor do they want one. > > Telco's market "Services", believe me you the net will flow will emerging > technologies like Web 2.0, connected by the 700 mhz spectrum (wireless), > it is the "last-mile" Internet connection out in the boonies. > The final "Push of the Content-Push" > > Why would you spend a minimum of 4.5 Billion dollars for a slice of the > spectrum, > if it didn't connect to an Internet address? You wouldn't, but ICANN has very little to do with Internet Protocol address distribution to these investors, nor does it give domain names to them. if it did not deliver web based > Content? > Stop into a T-Mobil or Cingular shop and take a look at what's available. > All the latest devices are net accessible, and there's more to come! I don't live in T-Mobile or Cingular land, but even if I did, ICANN wouldn't have jurisdiction over these devices or the content served to them. > Your counter argument is telling us that Icann has nothing to do with; > VoIP, Messaging, mobile streaming media experiences and the future > sea of applications. basically, yes. ICANN has no direct jurisdiction over them, and certainly doesn't write/develop their standards, nor does it directly distribute CIRs to network interfaces that these apps cross. > > Eyes-Wide-Shut, you haven't seen anything yet. The former is false, the latter, I suspect is true. -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Dec 5 11:55:32 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:55:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: References: 00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com Message-ID: <017701c8375f$b44c9e00$1ce5da00$@com> I'm way confused by the reasoning here... How does ALAC (an administrative group of 10 people "representing" others (voted by the RALOS) and 5 put in by NomCom to "represent" the global balance ) have an oversight function towards the USG? I don't recall this anywhere in the bylaws, the RALO MoUs, anywhere. ALAC is (if you read the MoUs with the regions) required to do what the RALOs want. If the RALO doesn't want it, then ALAC isn't required to do anything. The ALAC may come up with something and send it down to the regions and say - hey - this is interesting and we think it might be something that At Large might want to weigh in on... Is this what you think should have happened for this US issue? Given that it was raised by a USan to the NARALO, which didn't choose to take it up as a cause, is that a failure of the system? Or showing the strength of the system? Maybe if the issue were well described and people could see how it affected them, there might have been interest. " Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - We had a *Responsibility* and failed " What does the failure of this list (not affiliated to ICANN in any way officially, far less At Large) have to do with the AtLarge structure being a failure or ALAC being a failure? I am still very very confused and not sure at all what point you are trying to get across. Sorry Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:14 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: RE: Re: [governance] What happened at the > NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > The Process: > Jacqueline, > My point(and more importantly Danny's at that moment) was the 'Process' > of > bottom-up was not being implemented, and as the counter balance too the > 'Process' of top-down, there was no 'contest' to which it (Neustar > technologies) was subject to. > > Hummm, think of it as a new-drug, the FDA just approved without > any Independent Laboratorys approval. Now the drug's on the market > and come to find out, there are some horrible consequences > (it was FDA rubber stamped). > > In our instance the FDA is the NTIA and the Drug Company is Neustar, > the Pharmacies are the Telcos. > > Icann's ALAC had an 'oversite' duty & function and they failed > (for whatever reasons, I don't mean to point fingers / ad-hominem) > This list is the - Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - > We had a *Responsibility* and failed. > > And the Cynics will say, that it was run-through with a new-process, > which real is the old-process of big-business getting what it wants. > > So, > It is imperative that we strike a 'balance' with 'the-process-of- > development' > to instill 'Responsibility'. I don't care how its imitated, bottom-up > or > top-down. > > I feel we need to find something new. > Something that works, We failed the People, thats it period. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1169 - Release Date: > 12/3/2007 22:56 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1169 - Release Date: 12/3/2007 22:56 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 11:56:07 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:56:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <017801c8375f$cbcbefe0$6363cfa0$@com> But none of these things are within ICANN's mandate... > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:15 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Re: Re: [governance] What happened at the > NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > McTim, > Most web-programmers will understand/see this, > Today most "integrated development environment (IDE)s" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_development_environment > contain or have plugins intergrated for Mobile devices. > > The IDE's are what we use to build the net, the web-programmers tools, > and the IDE's dictate what technology the ISPs (Internet Service > Providers) > Host. > [For example: .Net 3.5 or PHP on IIS7 or Lamp (the ISPs 'Package')] > > This trend began with wap, sms, xml technologies etc... it has > metamorphosed > into > what we call today as Web/Enterprise 2.0 (Ajax / i.e.; XMLHttpRequest), > which means basically the complied-programming (asp.net|php|etc) is a > server-side feed to the end users GUI via ajax for portability. In > layman > terms: > the websites (content) are now designed to server a greater variety of > devices > (terminals). > > Telco's market "Services", believe me you the net will flow will > emerging > technologies like Web 2.0, connected by the 700 mhz spectrum > (wireless), > it is the "last-mile" Internet connection out in the boonies. > The final Push of the Content-Push > > Why would you spend a minimum of 4.5 Billion dollars for a slice of the > spectrum, > if it didn't connect to an Internet address? if it did not deliver web > based > Content? > Stop into a T-Mobil or Cingular shop and take a look at whats > available. > All the latest devices are net accessible, and theres more to come! > > Your counter argument is telling us that Icann has nothing to do with; > VoIP, Messaging, mobile streaming media experiences and the future > sea of applications. > > Eyes-Wide-Shut, you haven't seen anything yet. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Streaming Media to Mobile Audiences: circa 2004 > http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=8565&page=2&c=29 > > Facebook | Mobile: > http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2915120374&b > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1169 - Release Date: > 12/3/2007 22:56 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1169 - Release Date: 12/3/2007 22:56 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 12:46:06 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 02:46:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <20071203235903.GA15134@hserus.net> References: <20071203235903.GA15134@hserus.net> Message-ID: >Meryem Marzouki [02/12/07 18:07 +0100]: >>from Interpol presentation and the harsh >>critics it received from an audience almost >>only composed by LEAs, it seems that Interpol >>is seen as too "closed" in its ways of >>operation and too slow-acting. LEA > >Well yes - but as I said, Interpol is a last resort and only when you need >global coordination / circulation of alerts to catch a criminal. > >MLATs - bilateral agreements between national law enforcement - work rather >faster, and dont need to be referred through Interpol. many national law enforcement agencies have rules on evidence sharing etc with other jurisdictions. I imagine these bilateral and multilateral agreements take careful consideration of human rights, not to violate those rights. (only example I can think of --and it's not a good one-- is many European countries won't extradite murder suspects to the US unless the prosecutor promises not to seek the death penalty.) Do CERTS/CSIRTS, antispam orgs etc have the same concerns? Do they care? Adam >>hand), etc. Moreover, this shouldn't be mixed >>up with issues mainly dealing with conflicts of >>rights, conflicts of jurisdictions and the >>absence of dual criminality (e.g. someone >>mentioned illegal gambling in a discussion on >>spam). Each category involve different >>problems, and different possible solutions, or >>at least different ways of addressing these >>problems. > >They shouldnt be. But they often are, when they are classified as a >criminal offense in one country (but not the other). LËse majestÈ >(disrespect to the king) in Thailand can get you upto 10 years hard time. > >Countries where law enforcement gets sucked into prosecuting this type of >offense often find that a substantial part of their international >enforcement work goes into trying to get some traction on "crimes" like >this. They get no traction - are told to take a hike because of free speech >issues - and so resort to things like banning Youtube, and get even more >negative headlines in the world press. It is a vicious cycle. > > srs >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Dec 5 12:57:31 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:57:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: 017701c8375f$b44c9e00$1ce5da00$@com Message-ID: Absolutely, there should have been some reciprocal consideration between the ALAC & RALO, a 'test' of oversight. >ALAC is required to do what the RALOs want. >If the RALO doesn't want it, then ALAC isn't >required to do anything. The ALAC should not just take the RALO's word for it. That's the rubber stamping. >The ALAC may come up with something and send it down to the regions and say - hey - this is interesting and we think it might be something that At Large might want to weigh in on... Is this what you think should have happened for this US issue? Yes, and Danny raised that red-flag. > Given that it was raised by a US an to the NARALO, which didn't choose to take it up as a cause, is that a failure of the system? Or showing the strength of the system? It show what the system is, for what it is, a centric-loop. Ret.: Where do you get - the bottom up effect? Because We can't find the way in. - > What does the failure of this list (not affiliated to ICANN in any way officially, far less At Large) have to do with the AtLarge structure being a failure or ALAC being a failure? We are the 'concerned citizen' (Netizens) of the net, by Society & Profession (CPSR), Gardians of the Net. We are the One who have to do-the-work with the 'stuff' that delivers the Net. We're the ones who get paid in Rouble & Rupies not Dollars to deliver the Net. We're the ones that see a World in decline, and see the Net as a way to change that direction. We're the ones who see beyond our own lives, and envision the future of our children. We are the ones who want to make a difference. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Dec 5 14:06:03 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:06:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: f65fb55e0712050814v4a005e20v5e37ba7a9a8e64c3@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: McTim, The day your Phone-Number becomes a web address (http://area.phone.num.com/), the reality will hit home. Neustar enum: http://www.enum.org/index.html?CFID=428983&CFTOKEN=13613274 Personal devices: ipods, psp, cell phone, pvp, pda whatever your plugged into, will innerconnect to the internet. You'll be your own little Utility Co. Yep that day is coming. Neustar: http://www.neustarultraservices.biz/ TWM Solicitors Selects NeuStar�s Managed Internal DNS Service: http://www.neustarultraservices.biz/news_events/articles/070810.html Demo: http://www.neustarultraservices.biz/technology/portal.html NeuStar National Pooling Website: http://www.nationalpooling.com/ NeuStar extends UltraDNS Network Infrastructure to Australia and China: http://www.domainnews.com/general/2007112805/neustar-extends-ultradns-network-i nfrastructure-to-australia-and-china/ -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 14:29:13 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:29:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <017701c8375f$b44c9e00$1ce5da00$@com> Message-ID: <523938.13882.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Jacqueline, re: "How does ALAC (an administrative group of 10 people "representing" others (voted by the RALOS) and 5 put in by NomCom to "represent" the global balance) have an oversight function towards the USG?" Let's reframe the question: "Can the ALAC comment on matters pertaining to ccTLDs, such as namespace policy considerations involved in a possible redelegation, as in .US?" In my view, in that the ALAC has a liaison to the ccNSO (that's you), has commented on the GAC-ccNSO IDN questionnaire, and has a remit that is broader than merely a focus on gTLDs, it should be able to comment on such matters. In potential redelegation situations, RFC 1591 advises "It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive communications from other parties that may be concerned or affected by the transfer." By the same token, such concerned parties should feel free to communicate with parties to the potential transfer (in this case, the USG, Neustar and others that entered competitive proposals) to similarly make their views known. The ALAC and the NARALO chose not to express any views to the USG -- they chose a path of non-involvement. So we now have a new contract that was issued to NeuStar to manage the .us namespace. One feature in this contract is the replacement of the former transparent multi-stakeholder .us Policy Council with a blog, a message board and RSS feeds -- see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/usTLD2007_17_L_Outreach.pdf Perhaps some degree of involvement may have led to a different outcome. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 15:46:46 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:46:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2007 10:06 PM, wrote: > McTim, > > The day your Phone-Number becomes a web address > (http://area.phone.num.com/), the reality will hit home. My phone number won't BE a web "address" per se, but might be an ENUM entry in the DNS one day. It would look like this: 6.6.6.5.8.6.2.8.7.6.5.2.e164.arpa With my providers DNS server being responsible for this part: 6.6.6.5.8.6.2.8.7 an as yet to be named entity (probably the Uganda Communications Commission if they take my advice) having the delegation for the 6.5.2 The ITU and RIPE NCC handling delegations for the .e164 bit and the IANA and the IAB handling delegations for .arpa and of course the IANA handling the unseen trailing dot (root). Since .arpa has already been delegated, there is little left for ICANN to do here. -- 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 16:40:12 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:40:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I'm a bit concerned that people think any of this has anything to do with ICANN. It's a bit like blaming the Roads Authority because your car has broken down. Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet or somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here: http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html Comments welcome. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:15 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: Re: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? McTim, Most web-programmers will understand/see this, Today most "integrated development environment (IDE)s" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_development_environment contain or have plugins intergrated for Mobile devices. The IDE's are what we use to build the net, the web-programmers tools, and the IDE's dictate what technology the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) Host. [For example: .Net 3.5 or PHP on IIS7 or Lamp (the ISPs 'Package')] This trend began with wap, sms, xml technologies etc... it has metamorphosed into what we call today as Web/Enterprise 2.0 (Ajax / i.e.; XMLHttpRequest), which means basically the complied-programming (asp.net|php|etc) is a server-side feed to the end users GUI via ajax for portability. In layman terms: the websites (content) are now designed to server a greater variety of devices (terminals). Telco's market "Services", believe me you the net will flow will emerging technologies like Web 2.0, connected by the 700 mhz spectrum (wireless), it is the "last-mile" Internet connection out in the boonies. The final Push of the Content-Push Why would you spend a minimum of 4.5 Billion dollars for a slice of the spectrum, if it didn't connect to an Internet address? if it did not deliver web based Content? Stop into a T-Mobil or Cingular shop and take a look at whats available. All the latest devices are net accessible, and theres more to come! Your counter argument is telling us that Icann has nothing to do with; VoIP, Messaging, mobile streaming media experiences and the future sea of applications. Eyes-Wide-Shut, you haven't seen anything yet. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Streaming Media to Mobile Audiences: circa 2004 http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=8565&page=2&c=29 Facebook | Mobile: http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2915120374&b ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 16:56:07 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:56:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <173360.21251.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kieren, I'm interested in your comment: "It cannot stop spam" I recall that the revised .xxx application in appendix S contained language allowing for rapid take-downs. Certainly provisions in new gTLD contracts could allow for the rapid takedown of domain names that are used in conjunction with unsolicited bulk/commercial emailings. ICANN has the means to act; it just doesn't have the will or sense of responsibility to act. regards, Danny --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > I'm a bit concerned that people think any of this > has anything to do with > ICANN. > > It's a bit like blaming the Roads Authority because > your car has broken > down. > > Does this list think it would be of much benefit if > I created a factsheet or > somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and > does not do? > > I knocked up some wording that I have been > soft-testing here: > http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html > > Comments welcome. > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com > [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:15 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Re: Re: [governance] What happened at > the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > McTim, > Most web-programmers will understand/see this, > Today most "integrated development environment > (IDE)s" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_development_environment > contain or have plugins intergrated for Mobile > devices. > > The IDE's are what we use to build the net, the > web-programmers tools, > and the IDE's dictate what technology the ISPs > (Internet Service Providers) > Host. > [For example: .Net 3.5 or PHP on IIS7 or Lamp (the > ISPs 'Package')] > > This trend began with wap, sms, xml technologies > etc... it has metamorphosed > into > what we call today as Web/Enterprise 2.0 (Ajax / > i.e.; XMLHttpRequest), > which means basically the complied-programming > (asp.net|php|etc) is a > server-side feed to the end users GUI via ajax for > portability. In layman > terms: > the websites (content) are now designed to server a > greater variety of > devices > (terminals). > > Telco's market "Services", believe me you the net > will flow will emerging > technologies like Web 2.0, connected by the 700 mhz > spectrum (wireless), > it is the "last-mile" Internet connection out in the > boonies. > The final Push of the Content-Push > > Why would you spend a minimum of 4.5 Billion dollars > for a slice of the > spectrum, > if it didn't connect to an Internet address? if it > did not deliver web based > Content? > Stop into a T-Mobil or Cingular shop and take a > look at whats available. > All the latest devices are net accessible, and > theres more to come! > > Your counter argument is telling us that Icann has > nothing to do with; > VoIP, Messaging, mobile streaming media experiences > and the future > sea of applications. > > Eyes-Wide-Shut, you haven't seen anything yet. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Streaming Media to Mobile Audiences: circa 2004 > http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=8565&page=2&c=29 > > Facebook | Mobile: > http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2915120374&b > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 17:24:32 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:24:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <173360.21251.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <173360.21251.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009a01c8378d$9cdd14b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Hi Danny, There is a world of difference between the suggestion to allow for introduction of a service that would help a third party tackle one source of spam; and saying you have anything to do with spam. ICANN doesn't have anything to do with spam. It never will have anything to do with spam. That is a very good thing. But if ICANN can work with the wider Internet community to do what parts it can to help in a wider fight against spam, we'll be happy to do it. Again though it is worth pointing out that "ICANN" doesn't create policy and approaches from thin air. People out there in the community come up with ideas and ICANN acts as the disseminator of those ideas. ICANN then reviews the feedback, tries to find a consensus, and puts out a document with the hope of moving forward. That document is then put out for review again - and continues to be put out for review unless it is boiled down to something people can vote on. Then, a supporting organisation that works within the ICANN model but acts independently of "ICANN", meaning ICANN staff, makes a decision. Then that decision is relayed to the Board - which also acts independently of "ICANN" - and the Board decides whether it goes through. In the same way that the earlier email appeared to confuse a whole range of issues as being related to ICANN; I think there remains significant confusion over how the ICANN decision-making model actually works. I realise that this comment will now restart the anti-ICANN arm-waving but you show me a PDP that started while I have been at ICANN (i.e. one in which I could reasonably assume to have knowledge of) that hasn't been through a process in which it is the community that provides the idea, the community that provides the input, the community that provides the comments, and the community that makes the decision. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 1:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: Re: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? Kieren, I'm interested in your comment: "It cannot stop spam" I recall that the revised .xxx application in appendix S contained language allowing for rapid take-downs. Certainly provisions in new gTLD contracts could allow for the rapid takedown of domain names that are used in conjunction with unsolicited bulk/commercial emailings. ICANN has the means to act; it just doesn't have the will or sense of responsibility to act. regards, Danny --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > I'm a bit concerned that people think any of this > has anything to do with > ICANN. > > It's a bit like blaming the Roads Authority because > your car has broken > down. > > Does this list think it would be of much benefit if > I created a factsheet or > somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and > does not do? > > I knocked up some wording that I have been > soft-testing here: > http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html > > Comments welcome. > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com > [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:15 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Re: Re: [governance] What happened at > the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > McTim, > Most web-programmers will understand/see this, > Today most "integrated development environment > (IDE)s" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_development_environment > contain or have plugins intergrated for Mobile > devices. > > The IDE's are what we use to build the net, the > web-programmers tools, > and the IDE's dictate what technology the ISPs > (Internet Service Providers) > Host. > [For example: .Net 3.5 or PHP on IIS7 or Lamp (the > ISPs 'Package')] > > This trend began with wap, sms, xml technologies > etc... it has metamorphosed > into > what we call today as Web/Enterprise 2.0 (Ajax / > i.e.; XMLHttpRequest), > which means basically the complied-programming > (asp.net|php|etc) is a > server-side feed to the end users GUI via ajax for > portability. In layman > terms: > the websites (content) are now designed to server a > greater variety of > devices > (terminals). > > Telco's market "Services", believe me you the net > will flow will emerging > technologies like Web 2.0, connected by the 700 mhz > spectrum (wireless), > it is the "last-mile" Internet connection out in the > boonies. > The final Push of the Content-Push > > Why would you spend a minimum of 4.5 Billion dollars > for a slice of the > spectrum, > if it didn't connect to an Internet address? if it > did not deliver web based > Content? > Stop into a T-Mobil or Cingular shop and take a > look at whats available. > All the latest devices are net accessible, and > theres more to come! > > Your counter argument is telling us that Icann has > nothing to do with; > VoIP, Messaging, mobile streaming media experiences > and the future > sea of applications. > > Eyes-Wide-Shut, you haven't seen anything yet. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Streaming Media to Mobile Audiences: circa 2004 > http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=8565&page=2&c=29 > > Facebook | Mobile: > http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2915120374&b > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Dec 5 17:42:10 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:42:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: At 1:40 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet or >somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? > >I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here: >http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html > >Comments welcome. Kieren, This is an interesting but minimal beginning. What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact actual policy making at ICANN. For example, when outlining the organizational structure of ICANN, it's very useful to delineate the lines of authority (who can say no to someone else at what stage of the process, who selects who has representational authority, etc.). What you have here is just the very top-level overview of what's going on (and much of this sort of thing can be found elsewhere on the ICANN web site), but the real meat of ICANN's operations is down in the belly. I'd love to see this expanded down there. For a more specific example, in the accountability section you mention an "independent Nominating Committee" but without detailing the process of selecting NomCom members themselves (and you should point out how the various constituencies have a formal hand in selecting and constraining that representation -- see: http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm#1_4 -- 5 ALAC, 2 BC, 1 each from Registries, Registrars, ccNSO, ISCPC, IPC, ASO, Board academic appt., NCUC, IETF, and TLG) it is not clear to the reader that the word "independent" is actually materially arguable here, given that it takes the authorization from one of the groups listed in order to get onto the NomCom as a voting member in the first place. So even though there may be no other body within ICANN that has the authority to overrule the NomCom decisions, many of those bodies have input into NomCom informally through their own representation. (I understand that the claim of "independence" of the NomCom may have some significant legal and/or regulatory ramifications, so this could be treading on thin ice. This is where your job gets delicate in the highest degree.) So if you left it at this, it would most definitely not be "transparent" because the bird's-eye-view of ICANN structure really does not do justice to understanding how power really flows under the hood (i.e., how policy is actually made at this institution -- will you make reference to the motto of "rough consensus and running code" as the iconographic deliberative model, and describe how that works in practice?). If you are going to do this at all you should try to do a very thorough job, because otherwise your effort might be viewed as an attempt to obfuscate and finesse rather than to truly inform. And then we get into disagreements, and people start throwing around ad hominems, and we just get distracted from the substantive issues all over again. Dan PS -- Granted, some of the important details apparently have not been settled yet, such as the Board's authority for "line item veto" or boundaries of jurisdiction for overruling policies that arise from SOs. The ICANN "constitution" (in terms of competing authority of checks and balances) is not actually fully completed in full detail, so far as I know. So it may be that in order to do this project right you would have to unearth some of the very contentious points that cause so much consternation in the IG community. But to avoid that level of detail might simply be interpreted as weaving wool for the eyes. Again, a highly delicate task. I'm sorry that I don't have an easy "consensus" solution for you 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Dec 5 18:21:01 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:21:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <009a01c8378d$9cdd14b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <27848.86388.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kieren, One of the problems I see is that not all policy matters work their way through the formal Policy Develoment Process. For example, I think that you would agree that domain hijackings are a "bad thing" and that from a policy perspective registrars should be required to adopt all necessary measures to safeguard the integrity of the domain name system. If you have a look at the SSAC report on Domain Hijackings issued in July 2005 you will note a series of ten recommendations (most of which have never been implemented) -- see http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf I have to ask myself, just what is the point of these Advisory Committee recommendations if there is no follow-through to make sure that such recommendations are adopted. What we have, in effect, is no policy at all regarding hijackings -- all we have are "best practices" that the registrar community has failed to adopt or abide by. So yes, the community pointed out a problem that came to the forefront in the wake of the PANIX hijacking, community input was provided, community comments were tendered, and a decision was essentially made by the Board to drop the matter and not proceed with a PDP (which under the bylaws they were at liberty to request). The process stalled at the Board level (and the public still has no idea why). This is, to me, not indicative of a process that works correctly. Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 18:39:38 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:39:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <20071203235903.GA15134@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20071205233938.GA5239@hserus.net> Adam Peake [06/12/07 02:46 +0900]: > many national law enforcement agencies have rules on evidence sharing etc > with other jurisdictions. I imagine these bilateral and multilateral > Do CERTS/CSIRTS, antispam orgs etc have the same concerns? Do they care? Do people get hanged for spamming? No? Very well then ... srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 18:41:35 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:41:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <012901c83798$603cc090$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact > actual policy making at ICANN. I agree with you. But the context in which I stuck in that link is in the broad explanation of what ICANN is, what it does and what it does not do. You have to have various levels of documents that, with luck, pull people in to the point where they are sitting down talking actual policy wording with a full and clear grasp of the issues. I call em "bridging documents". Although since everyone incessantly goes on about "learning curves" these days, what about "cable-car docs" ;-) Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:42 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do At 1:40 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet or >somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? > >I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here: >http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html > >Comments welcome. Kieren, This is an interesting but minimal beginning. What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact actual policy making at ICANN. For example, when outlining the organizational structure of ICANN, it's very useful to delineate the lines of authority (who can say no to someone else at what stage of the process, who selects who has representational authority, etc.). What you have here is just the very top-level overview of what's going on (and much of this sort of thing can be found elsewhere on the ICANN web site), but the real meat of ICANN's operations is down in the belly. I'd love to see this expanded down there. For a more specific example, in the accountability section you mention an "independent Nominating Committee" but without detailing the process of selecting NomCom members themselves (and you should point out how the various constituencies have a formal hand in selecting and constraining that representation -- see: http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm#1_4 -- 5 ALAC, 2 BC, 1 each from Registries, Registrars, ccNSO, ISCPC, IPC, ASO, Board academic appt., NCUC, IETF, and TLG) it is not clear to the reader that the word "independent" is actually materially arguable here, given that it takes the authorization from one of the groups listed in order to get onto the NomCom as a voting member in the first place. So even though there may be no other body within ICANN that has the authority to overrule the NomCom decisions, many of those bodies have input into NomCom informally through their own representation. (I understand that the claim of "independence" of the NomCom may have some significant legal and/or regulatory ramifications, so this could be treading on thin ice. This is where your job gets delicate in the highest degree.) So if you left it at this, it would most definitely not be "transparent" because the bird's-eye-view of ICANN structure really does not do justice to understanding how power really flows under the hood (i.e., how policy is actually made at this institution -- will you make reference to the motto of "rough consensus and running code" as the iconographic deliberative model, and describe how that works in practice?). If you are going to do this at all you should try to do a very thorough job, because otherwise your effort might be viewed as an attempt to obfuscate and finesse rather than to truly inform. And then we get into disagreements, and people start throwing around ad hominems, and we just get distracted from the substantive issues all over again. Dan PS -- Granted, some of the important details apparently have not been settled yet, such as the Board's authority for "line item veto" or boundaries of jurisdiction for overruling policies that arise from SOs. The ICANN "constitution" (in terms of competing authority of checks and balances) is not actually fully completed in full detail, so far as I know. So it may be that in order to do this project right you would have to unearth some of the very contentious points that cause so much consternation in the IG community. But to avoid that level of detail might simply be interpreted as weaving wool for the eyes. Again, a highly delicate task. I'm sorry that I don't have an easy "consensus" solution for you 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 18:42:50 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:42:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <173360.21251.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <173360.21251.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071205234250.GB5239@hserus.net> Danny Younger [05/12/07 13:56 -0800]: >I recall that the revised .xxx application in appendix >S contained language allowing for rapid take-downs. >Certainly provisions in new gTLD contracts could allow >for the rapid takedown of domain names that are used >in conjunction with unsolicited bulk/commercial >emailings. Perhaps not for UBE/UCE, but at least for botnets, the domain name is quite often the single point of failure these days. At least some ccTLDs (.hk for example) have developed a massive infestation of botnet domains. And they have then taken steps to clean this infestation off. >ICANN has the means to act; it just doesn't have the >will or sense of responsibility to act. Individual registrars, rather. Now, if Moniker would suddenly disappear, there'll be a substantial chunk of spammer domains (not just their usual stock in trade of tasted / parked etc domains) that would go down the drain srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 18:48:33 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:48:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <27848.86388.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <009a01c8378d$9cdd14b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <27848.86388.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <012a01c83799$594383e0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Actually the SSAC reports are a great example of the strange way in the which Internet self-regulates itself. They are also testament to Dave Piscitello, Steve Crocker and Suzanne Woolf's skills and foresight. What tends to happen is that the SSAC sees an issue coming; makes a decision to review it; does some really good research; produces a clear, coherent and insightful document; adds a set of recommendations; and then everyone ignores it... ... right up to the point where the issue that Dave, Steve and Suzanne foresaw actually hits. At which point everyone downloads the relevant SSAC report and starts implementing the recommendations as fast as they can. I've see it happen several times now and I predict it will happen again wrt domain name ownership, and wrt whatever they've produced in the past six months. This is Internet self-regulation at its very best. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:21 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: Re: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? Kieren, One of the problems I see is that not all policy matters work their way through the formal Policy Develoment Process. For example, I think that you would agree that domain hijackings are a "bad thing" and that from a policy perspective registrars should be required to adopt all necessary measures to safeguard the integrity of the domain name system. If you have a look at the SSAC report on Domain Hijackings issued in July 2005 you will note a series of ten recommendations (most of which have never been implemented) -- see http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf I have to ask myself, just what is the point of these Advisory Committee recommendations if there is no follow-through to make sure that such recommendations are adopted. What we have, in effect, is no policy at all regarding hijackings -- all we have are "best practices" that the registrar community has failed to adopt or abide by. So yes, the community pointed out a problem that came to the forefront in the wake of the PANIX hijacking, community input was provided, community comments were tendered, and a decision was essentially made by the Board to drop the matter and not proceed with a PDP (which under the bylaws they were at liberty to request). The process stalled at the Board level (and the public still has no idea why). This is, to me, not indicative of a process that works correctly. Danny ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 18:49:00 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:49:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <27848.86388.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <009a01c8378d$9cdd14b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <27848.86388.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071205234900.GC5239@hserus.net> Danny Younger [05/12/07 15:21 -0800]: >If you have a look at the SSAC report on Domain >Hijackings issued in July 2005 you will note a series >of ten recommendations (most of which have never been >implemented) -- see >http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf That IS actually a good document, and one I wish was implemented. Danny has a valid point there. Several of the worst "issues" around have been the sometimes unintended consequence of ICANN decisions - or shall we say have exploited loopholes and gray areas. The kiting issue for example, which abuses the add grace period. >request). The process stalled at the Board level (and >the public still has no idea why). This is, to me, >not indicative of a process that works correctly. That's more a question of a process that exists, works .. and then goes dysfunctional when it has to be implemented. And an indication that ICANN at least can't set or make policies as easily as it should. Especially when the implementation of those policies is often at the discretion of (say) individual registrars. How much of this can be blamed on the ICANN board and how much on ICANN staff responsible for translating policy statements into procedures, rules, directives, etc. What happens to the mass of paperwork generated in a PDP. A few questions that Danny seems to be asking. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 19:59:33 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:59:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The Cost of Participation In-Reply-To: <012a01c83799$594383e0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <455467.68965.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kieren, I just spotted this comment from Denise Michel, ICANN VP Policy Development, on the Council list: "India Travel – It is estimated that airfare for 21 Council members for this meeting would be US$147,000. Cost for hotel/per diem for 21 Council members for this meeting would be US$205,800." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04280.html Doing the math: $352,800 for 21 people to attend an ICANN session for six days -- that's $16,800 per person to attend an ICANN function. Another way of looking at it, $7000 per person for airfare and $9,800 per person for lodging for six days. Doesn't that strike you as being more than a tad expensive and a real barrier to participation? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 20:14:27 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:14:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: The Cost of Participation In-Reply-To: <455467.68965.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <012a01c83799$594383e0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <455467.68965.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <014301c837a5$596d5c90$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > Doesn't that strike you as being more than a tad > expensive... You must have mistaken me for the CFO. > and a real barrier to participation? If it encourages people to use the online participation site we build for every meeting in greater numbers, I'm all for it. In fact I think more online participation is ultimately in everyone's wider interests. I hope this was the answer you were looking for, Danny ;-) Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: The Cost of Participation Kieren, I just spotted this comment from Denise Michel, ICANN VP Policy Development, on the Council list: "India Travel - It is estimated that airfare for 21 Council members for this meeting would be US$147,000. Cost for hotel/per diem for 21 Council members for this meeting would be US$205,800." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04280.html Doing the math: $352,800 for 21 people to attend an ICANN session for six days -- that's $16,800 per person to attend an ICANN function. Another way of looking at it, $7000 per person for airfare and $9,800 per person for lodging for six days. Doesn't that strike you as being more than a tad expensive and a real barrier to participation? ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 20:14:45 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:14:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] The Cost of Participation In-Reply-To: <455467.68965.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <012a01c83799$594383e0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <455467.68965.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071206011445.GA7451@hserus.net> Danny Younger [05/12/07 16:59 -0800]: >Doing the math: $352,800 for 21 people to attend an >ICANN session for six days -- that's $16,800 per >person to attend an ICANN function. Another way of >looking at it, $7000 per person for airfare and $9,800 >per person for lodging for six days. > >Doesn't that strike you as being more than a tad >expensive and a real barrier to participation? Well, if you consult for the UN (or the ITU) - * They fly you coach - $7000 looks like first (not even business) * There's a fixed per diem of the sort that doesnt really make you that rich - even with delhi five star hotels starting from $300 on. http://www.who.int/bfi/PerDiem/pdindex.asp The new delhi per diem (hotel + food etc) - is $294 with 73% of it allocated for hotel cost, for "special hotels" - five star hotels like the Intercontinental, Grand Hyatt etc - (so probably at UN rates). Or $155 at other hotels. $9800 for lodging - that's more than $1600. Even if you count a large part of that towards staff / logistics cost (based on man hours of work done to book hotels and airfare, work with hotel / banquet staff to set up the meeting rooms etc) .. that's a tolerable chunk of change there. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 5 21:49:14 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:49:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <4757632A.6080502@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: >> Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet or >> somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? And one might also add a column that describes what ICANN was created to do. ICANN was created to provide assurance of technical stability in three areas: - The technical stability of the upper tiers of DNS as measured by the prompt, efficient, and accurate transformation of DNS query packets into DNS response packets without bias for or against any query source or query subject. - The technical stability of the IP address allocation system. - The efficient handling of protocol parameters on behalf of the IETF. Of these, the first is not being done by ICANN at all. This has created a dangerous situation for internet users (including business users) arguably like that faced by that the residents of New Orleans during the summer of 2005 when they believed, inaccurately as it turned out, that there was adequate protection against hurricanes and agencies with plans and assets ready to assist with recovery. The second has been effectively abandoned by ICANN to the RIRs. The RIR's gifted ICANN with about 2/3 of a million dollars (US) when ICANN was about to become insolvent and in return have obtained nearly complete independence while still retaining veil of immunity by being formally, if only in the most tenuous way, part of the ICANN family. The third is being done. One might wonder why other standards bodies that contribute to the internet - the W3C, the IEEE, even the ITU - have to pay for their own clerical functions while the IETF gets it for free from ICANN (oops, from IANA operated per purchase order from NTIA.) Which reminds me - when talking about functions it is important to clearly separate IANA from ICANN. The former is done by ICANN under contract and is not necessarily an intrinsically or inseparable part of ICANN. By-the-way, many have forgotten but the "technical assurance" language was not used in all contexts. ICANN's purpose as expressed when it got its US tax exemption was to "lessen the burdens of government". It's also amusing to look at the various claims of purpose that ICANN has made over the years. For example, in its year 2005 and 2006 US Federal tax filings ICANN claimed that it oversees the root servers - a job that it has never done: See http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000291.html --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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 21:58:30 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:58:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <4757632A.6080502@cavebear.com> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4757632A.6080502@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <000701c837b3$e2bb2b90$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I agree Karl. The problem is this darn Internet thing keeps evolving and changing. If we just holds hands and wish hard enough maybe it will stop. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:49 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dan Krimm Subject: Re: [governance] What ICANN Do Dan Krimm wrote: >> Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet or >> somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? And one might also add a column that describes what ICANN was created to do. ICANN was created to provide assurance of technical stability in three areas: - The technical stability of the upper tiers of DNS as measured by the prompt, efficient, and accurate transformation of DNS query packets into DNS response packets without bias for or against any query source or query subject. - The technical stability of the IP address allocation system. - The efficient handling of protocol parameters on behalf of the IETF. Of these, the first is not being done by ICANN at all. This has created a dangerous situation for internet users (including business users) arguably like that faced by that the residents of New Orleans during the summer of 2005 when they believed, inaccurately as it turned out, that there was adequate protection against hurricanes and agencies with plans and assets ready to assist with recovery. The second has been effectively abandoned by ICANN to the RIRs. The RIR's gifted ICANN with about 2/3 of a million dollars (US) when ICANN was about to become insolvent and in return have obtained nearly complete independence while still retaining veil of immunity by being formally, if only in the most tenuous way, part of the ICANN family. The third is being done. One might wonder why other standards bodies that contribute to the internet - the W3C, the IEEE, even the ITU - have to pay for their own clerical functions while the IETF gets it for free from ICANN (oops, from IANA operated per purchase order from NTIA.) Which reminds me - when talking about functions it is important to clearly separate IANA from ICANN. The former is done by ICANN under contract and is not necessarily an intrinsically or inseparable part of ICANN. By-the-way, many have forgotten but the "technical assurance" language was not used in all contexts. ICANN's purpose as expressed when it got its US tax exemption was to "lessen the burdens of government". It's also amusing to look at the various claims of purpose that ICANN has made over the years. For example, in its year 2005 and 2006 US Federal tax filings ICANN claimed that it oversees the root servers - a job that it has never done: See http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000291.html --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 Wed Dec 5 22:53:49 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:53:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <012901c83798$603cc090$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012901c83798$603cc090$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: So far this preliminary "bridging document" looks like the bridge to nowhere, so I have to assume you are not finished yet. Maybe you'd consider connecting up the other end? Here's a link you may be interested in adding, for example: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm And as long as we're all holding hands and wishing, how about a wish that ICANN would include *clear boundaries* to its mandate in its bylaws? That is: a *negative* mandate as well as a positive mandate, so that the phrase "reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions" (Bylaws, Section 1, Number 3) has some definition and authority to constrain run-away policy-makers who want to decide for themselves what is "reasonable and appropriate" about the relationship of the policies they are deciding in their own narrow interests. For example, maybe add something specific about ICANN policy not having anything to do with *semantic characteristics* of anything having to do with Internet addressing? Such semantic considerations seem completely unreasonable and inappropriate to apply to any ICANN policies regulating Internet addressing. Just as there are things that ICANN should address, there things that ICANN should not address. There should be some care taken to outline exactly what is inside and outside ICANN's jurisdiction, and semantic considerations should be outside. What *can't* ICANN do? Put it in writing. Vague and abstract adjectives are not adequate to define boundaries for political regulation. They just open huge loopholes in the policy process, which allows powerful lobbies to create much mischief. You can't have a rule of law without a clear law in the first place. One of the most effective things you could do with these bridges is lead people to the controversial topics where they ought to have an input. Might light a flame under their butts to come and participate -- nothing like alarm to get a reaction. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. ;-) Dan At 3:41 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact >> actual policy making at ICANN. > > >I agree with you. > >But the context in which I stuck in that link is in the broad explanation of >what ICANN is, what it does and what it does not do. > >You have to have various levels of documents that, with luck, pull people in >to the point where they are sitting down talking actual policy wording with >a full and clear grasp of the issues. > >I call em "bridging documents". Although since everyone incessantly goes on >about "learning curves" these days, what about "cable-car docs" ;-) > > > >Kieren > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:42 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do > >At 1:40 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >>Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet >or >>somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? >> >>I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here: >>http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html >> >>Comments welcome. > > >Kieren, > >This is an interesting but minimal beginning. What's I'd like to see is >reference to the details that impact actual policy making at ICANN. > >For example, when outlining the organizational structure of ICANN, it's >very useful to delineate the lines of authority (who can say no to someone >else at what stage of the process, who selects who has representational >authority, etc.). > >What you have here is just the very top-level overview of what's going on >(and much of this sort of thing can be found elsewhere on the ICANN web >site), but the real meat of ICANN's operations is down in the belly. I'd >love to see this expanded down there. > >For a more specific example, in the accountability section you mention an >"independent Nominating Committee" but without detailing the process of >selecting NomCom members themselves (and you should point out how the >various constituencies have a formal hand in selecting and constraining >that representation -- see: http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm#1_4 -- 5 ALAC, >2 BC, 1 each from Registries, Registrars, ccNSO, ISCPC, IPC, ASO, Board >academic appt., NCUC, IETF, and TLG) it is not clear to the reader that the >word "independent" is actually materially arguable here, given that it >takes the authorization from one of the groups listed in order to get onto >the NomCom as a voting member in the first place. So even though there may >be no other body within ICANN that has the authority to overrule the NomCom >decisions, many of those bodies have input into NomCom informally through >their own representation. (I understand that the claim of "independence" >of the NomCom may have some significant legal and/or regulatory >ramifications, so this could be treading on thin ice. This is where your >job gets delicate in the highest degree.) > >So if you left it at this, it would most definitely not be "transparent" >because the bird's-eye-view of ICANN structure really does not do justice >to understanding how power really flows under the hood (i.e., how policy is >actually made at this institution -- will you make reference to the motto >of "rough consensus and running code" as the iconographic deliberative >model, and describe how that works in practice?). > >If you are going to do this at all you should try to do a very thorough >job, because otherwise your effort might be viewed as an attempt to >obfuscate and finesse rather than to truly inform. > >And then we get into disagreements, and people start throwing around ad >hominems, and we just get distracted from the substantive issues all over >again. > >Dan > >PS -- Granted, some of the important details apparently have not been >settled yet, such as the Board's authority for "line item veto" or >boundaries of jurisdiction for overruling policies that arise from SOs. >The ICANN "constitution" (in terms of competing authority of checks and >balances) is not actually fully completed in full detail, so far as I know. >So it may be that in order to do this project right you would have to >unearth some of the very contentious points that cause so much >consternation in the IG community. But to avoid that level of detail might >simply be interpreted as weaving wool for the eyes. Again, a highly >delicate task. I'm sorry that I don't have an easy "consensus" solution >for you 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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 6 02:04:38 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:04:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <000701c837b3$e2bb2b90$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4757632A.6080502@cavebear.com> <000701c837b3$e2bb2b90$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <47579F06.2000807@cavebear.com> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > If we just holds hands and wish hard enough maybe it will stop. I can not tell if that is that a flippant dismissal or a serious answer. If it is a joke, it fails to amuse. If it is an answer it is an answer that ought to cause great concern and raise the question whether ICANN is on a path of reckless and negligent disregard for the reliable provision of DNS services to internet users. Are we to perceive that ICANN is to the internet as FEMA was to New Orleans? There is no doubt that ICANN is leaving internet users - people and businesses - at risk of service discontinuities on the net. Perhaps ICANNites feel that just because ICANN has already spent seven years of failure to meet its original promise that it need not do so now and that even discussion of that abandonment is to be belittled and dismissed? The DNS may not wobble this week or even next year, but if it does are we going to be hearing ICANN sounding some stoned dude: "not my job, man"? --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 krischenowski at dotberlin.de Thu Dec 6 02:33:03 2007 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:33:03 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <02d501c837da$3cfeaa20$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Kieren, When it comes to transparency at ICANN it is important for new people visiting the ICANN website or an ICANN meeting for the first time to know who's responsible for what and who reports to whom. When I look at the ICANN staff website I only find an alphabethic order of people working for ICANN, not an organisational chart or something similar. I just want to let you know that I made such a chart beginning of 2007 but since new empolyees are not announced all the time I failed to follow it: http://www.icannwiki.org/images/2/2b/ICANN_Staff_Organizational_Chart.pdf I should be not too difficult to get this organised. Dirk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 23:42 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] What ICANN Do At 1:40 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet or >somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? > >I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here: >http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html > >Comments welcome. Kieren, This is an interesting but minimal beginning. What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact actual policy making at ICANN. For example, when outlining the organizational structure of ICANN, it's very useful to delineate the lines of authority (who can say no to someone else at what stage of the process, who selects who has representational authority, etc.). What you have here is just the very top-level overview of what's going on (and much of this sort of thing can be found elsewhere on the ICANN web site), but the real meat of ICANN's operations is down in the belly. I'd love to see this expanded down there. For a more specific example, in the accountability section you mention an "independent Nominating Committee" but without detailing the process of selecting NomCom members themselves (and you should point out how the various constituencies have a formal hand in selecting and constraining that representation -- see: http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm#1_4 -- 5 ALAC, 2 BC, 1 each from Registries, Registrars, ccNSO, ISCPC, IPC, ASO, Board academic appt., NCUC, IETF, and TLG) it is not clear to the reader that the word "independent" is actually materially arguable here, given that it takes the authorization from one of the groups listed in order to get onto the NomCom as a voting member in the first place. So even though there may be no other body within ICANN that has the authority to overrule the NomCom decisions, many of those bodies have input into NomCom informally through their own representation. (I understand that the claim of "independence" of the NomCom may have some significant legal and/or regulatory ramifications, so this could be treading on thin ice. This is where your job gets delicate in the highest degree.) So if you left it at this, it would most definitely not be "transparent" because the bird's-eye-view of ICANN structure really does not do justice to understanding how power really flows under the hood (i.e., how policy is actually made at this institution -- will you make reference to the motto of "rough consensus and running code" as the iconographic deliberative model, and describe how that works in practice?). If you are going to do this at all you should try to do a very thorough job, because otherwise your effort might be viewed as an attempt to obfuscate and finesse rather than to truly inform. And then we get into disagreements, and people start throwing around ad hominems, and we just get distracted from the substantive issues all over again. Dan PS -- Granted, some of the important details apparently have not been settled yet, such as the Board's authority for "line item veto" or boundaries of jurisdiction for overruling policies that arise from SOs. The ICANN "constitution" (in terms of competing authority of checks and balances) is not actually fully completed in full detail, so far as I know. So it may be that in order to do this project right you would have to unearth some of the very contentious points that cause so much consternation in the IG community. But to avoid that level of detail might simply be interpreted as weaving wool for the eyes. Again, a highly delicate task. I'm sorry that I don't have an easy "consensus" solution for you 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 02:36:23 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:36:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012901c83798$603cc090$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <003d01c837da$b4a43e00$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> No, the whole point I was making was that this *wasn't* a bridging document. This is the first step. You were asking for bridging documents, I outlined that what I pointed to *wasn't* a bridging document and wasn't supposed to be. But that, yes, we do need them. I'm glad to see though that you didn't use this opportunity to be relentlessly negative and biased. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] What ICANN Do So far this preliminary "bridging document" looks like the bridge to nowhere, so I have to assume you are not finished yet. Maybe you'd consider connecting up the other end? Here's a link you may be interested in adding, for example: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm And as long as we're all holding hands and wishing, how about a wish that ICANN would include *clear boundaries* to its mandate in its bylaws? That is: a *negative* mandate as well as a positive mandate, so that the phrase "reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions" (Bylaws, Section 1, Number 3) has some definition and authority to constrain run-away policy-makers who want to decide for themselves what is "reasonable and appropriate" about the relationship of the policies they are deciding in their own narrow interests. For example, maybe add something specific about ICANN policy not having anything to do with *semantic characteristics* of anything having to do with Internet addressing? Such semantic considerations seem completely unreasonable and inappropriate to apply to any ICANN policies regulating Internet addressing. Just as there are things that ICANN should address, there things that ICANN should not address. There should be some care taken to outline exactly what is inside and outside ICANN's jurisdiction, and semantic considerations should be outside. What *can't* ICANN do? Put it in writing. Vague and abstract adjectives are not adequate to define boundaries for political regulation. They just open huge loopholes in the policy process, which allows powerful lobbies to create much mischief. You can't have a rule of law without a clear law in the first place. One of the most effective things you could do with these bridges is lead people to the controversial topics where they ought to have an input. Might light a flame under their butts to come and participate -- nothing like alarm to get a reaction. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. ;-) Dan At 3:41 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact >> actual policy making at ICANN. > > >I agree with you. > >But the context in which I stuck in that link is in the broad explanation of >what ICANN is, what it does and what it does not do. > >You have to have various levels of documents that, with luck, pull people in >to the point where they are sitting down talking actual policy wording with >a full and clear grasp of the issues. > >I call em "bridging documents". Although since everyone incessantly goes on >about "learning curves" these days, what about "cable-car docs" ;-) > > > >Kieren > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:42 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do > >At 1:40 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >>Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet >or >>somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? >> >>I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here: >>http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html >> >>Comments welcome. > > >Kieren, > >This is an interesting but minimal beginning. What's I'd like to see is >reference to the details that impact actual policy making at ICANN. > >For example, when outlining the organizational structure of ICANN, it's >very useful to delineate the lines of authority (who can say no to someone >else at what stage of the process, who selects who has representational >authority, etc.). > >What you have here is just the very top-level overview of what's going on >(and much of this sort of thing can be found elsewhere on the ICANN web >site), but the real meat of ICANN's operations is down in the belly. I'd >love to see this expanded down there. > >For a more specific example, in the accountability section you mention an >"independent Nominating Committee" but without detailing the process of >selecting NomCom members themselves (and you should point out how the >various constituencies have a formal hand in selecting and constraining >that representation -- see: http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm#1_4 -- 5 ALAC, >2 BC, 1 each from Registries, Registrars, ccNSO, ISCPC, IPC, ASO, Board >academic appt., NCUC, IETF, and TLG) it is not clear to the reader that the >word "independent" is actually materially arguable here, given that it >takes the authorization from one of the groups listed in order to get onto >the NomCom as a voting member in the first place. So even though there may >be no other body within ICANN that has the authority to overrule the NomCom >decisions, many of those bodies have input into NomCom informally through >their own representation. (I understand that the claim of "independence" >of the NomCom may have some significant legal and/or regulatory >ramifications, so this could be treading on thin ice. This is where your >job gets delicate in the highest degree.) > >So if you left it at this, it would most definitely not be "transparent" >because the bird's-eye-view of ICANN structure really does not do justice >to understanding how power really flows under the hood (i.e., how policy is >actually made at this institution -- will you make reference to the motto >of "rough consensus and running code" as the iconographic deliberative >model, and describe how that works in practice?). > >If you are going to do this at all you should try to do a very thorough >job, because otherwise your effort might be viewed as an attempt to >obfuscate and finesse rather than to truly inform. > >And then we get into disagreements, and people start throwing around ad >hominems, and we just get distracted from the substantive issues all over >again. > >Dan > >PS -- Granted, some of the important details apparently have not been >settled yet, such as the Board's authority for "line item veto" or >boundaries of jurisdiction for overruling policies that arise from SOs. >The ICANN "constitution" (in terms of competing authority of checks and >balances) is not actually fully completed in full detail, so far as I know. >So it may be that in order to do this project right you would have to >unearth some of the very contentious points that cause so much >consternation in the IG community. But to avoid that level of detail might >simply be interpreted as weaving wool for the eyes. Again, a highly >delicate task. I'm sorry that I don't have an easy "consensus" solution >for you 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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 02:48:06 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:48:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <02d501c837da$3cfeaa20$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <02d501c837da$3cfeaa20$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Message-ID: <003f01c837dc$572b2fc0$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Hi Kurt, Yes, I agree. We had this conversation a long time ago when I told you that as far as I could make out you had got the organisational structure correct. I am not in a position to decide how ICANN as an entire organisation represents itself and, if I'm being honest, this chart idea has fallen way down my list in terms of things to raise, but thank you for the reminder. I will suggest as far as I can that the internal structure of ICANN is laid out. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN [mailto:krischenowski at dotberlin.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:33 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] What ICANN Do Kieren, When it comes to transparency at ICANN it is important for new people visiting the ICANN website or an ICANN meeting for the first time to know who's responsible for what and who reports to whom. When I look at the ICANN staff website I only find an alphabethic order of people working for ICANN, not an organisational chart or something similar. I just want to let you know that I made such a chart beginning of 2007 but since new empolyees are not announced all the time I failed to follow it: http://www.icannwiki.org/images/2/2b/ICANN_Staff_Organizational_Chart.pdf I should be not too difficult to get this organised. Dirk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 23:42 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] What ICANN Do At 1:40 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet or >somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? > >I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here: >http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html > >Comments welcome. Kieren, This is an interesting but minimal beginning. What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact actual policy making at ICANN. For example, when outlining the organizational structure of ICANN, it's very useful to delineate the lines of authority (who can say no to someone else at what stage of the process, who selects who has representational authority, etc.). What you have here is just the very top-level overview of what's going on (and much of this sort of thing can be found elsewhere on the ICANN web site), but the real meat of ICANN's operations is down in the belly. I'd love to see this expanded down there. For a more specific example, in the accountability section you mention an "independent Nominating Committee" but without detailing the process of selecting NomCom members themselves (and you should point out how the various constituencies have a formal hand in selecting and constraining that representation -- see: http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm#1_4 -- 5 ALAC, 2 BC, 1 each from Registries, Registrars, ccNSO, ISCPC, IPC, ASO, Board academic appt., NCUC, IETF, and TLG) it is not clear to the reader that the word "independent" is actually materially arguable here, given that it takes the authorization from one of the groups listed in order to get onto the NomCom as a voting member in the first place. So even though there may be no other body within ICANN that has the authority to overrule the NomCom decisions, many of those bodies have input into NomCom informally through their own representation. (I understand that the claim of "independence" of the NomCom may have some significant legal and/or regulatory ramifications, so this could be treading on thin ice. This is where your job gets delicate in the highest degree.) So if you left it at this, it would most definitely not be "transparent" because the bird's-eye-view of ICANN structure really does not do justice to understanding how power really flows under the hood (i.e., how policy is actually made at this institution -- will you make reference to the motto of "rough consensus and running code" as the iconographic deliberative model, and describe how that works in practice?). If you are going to do this at all you should try to do a very thorough job, because otherwise your effort might be viewed as an attempt to obfuscate and finesse rather than to truly inform. And then we get into disagreements, and people start throwing around ad hominems, and we just get distracted from the substantive issues all over again. Dan PS -- Granted, some of the important details apparently have not been settled yet, such as the Board's authority for "line item veto" or boundaries of jurisdiction for overruling policies that arise from SOs. The ICANN "constitution" (in terms of competing authority of checks and balances) is not actually fully completed in full detail, so far as I know. So it may be that in order to do this project right you would have to unearth some of the very contentious points that cause so much consternation in the IG community. But to avoid that level of detail might simply be interpreted as weaving wool for the eyes. Again, a highly delicate task. I'm sorry that I don't have an easy "consensus" solution for you 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 02:58:49 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:58:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <47579F06.2000807@cavebear.com> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4757632A.6080502@cavebear.com> <000701c837b3$e2bb2b90$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47579F06.2000807@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <004001c837dd$d6afe190$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > If it is an answer it is an answer that ought to cause great concern and > raise the question whether ICANN is on a path of reckless and negligent > disregard for the reliable provision of DNS services to internet users. I think I ought to make it clear that everything I say and write is the living embodiment of ICANN the organisation. Many mistakenly believe that ICANN is a company like any other - where individuals bring their own particular skills, knowledge, ideas, backgrounds and experiences to the job. This could not be further from the truth. The first day you arrive, you are taken to the Postel Room (oh, how he would be ashamed) where you are subject to an intensive 36-hour brain-washing session during which all aspects of independent thought are carefully removed and discarded. You are then surgically enhanced with a device designed by Vint Cerf himself that links you to a next generation network (run by the ITU) where all your thoughts, feelings and utterances are uploaded daily from Paul Twomey's 4,000-foot yacht in the Caribbean. It's worse than you thought Karl. Far worse. "Faced with insoluble nonsense, you have a choice: to laugh or to cry. I myself always choose the former" - Oscar Wilde. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:05 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] What ICANN Do Kieren McCarthy wrote: > If we just holds hands and wish hard enough maybe it will stop. I can not tell if that is that a flippant dismissal or a serious answer. If it is a joke, it fails to amuse. If it is an answer it is an answer that ought to cause great concern and raise the question whether ICANN is on a path of reckless and negligent disregard for the reliable provision of DNS services to internet users. Are we to perceive that ICANN is to the internet as FEMA was to New Orleans? There is no doubt that ICANN is leaving internet users - people and businesses - at risk of service discontinuities on the net. Perhaps ICANNites feel that just because ICANN has already spent seven years of failure to meet its original promise that it need not do so now and that even discussion of that abandonment is to be belittled and dismissed? The DNS may not wobble this week or even next year, but if it does are we going to be hearing ICANN sounding some stoned dude: "not my job, man"? --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 krischenowski at dotberlin.de Thu Dec 6 03:09:32 2007 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (krischenowski at dotberlin.de) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:09:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [governance] What ICANN Do Message-ID: Kieren, When it comes to transparency at ICANN it is important for new people visiting the ICANN website or an ICANN meeting for the first time to know who's responsible for what and who reports to whom. When I look at the ICANN staff website I only find an alphabethic order of people working for ICANN, not an organisational chart or something similar. I just want to let you know that I made such a chart beginning of 2007 but since new empolyees are not announced all the time I failed to follow it: http://www.icannwiki.org/images/2/2b/ICANN_Staff_Organizational_Chart.pdf I should be not too difficult to get this organised. Dirk ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 6 03:43:51 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:43:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <004001c837dd$d6afe190$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4757632A.6080502@cavebear.com> <000701c837b3$e2bb2b90$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47579F06.2000807@cavebear.com> <004001c837dd$d6afe190$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <4757B647.5090705@cavebear.com> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > This could not be further from the truth. The first day you arrive, you are > taken to the Postel Room ... > > You are then surgically enhanced with a device designed by Vint Cerf ... Don't forget that Jon, Vint, Steve Crocker, and I all went to the Van Nuys High school during the 1960's - so we all drank from the same water fountain before we all went on to UCLA. By-the-way, some trivia: Van Nuys High was used as Ridgemont High in the Fast Times At... movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Times_at_Ridgemont_High) [VNHS was also mentioned in the flick "Earth Girls Are Easy".] But back to the topic at hand - Movies like Airplane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane!) can be fun, that is unless it is real life and one is a passenger. In that sense, ICANN is supposed to be piloting the DNS so that it remains technically reliable. However, ICANN apparently ate the fish dinner (from the movie) and has left the flying of the internet's DNS to Ted, Elaine, Otto, ??, with all of us on the net as passengers. --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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 6 04:16:13 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:16:13 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] What ICANN Do Message-ID: Dirk, I appreciate your bottom-up effort to bring greater transparency to ICANN, thanks for this. Perhaps it is not Kieren's job to update this, and get it posted to the ICANN website. For example maybe Paul's executive assistant can handle that, since it must be handy for Paul too to know who's where and doing what. Maybe you can pass this along Kieren? Thanks. And on that note, and not to slight my good friends in Canada, but whichever genius thought it was a good idea for Canada to have its own regional rep, just like all of Asia, needs to work on their math skills. (Yes I know Jacob was in the Caribbean too, which is a lot of national jurisdictions but umm, not so many Internet users when compared to Asia. And yes the Caribbean will get its own regionally based person before too long, which is a step in the right direction.) Anyway, I am aware ICANN is staffing up in these functions and adding new folks in Asia for example too, just surprised it took til (almost) 2008 for someone to realize that might be a good idea. Now if a chart like this had been on the website a couple years ago someone might have realized this sooner don;t you think? Kieren the little things count, and this is one of the things that ICANN shouldn't need folks on a listserv to tell them to take care of, but if that's the way bottom up works, here you go. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> krischenowski at dotberlin.de 12/06/07 3:09 AM >>> Kieren, When it comes to transparency at ICANN it is important for new people visiting the ICANN website or an ICANN meeting for the first time to know who's responsible for what and who reports to whom. When I look at the ICANN staff website I only find an alphabethic order of people working for ICANN, not an organisational chart or something similar. I just want to let you know that I made such a chart beginning of 2007 but since new empolyees are not announced all the time I failed to follow it: http://www.icannwiki.org/images/2/2b/ICANN_Staff_Organizational_Chart.pdf I should be not too difficult to get this organised. Dirk ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 6 07:46:01 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:46:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <523938.13882.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <017701c8375f$b44c9e00$1ce5da00$@com> <523938.13882.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00fc01c83806$1fc591e0$5f50b5a0$@com> I agree that the ALAC and RALOs (and ALSes and individuals) can (and should if they feel it important) comment and raise issues with government and institutional policy that impacts individual internet users. BUT I still don't see how that becomes a mandatory oversight function towards a sovereign government. Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 15:29 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; > yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: RE: RE: Re: [governance] What happened at the > NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > Jacqueline, > > re: "How does ALAC (an administrative group of 10 > people "representing" others (voted by the RALOS) and > 5 put in by NomCom to "represent" the global > balance) have an oversight function towards the USG?" > > Let's reframe the question: "Can the ALAC comment on > matters pertaining to ccTLDs, such as namespace policy > considerations involved in a possible redelegation, as > in .US?" > > In my view, in that the ALAC has a liaison to the > ccNSO (that's you), has commented on the GAC-ccNSO IDN > questionnaire, and has a remit that is broader than > merely a focus on gTLDs, it should be able to comment > on such matters. > > In potential redelegation situations, RFC 1591 advises > "It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive > communications from other parties that may be > concerned or affected by the transfer." > > By the same token, such concerned parties should feel > free to communicate with parties to the potential > transfer (in this case, the USG, Neustar and others > that entered competitive proposals) to similarly make > their views known. > > The ALAC and the NARALO chose not to express any views > to the USG -- they chose a path of non-involvement. > > So we now have a new contract that was issued to > NeuStar to manage the .us namespace. One feature in > this contract is the replacement of the former > transparent multi-stakeholder .us Policy Council with > a blog, a message board and RSS feeds -- see > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/usTLD2007_17_L_Outreac > h.pdf > > Perhaps some degree of involvement may have led to a > different outcome. > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > _____________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: > 12/5/2007 21:29 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 6 07:52:58 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:52:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <27848.86388.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <009a01c8378d$9cdd14b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <27848.86388.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c83807$11437820$33ca6860$@com> Advisory Committees can request Issues Reports and thence to PDPs. They don't have to kick the ball over to the Board. > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 19:21 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > Subject: RE: Re: Re: [governance] What happened at the > NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > Kieren, > > One of the problems I see is that not all policy > matters work their way through the formal Policy > Develoment Process. For example, I think that you > would agree that domain hijackings are a "bad thing" > and that from a policy perspective registrars should > be required to adopt all necessary measures to > safeguard the integrity of the domain name system. > > If you have a look at the SSAC report on Domain > Hijackings issued in July 2005 you will note a series > of ten recommendations (most of which have never been > implemented) -- see > http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf > > I have to ask myself, just what is the point of these > Advisory Committee recommendations if there is no > follow-through to make sure that such recommendations > are adopted. What we have, in effect, is no policy at > all regarding hijackings -- all we have are "best > practices" that the registrar community has failed to > adopt or abide by. > > So yes, the community pointed out a problem that came > to the forefront in the wake of the PANIX hijacking, > community input was provided, community comments were > tendered, and a decision was essentially made by the > Board to drop the matter and not proceed with a PDP > (which under the bylaws they were at liberty to > request). The process stalled at the Board level (and > the public still has no idea why). This is, to me, > not indicative of a process that works correctly. > > Danny > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > _____________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: > 12/5/2007 21:29 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Dec 6 09:15:56 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:15:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] internet in the developing world Message-ID: <106181.57055.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Following on from earlier discussions, The Guardian this week had Vint Cerf as the guest editor of MediaGuardian, and one of the articles was titled "Developing world", written by Steven Huter and Adiel Akplogan. Their article begins: The first full internet connection to the African continent was established in Tunisia in October 1991. Over the next 15 years, the transition from store-and-forward email networks to full internet connectivity in capital cities all over Africa progressed steadily, with Eritrea being the last to join the global internet in November 2000. While most of the continent's internet connections are via satellite today, the transition to fibre over the next five years will take off as one or more of the undersea cables currently competing to service eastern and southern Africa become operational. However, penetration to rural communities will continue to be limited due to the lack of infrastructure, and the cost of a personal computer is typically more than what the average person in a village can afford. The rest of the article, along with other guest contributors, are available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/03/mondaymediasection.internet --------- 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 Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Dec 6 10:11:59 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:11:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: internet in the developing world In-Reply-To: <106181.57055.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <106181.57055.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071206151158.GA16162@nic.fr> Too bad this excellent summary ends with the standard propaganda for deregulation, mixing political/police regulations like it exists in Tunisia and various business regulations which try to keep the country's economic system away from the jungle's law. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 11:37:33 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:37:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <4757B647.5090705@cavebear.com> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4757632A.6080502@cavebear.com> <000701c837b3$e2bb2b90$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47579F06.2000807@cavebear.com> <004001c837dd$d6afe190$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4757B647.5090705@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <006d01c83826$54c52ca0$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > But back to the topic at hand - Movies like Airplane > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane!) can be fun, that is unless it > is real life and one is a passenger. In that sense, ICANN is supposed > to be piloting the DNS so that it remains technically reliable. > However, ICANN apparently ate the fish dinner (from the movie) and has > left the flying of the internet's DNS to Ted, Elaine, Otto, ??, with all > of us on the net as passengers. Surely you can't be serious? I am serious and don't call me Shirley. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] What ICANN Do Kieren McCarthy wrote: > This could not be further from the truth. The first day you arrive, you are > taken to the Postel Room ... > > You are then surgically enhanced with a device designed by Vint Cerf ... Don't forget that Jon, Vint, Steve Crocker, and I all went to the Van Nuys High school during the 1960's - so we all drank from the same water fountain before we all went on to UCLA. By-the-way, some trivia: Van Nuys High was used as Ridgemont High in the Fast Times At... movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Times_at_Ridgemont_High) [VNHS was also mentioned in the flick "Earth Girls Are Easy".] But back to the topic at hand - Movies like Airplane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane!) can be fun, that is unless it is real life and one is a passenger. In that sense, ICANN is supposed to be piloting the DNS so that it remains technically reliable. However, ICANN apparently ate the fish dinner (from the movie) and has left the flying of the internet's DNS to Ted, Elaine, Otto, ??, with all of us on the net as passengers. --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 Thu Dec 6 11:48:24 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:48:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do In-Reply-To: <003d01c837da$b4a43e00$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: f65fb55e0712042245u1563fafw4d15bb2add5845e7@mail.gmail.com <009301c83787$6be21370$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012901c83798$603cc090$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <003d01c837da$b4a43e00$0301a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: Sorry, I clearly misunderstood you -- I thought you were saying this was a bridging doc. So bottom line: I don't expect this to have a whole lot of impact in increasing the quality and volume of public participation if the bridging docs are not created and integrated. I'm now puzzled as to what goal this doc was intended to achieve, who is the audience, etc. Dan PS -- As for your reference to "relentlessly negative and biased" I take this in the context of your replies to Karl as ironic, and therefore as an affirmative comment about me. In fact, I embrace it. I am indeed biased. In a political context such as this, where "rough consensus" is ultimately beyond reach, people will inevitably come down on different sides of the issues according to their differing political values. I am biased, you are biased, everyone reading this is biased. I am biased in favor of the general public interest, and I am biased against the maximalist agenda of the intellectual property lobby (which is effectively represented at ICANN by the IPC), for just two examples. These positions emerge out of my deeply felt populist, anti-elitist political values, of which I am quite unashamed. Secondly, whether one interprets my comments as "positive" or "negative" depends on one's own values. Those sharing similar values as mine will interpret my comments as positive, for example by addressing an important opportunity for improvement of governance dynamics at ICANN by adding important clarity that is currently missing from the bylaws. Those interpreting my comments as negative simply betray a differing set of values. Finally, I guess I *am* relentless in my advocacy of my political values, because I believe that we are at a critical point in the emergence of the information society, where we are establishing long-standing precedents regarding political power balances, and if we don't get it right the first time we may not have a second chance to correct our errors. I will persist as long as I am able. So bottom line: an accurate parsing of your comment reveals that it is ad hominem, however when one sets it in a proper political framework such as I've done above, I can only receive it as a compliment, and I wear it as a badge of honor. So my response to it is: "Why, thank you very much." :-) At 11:36 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >No, the whole point I was making was that this *wasn't* a bridging document. >This is the first step. > >You were asking for bridging documents, I outlined that what I pointed to >*wasn't* a bridging document and wasn't supposed to be. But that, yes, we do >need them. > >I'm glad to see though that you didn't use this opportunity to be >relentlessly negative and biased. > > > > >Kieren > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:54 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] What ICANN Do > >So far this preliminary "bridging document" looks like the bridge to >nowhere, so I have to assume you are not finished yet. Maybe you'd >consider connecting up the other end? Here's a link you may be interested >in adding, for example: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm > >And as long as we're all holding hands and wishing, how about a wish that >ICANN would include *clear boundaries* to its mandate in its bylaws? That >is: a *negative* mandate as well as a positive mandate, so that the phrase >"reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions" >(Bylaws, Section 1, Number 3) has some definition and authority to >constrain run-away policy-makers who want to decide for themselves what is >"reasonable and appropriate" about the relationship of the policies they >are deciding in their own narrow interests. > >For example, maybe add something specific about ICANN policy not having >anything to do with *semantic characteristics* of anything having to do >with Internet addressing? Such semantic considerations seem completely >unreasonable and inappropriate to apply to any ICANN policies regulating >Internet addressing. > >Just as there are things that ICANN should address, there things that ICANN >should not address. There should be some care taken to outline exactly >what is inside and outside ICANN's jurisdiction, and semantic >considerations should be outside. > >What *can't* ICANN do? Put it in writing. Vague and abstract adjectives >are not adequate to define boundaries for political regulation. They just >open huge loopholes in the policy process, which allows powerful lobbies to >create much mischief. You can't have a rule of law without a clear law in >the first place. > >One of the most effective things you could do with these bridges is lead >people to the controversial topics where they ought to have an input. >Might light a flame under their butts to come and participate -- nothing >like alarm to get a reaction. Be careful what you ask for, you might get >it. > >;-) > >Dan > > > >At 3:41 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>> What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact >>> actual policy making at ICANN. >> >> >>I agree with you. >> >>But the context in which I stuck in that link is in the broad explanation >of >>what ICANN is, what it does and what it does not do. >> >>You have to have various levels of documents that, with luck, pull people >in >>to the point where they are sitting down talking actual policy wording with >>a full and clear grasp of the issues. >> >>I call em "bridging documents". Although since everyone incessantly goes on >>about "learning curves" these days, what about "cable-car docs" ;-) >> >> >> >>Kieren >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:42 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do >> >>At 1:40 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> >>>Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet >>or >>>somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do? >>> >>>I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here: >>>http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html >>> >>>Comments welcome. >> >> >>Kieren, >> >>This is an interesting but minimal beginning. What's I'd like to see is >>reference to the details that impact actual policy making at ICANN. >> >>For example, when outlining the organizational structure of ICANN, it's >>very useful to delineate the lines of authority (who can say no to someone >>else at what stage of the process, who selects who has representational >>authority, etc.). >> >>What you have here is just the very top-level overview of what's going on >>(and much of this sort of thing can be found elsewhere on the ICANN web >>site), but the real meat of ICANN's operations is down in the belly. I'd >>love to see this expanded down there. >> >>For a more specific example, in the accountability section you mention an >>"independent Nominating Committee" but without detailing the process of >>selecting NomCom members themselves (and you should point out how the >>various constituencies have a formal hand in selecting and constraining >>that representation -- see: http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm#1_4 -- 5 ALAC, >>2 BC, 1 each from Registries, Registrars, ccNSO, ISCPC, IPC, ASO, Board >>academic appt., NCUC, IETF, and TLG) it is not clear to the reader that the >>word "independent" is actually materially arguable here, given that it >>takes the authorization from one of the groups listed in order to get onto >>the NomCom as a voting member in the first place. So even though there may >>be no other body within ICANN that has the authority to overrule the NomCom >>decisions, many of those bodies have input into NomCom informally through >>their own representation. (I understand that the claim of "independence" >>of the NomCom may have some significant legal and/or regulatory >>ramifications, so this could be treading on thin ice. This is where your >>job gets delicate in the highest degree.) >> >>So if you left it at this, it would most definitely not be "transparent" >>because the bird's-eye-view of ICANN structure really does not do justice >>to understanding how power really flows under the hood (i.e., how policy is >>actually made at this institution -- will you make reference to the motto >>of "rough consensus and running code" as the iconographic deliberative >>model, and describe how that works in practice?). >> >>If you are going to do this at all you should try to do a very thorough >>job, because otherwise your effort might be viewed as an attempt to >>obfuscate and finesse rather than to truly inform. >> >>And then we get into disagreements, and people start throwing around ad >>hominems, and we just get distracted from the substantive issues all over >>again. >> >>Dan >> >>PS -- Granted, some of the important details apparently have not been >>settled yet, such as the Board's authority for "line item veto" or >>boundaries of jurisdiction for overruling policies that arise from SOs. >>The ICANN "constitution" (in terms of competing authority of checks and >>balances) is not actually fully completed in full detail, so far as I know. >>So it may be that in order to do this project right you would have to >>unearth some of the very contentious points that cause so much >>consternation in the IG community. But to avoid that level of detail might >>simply be interpreted as weaving wool for the eyes. Again, a highly >>delicate task. I'm sorry that I don't have an easy "consensus" solution >>for you 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 >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 13:55:36 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:55:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: internet in the developing world In-Reply-To: <20071206151158.GA16162@nic.fr> References: <106181.57055.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20071206151158.GA16162@nic.fr> Message-ID: The article by Steven Huter and Adiel Akplogan ends: "To take full advantage of the power of the internet, African leaders must give rise to regulatory and political environments that remove cumbersome barriers, encourage competition by opening up markets to engage more access providers, and capitalise on these positive forces that ultimately will be the dynamic impetus to propel Africa forward". Take for example: "(giving) rise to regulatory and political environment that remove cumbersome barriers..." When you look at the situation in the Central African region where it takes a full 13 months for an operator to receive an acknowledgement letter for a demand for a licence to operate a VSAT internet services, there is need to give more consideration for that enlightened opinion. It should be noted that it will take another twelve or more months for a licence to be accorded. In the main time, ISP monopolies are encouraged, with the resultant effect being high cost of connection. On the other hand, the SAT3 optical fibre cable that sails the coast of Sahara Africa is another wasted opportunity not being exploited by countries of the Central African region. Unlike their counterparts of the West African region that have made an inclusive exploitation of this utility thus obtaining better internet connection for their citizens, internet connection in countries in Central Africa region in return, is dastardly very slow and uncertain. Isn't it time to include internet connection development as one of the guideline for debt cancellation? I agree that cost of computers remain expensive, but the high material cost could be depreciated by rapid connection and low internet cost. The article was a very good one and I encourage Mr Cerf and co to consider this angle in seeking for the encouragement of more internet connectivity. Aaron On 12/6/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Too bad this excellent summary ends with the standard propaganda for > deregulation, mixing political/police regulations like it exists in > Tunisia and various business regulations which try to keep the > country's economic system away from the jungle's law. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 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 siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 6 14:27:30 2007 From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:27:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] congractulations Nii Quaynor on receiving the prestigious Jon Postel Award Message-ID: <334024.49315.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I stand on behalf of the youth of Africa to congratulate you, Dr. Nii Narku Quaynor on winning the Jon Postel prestigious award of the year. We appreciate your consistency,struggle at building instituitions , frameworks, standard that today, we too, can say that we are a part of the global world. We are not oblivious of the challenges faced today interms of the internet penetration in Africa but we are also hopeful of the days ahead since the foundation has been built for us to move on further. Your envious landmark spreads across Africa and we, the youth of Africa are proud of your bravery in the midst of challenges from within and outside of Africa. Our Pan African fathers like Kwame Nkrumah championed our political freedom and you have remained; not joining the brain- drain to champion our presence on the information world, the internet. .This we agree have not come on a silver platter As an Academician- professor of computer science at University of Cape-Coast, Ghana, founding chairman of AfriNIC, the African numbers registry, the convener of the African Network Operators Group (AfNOG), Business Executive -chairman of Network Computer Systems (NCS) Ghana.COM , internet service proviser (ISP) , you have been a shinning role model on the land of our birth and we, today have the course to be proud to be called Africans. I must underscore here that every African has directly or indirectly been a recipient of your philanthropic works and we can look into the future with hope. We will on this same platform appeal that the youth should be well engaged on all multi-stakeholder activities of the internet to enable us better appreciate the internet. and see it has a tool for development. with a standing ovation, we say again congratulations! Ebenezer annang internet support, To know more about the Jon Postel award please see http://www.isoc.org/awards/. --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 6 14:40:48 2007 From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:40:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] congractulations Nii Quaynor on receiving the prestigious Jon Postel Award Message-ID: <869550.27197.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I stand on behalf of the youth of Africa to congratulate you, Dr. Nii Narku Quaynor on winning the Jon Postel prestigious award of the year. We appreciate your consistency,struggle at building instituitions , frameworks, standard that today, we too, can say that we are a part of the global world. We are not oblivious of the challenges faced today interms of the internet penetration in Africa but we are also hopeful of the days ahead since the foundation has been built for us to move on further. Your envious landmark spreads across Africa and we, the youth of Africa are proud of your bravery in the midst of challenges from within and outside of Africa. Our Pan African fathers like Kwame Nkrumah championed our political freedom and you have remained; not joining the brain- drain to champion our presence on the information world, the internet. .These we agree have not come on a silver platter As an Academician- professor of computer science at University of Cape-Coast, Ghana, founding chairman of AfriNIC, the African numbers registry, the convener of the African Network Operators Group (AfNOG), Business Executive -chairman of Network Computer Systems (NCS) Ghana.COM , internet service proviser (ISP) , you have been a shinning role model on the land of our birth and we, today have the course to be proud to be called Africans. I must underscore here that every African has directly or indirectly been a recipient of your philanthropic works and we can look into the future with hope. We will on this same platform appeal that the youth should be well engaged on all multi-stakeholder activities of the internet to enable us better appreciate the internet. and see it as a tool for development. with a standing ovation, we say again congratulations! Ebenezer annang internet support, To know more about the Jon Postel award please see http://www.isoc.org/awards/. --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. -------------- 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 Fri Dec 7 02:46:15 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:46:15 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] congractulations Nii Quaynor on receiving the prestigious Jon Postel Award References: <869550.27197.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDD4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear friends, let me join your congratulations to Nii. I know Nii since 2000, when he was the first free elected ICANN Director, representingf the Internet users of Africa in the Board. His interventions in his two years time were always very well balanced, full of wisdom und to the point. He was an excellent representative of the "black continent". I met him many times since that and his friendliness and never ending optimism ist a great souce of encouragement. Africans Internet community can be proud to have such a incredible man. Just recently he was on a panel at the IGF II in Rio de Janeiro wich I had the honour to moderate. He presented the .africa TLD inititiative, another great project. I wish him all success. Nii, congratulations and thank you Wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: annan ebenezer [mailto:siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com] Sendt: to 06-12-2007 20:40 Til: African Information Society Initiative - Discussion Forum; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ghana Information Networking and Knowledge Sharing; EBENZER ANNANG; armahleo at yahoo.co.uk; abcovell at syr.edu Emne: [governance] congractulations Nii Quaynor on receiving the prestigious Jon Postel Award I stand on behalf of the youth of Africa to congratulate you, Dr. Nii Narku Quaynor on winning the Jon Postel prestigious award of the year. We appreciate your consistency,struggle at building instituitions , frameworks, standard that today, we too, can say that we are a part of the global world. We are not oblivious of the challenges faced today interms of the internet penetration in Africa but we are also hopeful of the days ahead since the foundation has been built for us to move on further. Your envious landmark spreads across Africa and we, the youth of Africa are proud of your bravery in the midst of challenges from within and outside of Africa. Our Pan African fathers like Kwame Nkrumah championed our political freedom and you have remained; not joining the brain- drain to champion our presence on the information world, the internet. .These we agree have not come on a silver platter As an Academician- professor of computer science at University of Cape-Coast, Ghana, founding chairman of AfriNIC, the African numbers registry, the convener of the African Network Operators Group (AfNOG), Business Executive -chairman of Network Computer Systems (NCS) Ghana.COM , internet service proviser (ISP) , you have been a shinning role model on the land of our birth and we, today have the course to be proud to be called Africans. I must underscore here that every African has directly or indirectly been a recipient of your philanthropic works and we can look into the future with hope. We will on this same platform appeal that the youth should be well engaged on all multi-stakeholder activities of the internet to enable us better appreciate the internet. and see it as a tool for development. with a standing ovation, we say again congratulations! Ebenezer annang internet support, To know more about the Jon Postel award please see http://www.isoc.org/awards/ . ________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Dec 7 03:38:02 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:38:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Book References: <869550.27197.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDD4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDDA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Our IGF Book is now online. here is the URL http://medienservice.land-der-ideen.de/MEDIA/65534,0.pdf 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 Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 13:14:48 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:14:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] Microsoft skills training in Bhutan curriculum Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207101408.031b2e60@peoplewho.org> Microsoft skills training in Bhutan curriculum home 6 December, 2007 - A basic IT training curriculum for class 7-10 will be included in the existing courses for all Bhutanese higher and middle secondary school students by 2008. A memorandum of understanding to that effect was signed between the Department of Information Technology, Microsoft Bangladesh Limited, and Department of School Education in Thimphu on December 3. The agreement is geared to improve computer literacy in government schools. The curriculum has eight modules at the basic level in computers, digital media, Internet and World Wide Web, web designing, word processing, presentation, database and spreadsheet. "The availability of the skills training materials fulfill the much needed element to develop computer literacy amongst Bhutanese students," said the director of the Department of Information Technology, Tenzin Chhoeda. "This MoU gives us the right to use the well tested curriculum of Microsoft in our schools." The country manager of Microsoft for Bhutan, Bangladesh and Nepal, Feroz Mahmud, said that skills training would help create social and economic opportunities to change lives and communities. The curriculum, which is available in both hard and soft copies, will be distributed to all the schools by next year. http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9514 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 56782b.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 631 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 Fri Dec 7 16:53:45 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:53:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Book In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDDA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <869550.27197.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDD4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDDA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: At 9:38 AM +0100 12/7/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Our IGF Book is now online. > >here is the URL > >http://medienservice.land-der-ideen.de/MEDIA/65534,0.pdf Thanks for this, I'm enjoying reading a few bits already. I think Bill Drake's chapter addresses a framework for action on some of the issues we've been hitting our heads against recently. Nevertheless, I have a question for Bill. ----- Bill, given the codification in your conclusion: "Transparency, inclusive participation, and coordination, to the extent practicable, ought to be regarded as comparatively anodyne principles on which the international community can readily agree. In fact, it already has. All that is needed now is to put in place a process to assess and promote their implementation." Are you sure that the apparent agreement here was not based implicitly upon an assumption by some that implementation might well be illusory? That is, some folks might be perfectly happy to give lip service to high-flying moral principles as long as they don't have to actually do anything about it on the ground when they get home. We are quite familiar with that dynamic in politics in the US by now (it is common for legislation with high ideals to contain many compromises with regard to implementation and budget appropriation that were necessary to get political agreement, with the understanding that such provisions would systematically hamper the stated goals of the legislation -- it is well understood in political circles that implementation is "where the rubber hits the road" in public policy, and that there are opportunities to "have your cake (rhetorically) and eat it too (tangibly)"). I expect maybe elsewhere this dynamic has also been seen from time to time. If so, the rhetorical agreement may not be as tangibly broad-ranging as you assume, even in principle (which can itself diverge from politically acceptable [i.e., vague] rhetoric). As I was not part of either WSIS or WGIG (and not really IGF either, other than seeing recent IGC discussions here and helping out with the IGC NomCom for Rio), I can't really attest firsthand to whether this agreement was more than rhetorical, and actually a substantive, principled aspect of the (political) values of the participants. There may even be people who *believe* that they hold these principles, but when push comes to shove they have very narrow ideas about who has standing to be included. This is the trickiest area to navigate, because it involves people who think they are being inclusive when in fact they are being systematically restrictive. I do think that getting specific about the definitions of these terms will help us define exactly what we are talking about (i.e., it will illuminate more of the underlying political values and conceptual frameworks of those participating), which is prerequisite to doing anything tangible about it, but in the process we might discover that there is somewhat less agreement than originally imagined. I would love to believe that your axiom here is true, but it is easy to have doubts. If it is true, then of course it'd be fabulous for IGF to take it up systematically moving forward. In fact, even if it is not true, IGF should still try, because in the process of addressing the details of "transparency, inclusive participation, and coordination" (you've certainly got *my* vote for that, and in the *broadest* way possible) any rhetorical posers will be exposed and publicly shamed. Dan PS -- I also must voice my explicit concurrence with Milton's chapter. Alx likes to say that policy should be developed narrowly by focused institutions addressing "specific problem domains" and it seems to me that Milton is in conceptual agreement here by suggesting that we actually name those problems accurately and precisely in political terms, to the extent that these problems extend beyond purely technical considerations to matters of general political import. I went back and read Avri's chapter in the WGIG book recently, which was helpful to me in understanding the culture clash here, and it seems clear that the techie/politico terms of discourse are still "in flux" in terms of understanding one another. By way of personal disclosure, while I've been involved with "online services" from an end-user application and content production standpoint since 1981, I'm really (and unapologetically) coming to the realm of IG primarily from a public policy/political stance. And of course, I am also (and equally unapologetically) an *advocate* in a political sense (as, underneath it all, I believe we all are). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Dec 7 17:09:36 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:09:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Book In-Reply-To: References: <869550.27197.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDD4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDDA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <45ed74050712071409v4fa6b51dg31267658a2594edc@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, I just want to say thanks also, and am skimming, and appreciate Dan's selections here as advance organizers. Thank you much Wolfgang et al for putting this together, it is a true boon. Best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkloff *Respectful Interfaces*. (Programme of The Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.). On 12/7/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > > At 9:38 AM +0100 12/7/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >Our IGF Book is now online. > > > >here is the URL > > > >http://medienservice.land-der-ideen.de/MEDIA/65534,0.pdf > > > Thanks for this, I'm enjoying reading a few bits already. > > I think Bill Drake's chapter addresses a framework for action on some of > the issues we've been hitting our heads against recently. Nevertheless, I > have a question for Bill. > > ----- > > Bill, given the codification in your conclusion: > > "Transparency, inclusive participation, and coordination, to the > extent practicable, ought to be regarded as comparatively anodyne > principles on which the international community can readily > agree. In fact, it already has. All that is needed now is to put > in place a process to assess and promote their implementation." > > Are you sure that the apparent agreement here was not based implicitly > upon > an assumption by some that implementation might well be illusory? That > is, > some folks might be perfectly happy to give lip service to high-flying > moral principles as long as they don't have to actually do anything about > it on the ground when they get home. > > We are quite familiar with that dynamic in politics in the US by now (it > is > common for legislation with high ideals to contain many compromises with > regard to implementation and budget appropriation that were necessary to > get political agreement, with the understanding that such provisions would > systematically hamper the stated goals of the legislation -- it is well > understood in political circles that implementation is "where the rubber > hits the road" in public policy, and that there are opportunities to "have > your cake (rhetorically) and eat it too (tangibly)"). I expect maybe > elsewhere this dynamic has also been seen from time to time. If so, the > rhetorical agreement may not be as tangibly broad-ranging as you assume, > even in principle (which can itself diverge from politically acceptable > [i.e., vague] rhetoric). > > As I was not part of either WSIS or WGIG (and not really IGF either, other > than seeing recent IGC discussions here and helping out with the IGC > NomCom > for Rio), I can't really attest firsthand to whether this agreement was > more than rhetorical, and actually a substantive, principled aspect of the > (political) values of the participants. > > There may even be people who *believe* that they hold these principles, > but > when push comes to shove they have very narrow ideas about who has > standing > to be included. This is the trickiest area to navigate, because it > involves people who think they are being inclusive when in fact they are > being systematically restrictive. I do think that getting specific about > the definitions of these terms will help us define exactly what we are > talking about (i.e., it will illuminate more of the underlying political > values and conceptual frameworks of those participating), which is > prerequisite to doing anything tangible about it, but in the process we > might discover that there is somewhat less agreement than originally > imagined. > > I would love to believe that your axiom here is true, but it is easy to > have doubts. If it is true, then of course it'd be fabulous for IGF to > take it up systematically moving forward. In fact, even if it is not > true, > IGF should still try, because in the process of addressing the details of > "transparency, inclusive participation, and coordination" (you've > certainly > got *my* vote for that, and in the *broadest* way possible) any rhetorical > posers will be exposed and publicly shamed. > > Dan > > PS -- I also must voice my explicit concurrence with Milton's > chapter. Alx > likes to say that policy should be developed narrowly by focused > institutions addressing "specific problem domains" and it seems to me that > Milton is in conceptual agreement here by suggesting that we actually name > those problems accurately and precisely in political terms, to the extent > that these problems extend beyond purely technical considerations to > matters of general political import. > > I went back and read Avri's chapter in the WGIG book recently, which was > helpful to me in understanding the culture clash here, and it seems clear > that the techie/politico terms of discourse are still "in flux" in terms > of > understanding one another. By way of personal disclosure, while I've been > involved with "online services" from an end-user application and content > production standpoint since 1981, I'm really (and unapologetically) coming > to the realm of IG primarily from a public policy/political stance. And > of > course, I am also (and equally unapologetically) an *advocate* in a > political sense (as, underneath it all, I believe we all are). > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. N.B.: This is an individual and not an organizational post unless otherwise stated or implied. For I.D. only here: Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability (IDC Steering),and director Persons Wiyth Pain Inl., for the Intl. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabiliyties.. Persons With Pain International. National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus. IDC-ICT Taskforce. Respectful Interfaces* - Communications Coordination Committee For The United Nations; CCC/UN Board Member and Secretary; Chr., Online Committee.. Vita Summary: . Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- 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 Dec 7 20:29:45 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:29:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Book In-Reply-To: References: <869550.27197.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDD4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDDA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <224B8749-16C3-4A3D-AA60-76DDDF19CBFD@psg.com> hi, i do not think i know what you mean by this paragraph. sounds somewhat critical, which is cool, but i can't figure it out. a. On 7 dec 2007, at 13.53, Dan Krimm wrote: > I went back and read Avri's chapter in the WGIG book recently, > which was > helpful to me in understanding the culture clash here, and it seems > clear > that the techie/politico terms of discourse are still "in flux" in > terms of > understanding one another. By way of personal disclosure, while > I've been > involved with "online services" from an end-user application and > content > production standpoint since 1981, I'm really (and unapologetically) > coming > to the realm of IG primarily from a public policy/political > stance. And of > course, I am also (and equally unapologetically) an *advocate* in a > political sense (as, underneath it all, I believe we all are). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 8 05:42:37 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:42:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Dan, On 12/7/07 10:53 PM, "Dan Krimm" wrote: > Bill, given the codification in your conclusion: > > "Transparency, inclusive participation, and coordination, to the > extent practicable, ought to be regarded as comparatively anodyne > principles on which the international community can readily > agree. In fact, it already has. All that is needed now is to put > in place a process to assess and promote their implementation." > > Are you sure that the apparent agreement here was not based implicitly upon > an assumption by some that implementation might well be illusory? That is, > some folks might be perfectly happy to give lip service to high-flying > moral principles as long as they don't have to actually do anything about > it on the ground when they get home. Right, it's a "constructive" advocacy piece trying to remind/leverage "we all agreed to this" in a book published by the German government for a MS audience, rather than a biting critique of the interests at work and games being played. > I would love to believe that your axiom here is true, but it is easy to > have doubts. If it is true, then of course it'd be fabulous for IGF to > take it up systematically moving forward. In fact, even if it is not true, > IGF should still try, because in the process of addressing the details of > "transparency, inclusive participation, and coordination" (you've certainly > got *my* vote for that, and in the *broadest* way possible) any rhetorical > posers will be exposed and publicly shamed. The first half has already been done repeatedly, the second no. Of course, it'd be preferable to have such an enterprise carried forward in a more consensual "best practice sharing" manner, but if we can't have any good faith engagement on doing what was endorsed then may this orientation becomes the only recourse, other than whimpering and letting it drop. Cheers, Bill PS: Codification? Axiom? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 8 07:24:46 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:24:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Microsoft skills training in Bhutan curriculum In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207101408.031b2e60@peoplewho.org> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207101408.031b2e60@peoplewho.org> Message-ID: That is great news but when will Microsoft be bringing this to Cameroon? Any clue as to how my orgaization c On 12/7/07, Sylvia Caras wrote: > > *Microsoft skills training in Bhutan curriculum > > *[image: home] > *6 > December, 2007 - *A basic IT training curriculum for class 7-10 will be > included in the existing courses for all Bhutanese higher and middle > secondary school students by 2008. > > A memorandum of understanding to that effect was signed between the > Department of Information Technology, Microsoft Bangladesh Limited, and > Department of School Education in Thimphu on December 3. > > The agreement is geared to improve computer literacy in government > schools. The curriculum has eight modules at the basic level in computers, > digital media, Internet and World Wide Web, web designing, word processing, > presentation, database and spreadsheet. > > "The availability of the skills training materials fulfill the much needed > element to develop computer literacy amongst Bhutanese students," said the > director of the Department of Information Technology, Tenzin Chhoeda. "This > MoU gives us the right to use the well tested curriculum of Microsoft in our > schools." > > The country manager of Microsoft for Bhutan, Bangladesh and Nepal, Feroz > Mahmud, said that skills training would help create social and economic > opportunities to change lives and communities. > > The curriculum, which is available in both hard and soft copies, will be > distributed to all the schools by next year. > > http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9514 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 56782b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 631 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 Sat Dec 8 16:58:32 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:58:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] WGIG chapter (was: IGF Book) In-Reply-To: <224B8749-16C3-4A3D-AA60-76DDDF19CBFD@psg.com> References: <869550.27197.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDD4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDDA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <224B8749-16C3-4A3D-AA60-76DDDF19CBFD@psg.com> Message-ID: At 5:29 PM -0800 12/7/07, Avri Doria wrote: >hi, > >i do not think i know what you mean by this paragraph. sounds >somewhat critical, which is cool, but i can't figure it out. > >a. > >On 7 dec 2007, at 13.53, Dan Krimm wrote: > >> I went back and read Avri's chapter in the WGIG book recently, >> which was >> helpful to me in understanding the culture clash here, and it seems >> clear >> that the techie/politico terms of discourse are still "in flux" in >> terms of >> understanding one another. By way of personal disclosure, while >> I've been >> involved with "online services" from an end-user application and >> content >> production standpoint since 1981, I'm really (and unapologetically) >> coming >> to the realm of IG primarily from a public policy/political >> stance. And of >> course, I am also (and equally unapologetically) an *advocate* in a >> political sense (as, underneath it all, I believe we all are). I think maybe we are all too much on edge these days. I meant this completely "straight up" and certainly without any criticism of you personally -- just the opposite, I found your essay clarifying and illuminating. I hadn't read your chapter in WGIG book before (just got my hands on it recently to read another chapter), and it outlined in sharper relief the challenges you described between two professional communities that apparently had a good deal of difficulty communicating with each other ("techies" and "politicos" in my shorthand, but derived from the description in your chapter), so I learned something from it that had not been at the top of my mind through all of the debates on this list. This was genuinely valuable to me, because while I may have had a "subconscious suspicion" of something like this going on, I was not paying attention to it explicitly in my own head, and hadn't quite placed my finger on it so clearly as you did. I think that underlying some of the debates about jurisdiction and procedure (in particular at ICANN, but not restricted to that institution) may be related to persistent conceptual differences in this area -- that is, even though you made the IG community as a whole aware of these dynamics two years ago, it may not really have sunk in completely yet. So, in response to that, I thought it would be useful to place my own "professional community alliance" on the table in full disclosure, to help people interpret my own positions and statements, especially when I talk about the role of politics (i.e., public policy) in IG. I thought this might be an example for others to reflect on their own alliances and habits of thought, so that maybe we could address our collective informal "terms of reference" among each other as we continue to explore matters of substance. Sometimes when people start calling each other names about specific topics, it's really because they have different fundamental frames of reference. The topics just lead them to their different values, and rather than talking about the topics at hand they are really arguing about their differing values (with the specific topic just serving as a proxy for the deeper dispute). This happens all the time in political contexts, and I think it happens a lot here (and I think so because I think this is a political context -- of course, this is part of my conceptual framework, and that carries my values along with it). I think a lot of people in civil society are explicitly motivated by similar political concerns, and since IGC has a lot of CS folks in it, it makes sense that there should be a strong "politico" component to discussions here. Bottom line: if we are going to argue about the conceptual framework and the contrasting values, we should do that explicitly rather than using specific issues as proxy for that, because when the proxy dynamic gets involved it greatly confuses the discussion. Divide (the disputes) and conquer. Best, 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 dan at musicunbound.com Sat Dec 8 17:15:15 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:15:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:42 AM +0100 12/8/07, William Drake wrote: Thanks Bill, >PS: Codification? Axiom? Codification: In your piece you refer to a number of passages in WSIS documents, etc., that refer to various aspects of the three overall principles you list. You then proposed "transparency, inclusive participation, and coordination" as a formulation that captures all such principles generally. As this is not how the text appears in the WSIS document, it is an additional integration of ideas by you. Axiom: That the IG community as a whole has already actually agreed to such principles (in principle...). I was (and remain) uncertain about whether this was in fact accurate as an operational assumption. I applaud your advocacy here, and I hope the "leverage" from established rhetoric has a firm enough place to stand in the Archimedian sense. But my personal expectation at this time is that "only time will tell." I hope everyone who agreed to the WSIS principles will "put up" moving forward by supporting the creation of a formal process for assessment and promotion of the implementation of these principles. This is one of the deep core issues in any governance context. Especially when political dynamics are involved, the only way to achieve meaningful accountability is through structural and procedural formalities. Without a clear "rule of law" there is only the "rule of man" to fill the gap. 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 9 21:14:54 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:14:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > See above. Re: flawed yes, but fatally---this obviously depends on the > issue, the industry players involved, their degree of consensus and > support > for the approach taken and their ability to implement it, which with > respect > to security I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about before actually > investigating. When law enforcement, national security, and intelligence > agencies work with major telcos, manufacturers, applications providers etc > it seems odd to just assume this cannot matter at all. That kind of work is going on in many places, and the ITU is not the most significant place for it. Indeed, the ITU is rather marginalized these days. And if civil society critics succeeded, after the kind of HUGE effort that it would take, in getting an influential seat at some ITU table then the chances are great that certain parties would forum-shift to somewhere else. No one said the issues of lawful intercept and cybersecurity "don't matter." Indeed, if you've been paying attention to IGP's work at all you should know that we've been focusing on that quite a bit, with some relatively good results in the DNSSEC sphere. But this kind of politics is trench warfare and it makes little sense for CS groups to enter into a battle on the terms and conditions set by industry and govts, which is precisely what you are inviting us to do. > processes are nonetheless consequential, no? Re: top down, ok if by this > you mean CS is excluded and a number of segments of relevant Internet > industries opt not to get involved. But for those industry groupings that > opt to be involved, it is as bottom up as any other standards process. Sure. But think of resource allocation. Scarce time, labor money. I don't see the case for CS involvement in ITU processes, or for fighting a process battle in that forum. You give me a specific issue worth fighting for, and show me that ITU is the best place to fight it, then I'll be there. But if you want me to knock my head against the wall of a 150 year old bureaucracy trying to gain some generic recognition for something called "civil society" no thanks. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 12/9/2007 11:06 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 9 21:25:17 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:55:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <001701c83ad3$e918b480$bb4a1d80$@net> > You give me a specific issue worth fighting for, and show me that ITU > is the best place to fight it, then I'll be there. But if you want me > to knock my head against the wall of a 150 year old bureaucracy trying > to gain some generic recognition for something called "civil society" > no thanks. Well, if that means you recognized that it isn't worth trying to play politics in a field where there's a lot of entrenched politics already present .. great. There are quite a few broadly inclusive projects though, at least on cybersecurity - there could be other such projects in other areas - that actually welcome civ soc and industry participation. And have nothing much in particular to do with ITU decision making processes or voting / "flag" rights. All it amounts to is that a variety of different initiatives (quite often from other international organizations in government, industry and civil society) are applied practically, in a developing economy. And the results tabulated and reported back. And various organizations contribute their money, their people, and their efforts to do what they are already committed to doing [ICT and access? Capacity building? International cooperation and outreach?] If civil society groups that are actually in the trenches [1] doing these initiatives don't participate in them, it'd be a pity indeed. srs [1] As opposed to, say, merely churning out "position papers" and playing power politics ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 9 21:27:11 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:27:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > > From re-reading the email list - Danny raised an issue, there was no > traction from other At Large participants, maybe it wasn't important to > the others, maybe for other reasons. For whatever reason, there was no > follow up from the At Large membership. It's definitely a bottom-up > process - ALAC > can't be bottom-up and yet force an issue if the region or other members > aren't interested. True enough, Jackie, but what Danny was pointing out is that the North American RALO apparently had no interest, or nothing to say, about one issue that is clearly within its remit: the re-contracting of .us. That is sad. You go on to say something which reinforces Danny's point: > Compare this to the Summit idea - that came from Sebastien in Lisbon, > gained > a lot of interest from ALSes in San Juan and is now a major project across > all regions. (It did hit some procedural bumps on the way, but they are > mainly past) - that's bottom-up. A "global Summit of Internet users" strikes me as an example of how misdirected bottom up politics can become. If a summit of internet users has any value, it is because it will allow the voice of large numbers of mobilized users to be brought to bear on concrete policy issues. But if those users have _no positions_, nothing of substance to say on specific policy choices brought before ICANN and other institutions, then what good is it? Certainly the organizers of such a summit will feel important if it attracts a large crowd. Certainly it will create opportunities for budding new politicians to become more visible. But what is their agenda, what do they have to say, what principles will guide them? And how will that be brought to bear on specific, real policy choices in real governance agencies? I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 12/9/2007 11:06 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Dec 10 03:02:44 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:02:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet User Summit References: "20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net" <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDE9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Milton: But what is their agenda, what do they have to say, what principles will guide them? And how will that be brought to bear on specific, real policy choices in real governance agencies? I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't. Wolfgang: Why not to start with 12 people in a working group to draft a strategy to find out what to do and how to intervene? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Mon Dec 10 03:32:57 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:32:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > A "global Summit of Internet users" strikes me as an example of how > misdirected bottom up politics can become. If a summit of internet > users has any value, it is because it will allow the voice of large > numbers of mobilized users to be brought to bear on concrete policy > issues. But if those users have _no positions_, nothing of substance > to say on specific policy choices brought before ICANN and other > institutions, then what good is it? > > Certainly the organizers of such a summit will feel important if it > attracts a large crowd. Certainly it will create opportunities for > budding new politicians to become more visible. But what is their > agenda, what do they have to say, what principles will guide them? > And how will that be brought to bear on specific, real policy choices > in real governance agencies? > > I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want > to do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a > meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't. It's nice to agree with Milton every now and then :) However, since the idea of a summit came out months ago, I have been repeating that the ICANN Board will never put money on this if a clear explanation of "how will this event make a difference" isn't provided. So (AFAIK, as I'm not inside the process any more) the organizers are now working on providing exactly that. In general, I think that the event could be very useful or very useless depending on how its agenda and purposes are set up. I expect that this will be presented to the broader community in the near future. -- 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Dec 10 03:54:09 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:54:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Good morning, sunshine, On 12/10/07 3:14 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >> See above. Re: flawed yes, but fatally---this obviously depends on the >> issue, the industry players involved, their degree of consensus and >> support >> for the approach taken and their ability to implement it, which with >> respect >> to security I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about before actually >> investigating. When law enforcement, national security, and intelligence >> agencies work with major telcos, manufacturers, applications providers etc >> it seems odd to just assume this cannot matter at all. > > That kind of work is going on in many places, and the ITU is not the most > significant place for it. Indeed, the ITU is rather marginalized these days. This authoritative pronouncement is based on what, precisely? You've mapped the topology of all the work being done on all the security issues in all the relevant institutions, examined the ITU work program in relation to this, and determined that there is no interface and cross-pollination between these efforts, and that the routine practice of bringing work from, e.g. regional and tech-specific forums into ITU for multilateral adoption at the global level is of no significance to anything, and hence all the thousands of people involved from every government, major network operator, manufacturer, etc that are constantly over here just come to go shopping? Or are you really saying that you don't follow these things and therefore they don't matter? I have, as you know, written quite a bit over the years about the historical evolution and contemporary decline of the telecom regime, so I not only get the marginalization argument, but have made it. However, it's worth noting that this marginalization is relative; for example, while the telecom regulation treaty directly shapes a declining share of activity, carriers from the US alone (just one of 191 member states) still settle over $7 billion a year under its terms and are fairly concerned about current proposals for change. But that doesn't matter I guess, since it's not about domain names. The extent of marginalization is also highly variable: for spectrum management it's non-existent, for standards, including security-related aspects, it depends on a host of factors per previous. In some cases the main action is elsewhere, in some it's not. > And if civil society critics succeeded, after the kind of HUGE effort that it > would take, in getting an influential seat at some ITU table then the chances > are great that certain parties would forum-shift to somewhere else. I have absolutely no illusions that CS would make a HUGE effort and wasn't proposing this. But since the Argentine-Swiss proposals to open the door to CS are the focus of active debate right now, it'd be nice if CS wasn't entirely silent, which just makes it easier for the more retrograde governments to say why bother, they don't care anyway. At a post-WSIS ITU meeting a couple years ago, I presented a quickly assembled statement that was signed by two dozen caucus people criticizing the CS lock out and saying this is one of the reasons CS doesn't want ITU near IG, and it did get their attention. But now that friendly governments are actually trying to do something about the matter, we're not there to offer any support. Wille and I made presentations on CS inclusion at a meeting this year that were perceived I think as sort of solo views, not supported by any broader constituency demand. It'd have been nice if we'd had a sign on or something, which is not all that hard to do, except when the gestalt is, who cares, it's not ICANN. > No one said the issues of lawful intercept and cybersecurity "don't matter." > Indeed, if you've been paying attention to IGP's work at all you should know > that we've been focusing on that quite a bit, with some relatively good > results in the DNSSEC sphere. Like all good citizens, I am a dutiful student and hang on IGP's every word. Brendan's DNSSEC stuff is interesting and important, but it's a piece of a much larger puzzle, which is what we're talking about. > But this kind of politics is trench warfare and it makes little sense for CS > groups to enter into a battle on the terms and conditions set by industry and > govts, which is precisely what you are inviting us to do. Then why did we/you participate in WSIS? Why, for that matter, do you participate in ICANN if this is a disqualifier? That's the way the world is, so why not pack up our tents and go home? >> processes are nonetheless consequential, no? Re: top down, ok if by this >> you mean CS is excluded and a number of segments of relevant Internet >> industries opt not to get involved. But for those industry groupings that >> opt to be involved, it is as bottom up as any other standards process. > > Sure. But think of resource allocation. Scarce time, labor money. I don't see > the case for CS involvement in ITU processes, or for fighting a process battle > in that forum. > > You give me a specific issue worth fighting for, and show me that ITU is the > best place to fight it, then I'll be there. But if you want me to knock my > head against the wall of a 150 year old bureaucracy trying to gain some > generic recognition for something called "civil society" no thanks. Ok, restrict your head banging to a nine year old bureaucracy instead. FYI, today begins a four day meeting of WP 2 of SG 17 and there's a ton of people from irrelevant outfits like VeriSign over there. Here's the piffle WP 2 is currently working on: * Supplement 1 to X.800-X.849 series on security: Security baseline for network operators * Security architecture aspects of end users and networks in telecommunications * Framework for creation, storage, distribution and enforcement of policies for network security * Network security assessment/guidelines based on ITU-T Recommendation X.805 * Framework for EAP-based authentication and key management * Guidelines for implementing system and network security * Overview of cybersecurity * A vendor-neutral framework for automatic notification of security related information and dissemination of updates * Guidelines for telecommunication service providers for addressing the risk of spyware and potentially unwanted software * Guideline on preventing worm spreading in a data communication network * User control enhanced digital identity interchange framework * Identity management use cases and gap analysis * Identity management framework for global interoperability * Supplement to X-series Recommendations on identity management: Identity management lexicon * Requirements for global interoperable identity management * Network security management framework * Privacy guideline for RFID * Requirement of security information sharing framework * Service oriented architecture framework * Service oriented architecture security * Information security management guidelines for telecommunications based on ISO/IEC 27002 * Risk management guidelines for telecommunications * Security incident management guidelines for telecommunications * Telebiometrics related to human physiology * BioAPI interworking protocol * Telebiometrics authentication infrastructure * Telebiometrics digital key framework * A guideline of technical and managerial countermeasures for biometric data security * A guideline for secure and efficient transmission of multibiometric data * Telebiometrics system mechanism - General biometric authentication protocol and profile on telecommunication system * Telebiometrics system mechanism - Protection profile for client terminals * Device certificate profile for the home network * Guideline on user authentication mechanism for home network services * Differentiated security service for secure mobile end-to-end data communication * Authentication architecture in mobile end-to-end data communication * Correlative reacting system in mobile network * Security architecture for message security in mobile web services * Guideline on secure password-based authentication protocol with key exchange * Authorization framework for home network * Security requirements and framework in multicast communication * Privacy protection framework for networked RFID services * Security requirements for peer-to-peer communications * Security architecture for peer-to-peer network * Secure end-to-end data communication techniques using TTP services * Requirement and Framework for USN * Requirement on countering spam * Technical framework for countering email spam * Framework of countering IP multimedia spam * Guideline on countering email spam * Overview of countering spam for IP multimedia applications * Technical means for countering spam * Interactive countering spam gateway system * SMS filtering system based on users¹ rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 10 07:30:30 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:30:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <120752.59090.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> "I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't." Good point Milton. What is the point in giving fellowships to people from a certain part of the world x times a year to attend meetings, conferences, workshops, etc., when things remain largely the same. Is anybody taking stock? Is there any merit in encouraging participation from developing countries and spending money in the process? After about a decade can we say we have achieved the expected results? Is the approach the best or should we consider another approach? As an African who, among several others, has benefited from these fellowships, I have been wondering what impact our participation is having on the continent. I'm of the opinion that participants who are beneficiaries of any fellowship should be made accountable of some sort. Completing applications is not enough, I think. Kwasi Milton L Mueller wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > > From re-reading the email list - Danny raised an issue, there was no > traction from other At Large participants, maybe it wasn't important to > the others, maybe for other reasons. For whatever reason, there was no > follow up from the At Large membership. It's definitely a bottom-up > process - ALAC > can't be bottom-up and yet force an issue if the region or other members > aren't interested. True enough, Jackie, but what Danny was pointing out is that the North American RALO apparently had no interest, or nothing to say, about one issue that is clearly within its remit: the re-contracting of .us. That is sad. You go on to say something which reinforces Danny's point: > Compare this to the Summit idea - that came from Sebastien in Lisbon, > gained > a lot of interest from ALSes in San Juan and is now a major project across > all regions. (It did hit some procedural bumps on the way, but they are > mainly past) - that's bottom-up. A "global Summit of Internet users" strikes me as an example of how misdirected bottom up politics can become. If a summit of internet users has any value, it is because it will allow the voice of large numbers of mobilized users to be brought to bear on concrete policy issues. But if those users have _no positions_, nothing of substance to say on specific policy choices brought before ICANN and other institutions, then what good is it? Certainly the organizers of such a summit will feel important if it attracts a large crowd. Certainly it will create opportunities for budding new politicians to become more visible. But what is their agenda, what do they have to say, what principles will guide them? And how will that be brought to bear on specific, real policy choices in real governance agencies? I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 12/9/2007 11:06 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 .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good -------------- 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 Mon Dec 10 08:26:03 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:26:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <009c01c83b30$3804d950$a80e8bf0$@com> That Milton, is one of the things that we have to accept in a bottom-up process that gives the users the power. They may decide to do things that you, me, others don't agree with. But if a lot more of them vote to spend energy and resources for the Summit and none for the .us contract, than the ones who vote the other way, that's the democratic process. Can't have it both ways. Of course, it isn't either-or - if 1 person was interested and no one else was, there is the possibility to draft a position by oneself, and submit it to NARALO for approval as a NARALO statement, or to ALAC - and if they don't approve it, send it in by oneself! That said, there's loads of discussion in the Caribbean on redelegation issues (.bb was just redelegated to the Barbados Government) so all of the RALOs are not focused (or unfocused) on the same issues. That's one of the principles of the At Large - regional diversity. Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 22:27 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; > yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: RE: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > > > > From re-reading the email list - Danny raised an issue, there was no > > traction from other At Large participants, maybe it wasn't important > to > > the others, maybe for other reasons. For whatever reason, there was > no > > follow up from the At Large membership. It's definitely a bottom-up > > process - ALAC > > can't be bottom-up and yet force an issue if the region or other > members > > aren't interested. > > True enough, Jackie, but what Danny was pointing out is that the North > American RALO apparently had no interest, or nothing to say, about one > issue that is clearly within its remit: the re-contracting of .us. That > is sad. > > You go on to say something which reinforces Danny's point: > > > Compare this to the Summit idea - that came from Sebastien in Lisbon, > > gained > > a lot of interest from ALSes in San Juan and is now a major project > across > > all regions. (It did hit some procedural bumps on the way, but they > are > > mainly past) - that's bottom-up. > > A "global Summit of Internet users" strikes me as an example of how > misdirected bottom up politics can become. If a summit of internet > users has any value, it is because it will allow the voice of large > numbers of mobilized users to be brought to bear on concrete policy > issues. But if those users have _no positions_, nothing of substance to > say on specific policy choices brought before ICANN and other > institutions, then what good is it? > > Certainly the organizers of such a summit will feel important if it > attracts a large crowd. Certainly it will create opportunities for > budding new politicians to become more visible. But what is their > agenda, what do they have to say, what principles will guide them? And > how will that be brought to bear on specific, real policy choices in > real governance agencies? > > I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to > do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a > meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: > 12/9/2007 11:06 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Dec 10 08:28:46 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:28:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <009d01c83b30$9a415120$cec3f360$@com> Yep - we should find out about it soon, and then following ICANN's processes, everyone can comment, and then the Board will decide. So , if the RALO is for it but you are against it, say so in the comment period. Don't you just love the consultative process:) Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 04:33 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Cc: Jacqueline A. Morris; yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > > A "global Summit of Internet users" strikes me as an example of how > > misdirected bottom up politics can become. If a summit of internet > > users has any value, it is because it will allow the voice of large > > numbers of mobilized users to be brought to bear on concrete policy > > issues. But if those users have _no positions_, nothing of substance > > to say on specific policy choices brought before ICANN and other > > institutions, then what good is it? > > > > Certainly the organizers of such a summit will feel important if it > > attracts a large crowd. Certainly it will create opportunities for > > budding new politicians to become more visible. But what is their > > agenda, what do they have to say, what principles will guide them? > > And how will that be brought to bear on specific, real policy choices > > in real governance agencies? > > > > I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want > > to do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a > > meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't. > > It's nice to agree with Milton every now and then :) > > However, since the idea of a summit came out months ago, I have been > repeating that the ICANN Board will never put money on this if a clear > explanation of "how will this event make a difference" isn't provided. > So (AFAIK, as I'm not inside the process any more) the organizers are > now working on providing exactly that. In general, I think that the > event could be very useful or very useless depending on how its agenda > and purposes are set up. I expect that this will be presented to the > broader community in the near future. > -- > 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Dec 10 09:54:23 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:54:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Microsoft skills training in Bhutan curriculum In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207101408.031b2e60@peoplewho.org> Message-ID: <20071210145423.GA9189@nic.fr> On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 01:24:46PM +0100, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote a message of 133 lines which said: > That is great news but when will Microsoft be bringing this to > Cameroon? Sure, it is time to replace the public monopolies by private monopolies. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 10 11:12:35 2007 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:12:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] test - please ignore Message-ID: <9227CB68-4F6B-4ADD-82E4-81BBA6026A90@acm.org> . . . . . . . . . ok, so you did not ingore. someone was asking whether the list was working since it was so quiet. so i m sending this test message. see, it really was worth ignoring. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 10 12:21:07 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:21:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <009c01c83b30$3804d950$a80e8bf0$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <009c01c83b30$3804d950$a80e8bf0$@com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2B5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- >From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > >That Milton, is one of the things that we have to accept in a bottom-up >process that gives the users the power. They may decide to do things that >you, me, others don't agree with. But if a lot more of them vote to spend >energy and resources for the Summit and none for the .us contract, than the >ones who vote the other way, that's the democratic process. No, Jacky, that's not "democracy" that's "freedom of association," which is something I strongly favor but has little relevance to the issue of how users are represented in global governance of ICANN issues. This freedom of assocation doesn't give "users the power" over anything except what to do with their own time and resources -- a freedom they already have anyway. They don't need ALAC for that. The issue you are studiously ignoring is this: if ALAC is there to give ICANN user perspectives on actual policy choices that ICANN has to make, and if ALAC consistently does not do that, what are we to conclude? A number of conclusions are possible. One is that the people who are attracted to ALAC are not all that interested in the day to day issues of ICANN policy making but in other things... Another is that the structure of ALAC tends to encourage its members to do other things than pay attention to detailed policy issues, because the rewards for those other activities are perceived to be higher. Another is that ALAC-ers don't feel that they can really influence the specific policy issues on which comment is possible, so they choose not to do so and concentrate their time on things they feel they can control. I don't know which of these is right, if any, but would be interested in your perspective. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 10 13:08:20 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:08:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3312303A-C41E-45F2-B328-D3BB67AD9A25@psg.com> On 10 dec 2007, at 03.54, William Drake wrote: > FYI, today begins a four day meeting of WP 2 of SG 17 and there's a > ton of people from irrelevant outfits like VeriSign over there. > Here's the piffle WP 2 is currently working on: > ... wish i was there. i think you are right. we should be putting focus on this. but without actually living in Geneva, or being supported by a rich company/country, it is hard to be there to do anything. we should be doing something to support those who are there and could work in our name. how would we organise ourselves to this? we don't seem overly talented at organising ourselves for actoon lately. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 10 14:01:28 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:01:28 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <049801c83b5f$1ddb43a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> What Bill said – if we are going to do anything in the field of Internet governance, we have to deal with less than perfect organizations such as UN, governments, corporations, ITU, ICANN, IGP, and, dare I say it, the civil society caucus. If we can find a way to participate, we should. We should at least follow Bill’s suggestion that we ask for CS participation on the Committee of Experts. We could submit a raft of names for consideration asking that at least one be appointed (all submitted candidates should be people who we know would report back and liaise with CS) 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 _____ From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: 10 December 2007 19:54 To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Good morning, sunshine, On 12/10/07 3:14 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [HYPERLINK "mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch%5d"mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >> See above. Re: flawed yes, but fatally---this obviously depends on the >> issue, the industry players involved, their degree of consensus and >> support >> for the approach taken and their ability to implement it, which with >> respect >> to security I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about before actually >> investigating. When law enforcement, national security, and intelligence >> agencies work with major telcos, manufacturers, applications providers etc >> it seems odd to just assume this cannot matter at all. > > That kind of work is going on in many places, and the ITU is not the most > significant place for it. Indeed, the ITU is rather marginalized these days. This authoritative pronouncement is based on what, precisely? You've mapped the topology of all the work being done on all the security issues in all the relevant institutions, examined the ITU work program in relation to this, and determined that there is no interface and cross-pollination between these efforts, and that the routine practice of bringing work from, e.g. regional and tech-specific forums into ITU for multilateral adoption at the global level is of no significance to anything, and hence all the thousands of people involved from every government, major network operator, manufacturer, etc that are constantly over here just come to go shopping? Or are you really saying that you don't follow these things and therefore they don't matter? I have, as you know, written quite a bit over the years about the historical evolution and contemporary decline of the telecom regime, so I not only get the marginalization argument, but have made it. However, it's worth noting that this marginalization is relative; for example, while the telecom regulation treaty directly shapes a declining share of activity, carriers from the US alone (just one of 191 member states) still settle over $7 billion a year under its terms and are fairly concerned about current proposals for change. But that doesn't matter I guess, since it's not about domain names. The extent of marginalization is also highly variable: for spectrum management it's non-existent, for standards, including security-related aspects, it depends on a host of factors per previous. In some cases the main action is elsewhere, in some it's not. > And if civil society critics succeeded, after the kind of HUGE effort that it > would take, in getting an influential seat at some ITU table then the chances > are great that certain parties would forum-shift to somewhere else. I have absolutely no illusions that CS would make a HUGE effort and wasn't proposing this. But since the Argentine-Swiss proposals to open the door to CS are the focus of active debate right now, it'd be nice if CS wasn't entirely silent, which just makes it easier for the more retrograde governments to say why bother, they don't care anyway. At a post-WSIS ITU meeting a couple years ago, I presented a quickly assembled statement that was signed by two dozen caucus people criticizing the CS lock out and saying this is one of the reasons CS doesn't want ITU near IG, and it did get their attention. But now that friendly governments are actually trying to do something about the matter, we're not there to offer any support. Wille and I made presentations on CS inclusion at a meeting this year that were perceived I think as sort of solo views, not supported by any broader constituency demand. It'd have been nice if we'd had a sign on or something, which is not all that hard to do, except when the gestalt is, who cares, it's not ICANN. > No one said the issues of lawful intercept and cybersecurity "don't matter." > Indeed, if you've been paying attention to IGP's work at all you should know > that we've been focusing on that quite a bit, with some relatively good > results in the DNSSEC sphere. Like all good citizens, I am a dutiful student and hang on IGP's every word. Brendan's DNSSEC stuff is interesting and important, but it's a piece of a much larger puzzle, which is what we're talking about. > But this kind of politics is trench warfare and it makes little sense for CS > groups to enter into a battle on the terms and conditions set by industry and > govts, which is precisely what you are inviting us to do. Then why did we/you participate in WSIS? Why, for that matter, do you participate in ICANN if this is a disqualifier? That's the way the world is, so why not pack up our tents and go home? >> processes are nonetheless consequential, no? Re: top down, ok if by this >> you mean CS is excluded and a number of segments of relevant Internet >> industries opt not to get involved. But for those industry groupings that >> opt to be involved, it is as bottom up as any other standards process. > > Sure. But think of resource allocation. Scarce time, labor money. I don't see > the case for CS involvement in ITU processes, or for fighting a process battle > in that forum. > > You give me a specific issue worth fighting for, and show me that ITU is the > best place to fight it, then I'll be there. But if you want me to knock my > head against the wall of a 150 year old bureaucracy trying to gain some > generic recognition for something called "civil society" no thanks. Ok, restrict your head banging to a nine year old bureaucracy instead. FYI, today begins a four day meeting of WP 2 of SG 17 and there's a ton of people from irrelevant outfits like VeriSign over there. Here's the piffle WP 2 is currently working on: * Supplement 1 to X.800-X.849 series on security: Security baseline for network operators * Security architecture aspects of end users and networks in telecommunications * Framework for creation, storage, distribution and enforcement of policies for network security * Network security assessment/guidelines based on ITU-T Recommendation X.805 * Framework for EAP-based authentication and key management * Guidelines for implementing system and network security * Overview of cybersecurity * A vendor-neutral framework for automatic notification of security related information and dissemination of updates * Guidelines for telecommunication service providers for addressing the risk of spyware and potentially unwanted software * Guideline on preventing worm spreading in a data communication network * User control enhanced digital identity interchange framework * Identity management use cases and gap analysis * Identity management framework for global interoperability * Supplement to X-series Recommendations on identity management: Identity management lexicon * Requirements for global interoperable identity management * Network security management framework * Privacy guideline for RFID * Requirement of security information sharing framework * Service oriented architecture framework * Service oriented architecture security * Information security management guidelines for telecommunications based on ISO/IEC 27002 * Risk management guidelines for telecommunications * Security incident management guidelines for telecommunications * Telebiometrics related to human physiology * BioAPI interworking protocol * Telebiometrics authentication infrastructure * Telebiometrics digital key framework * A guideline of technical and managerial countermeasures for biometric data security * A guideline for secure and efficient transmission of multibiometric data * Telebiometrics system mechanism - General biometric authentication protocol and profile on telecommunication system * Telebiometrics system mechanism - Protection profile for client terminals * Device certificate profile for the home network * Guideline on user authentication mechanism for home network services * Differentiated security service for secure mobile end-to-end data communication * Authentication architecture in mobile end-to-end data communication * Correlative reacting system in mobile network * Security architecture for message security in mobile web services * Guideline on secure password-based authentication protocol with key exchange * Authorization framework for home network * Security requirements and framework in multicast communication * Privacy protection framework for networked RFID services * Security requirements for peer-to-peer communications * Security architecture for peer-to-peer network * Secure end-to-end data communication techniques using TTP services * Requirement and Framework for USN * Requirement on countering spam * Technical framework for countering email spam * Framework of countering IP multimedia spam * Guideline on countering email spam * Overview of countering spam for IP multimedia applications * Technical means for countering spam * Interactive countering spam gateway system * SMS filtering system based on users’ rules No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 09/12/2007 11:06 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 09/12/2007 11:06 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 10 14:53:30 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:53:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Message-ID: Bill, Ian, Jumping in as someone who has 'forum shopped' into and out of ITU: I agree with Milton that ITU can be a total timesink, and agree with Bill that in spite of that it behooves CS to keep pushing on the door if it is starting to sway open; without illusions about how far that may get CS inside. Legitmating Bill and/or others as CS/IGC ambassadors into that (swamp? ig policy arena? pick your adjective) on the Committee of Experts is I agree worth some effort. Also, a side door into ITU agenda-setting is through their mega-conferences, for example ITU Telecom Africa in Cairo in May; not that we don;t all have more than enough events to go to already. Usually just industry and regulatory types and a select few academics get on their programs. But the chair of the the ITU program committee Norman Lewis happens to be working for my startup WGC - talk to me offline about that ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com 12/10/07 2:01 PM >>> What Bill said * if we are going to do anything in the field of Internet governance, we have to deal with less than perfect organizations such as UN, governments, corporations, ITU, ICANN, IGP, and, dare I say it, the civil society caucus. If we can find a way to participate, we should. We should at least follow Bill’s suggestion that we ask for CS participation on the Committee of Experts. We could submit a raft of names for consideration asking that at least one be appointed (all submitted candidates should be people who we know would report back and liaise with CS) 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 _____ From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: 10 December 2007 19:54 To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Good morning, sunshine, On 12/10/07 3:14 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [HYPERLINK "mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch%5d"mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >> See above. Re: flawed yes, but fatally---this obviously depends on the >> issue, the industry players involved, their degree of consensus and >> support >> for the approach taken and their ability to implement it, which with >> respect >> to security I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about before actually >> investigating. When law enforcement, national security, and intelligence >> agencies work with major telcos, manufacturers, applications providers etc >> it seems odd to just assume this cannot matter at all. > > That kind of work is going on in many places, and the ITU is not the most > significant place for it. Indeed, the ITU is rather marginalized these days. This authoritative pronouncement is based on what, precisely? You've mapped the topology of all the work being done on all the security issues in all the relevant institutions, examined the ITU work program in relation to this, and determined that there is no interface and cross-pollination between these efforts, and that the routine practice of bringing work from, e.g. regional and tech-specific forums into ITU for multilateral adoption at the global level is of no significance to anything, and hence all the thousands of people involved from every government, major network operator, manufacturer, etc that are constantly over here just come to go shopping? Or are you really saying that you don't follow these things and therefore they don't matter? I have, as you know, written quite a bit over the years about the historical evolution and contemporary decline of the telecom regime, so I not only get the marginalization argument, but have made it. However, it's worth noting that this marginalization is relative; for example, while the telecom regulation treaty directly shapes a declining share of activity, carriers from the US alone (just one of 191 member states) still settle over $7 billion a year under its terms and are fairly concerned about current proposals for change. But that doesn't matter I guess, since it's not about domain names. The extent of marginalization is also highly variable: for spectrum management it's non-existent, for standards, including security-related aspects, it depends on a host of factors per previous. In some cases the main action is elsewhere, in some it's not. > And if civil society critics succeeded, after the kind of HUGE effort that it > would take, in getting an influential seat at some ITU table then the chances > are great that certain parties would forum-shift to somewhere else. I have absolutely no illusions that CS would make a HUGE effort and wasn't proposing this. But since the Argentine-Swiss proposals to open the door to CS are the focus of active debate right now, it'd be nice if CS wasn't entirely silent, which just makes it easier for the more retrograde governments to say why bother, they don't care anyway. At a post-WSIS ITU meeting a couple years ago, I presented a quickly assembled statement that was signed by two dozen caucus people criticizing the CS lock out and saying this is one of the reasons CS doesn't want ITU near IG, and it did get their attention. But now that friendly governments are actually trying to do something about the matter, we're not there to offer any support. Wille and I made presentations on CS inclusion at a meeting this year that were perceived I think as sort of solo views, not supported by any broader constituency demand. It'd have been nice if we'd had a sign on or something, which is not all that hard to do, except when the gestalt is, who cares, it's not ICANN. > No one said the issues of lawful intercept and cybersecurity "don't matter." > Indeed, if you've been paying attention to IGP's work at all you should know > that we've been focusing on that quite a bit, with some relatively good > results in the DNSSEC sphere. Like all good citizens, I am a dutiful student and hang on IGP's every word. Brendan's DNSSEC stuff is interesting and important, but it's a piece of a much larger puzzle, which is what we're talking about. > But this kind of politics is trench warfare and it makes little sense for CS > groups to enter into a battle on the terms and conditions set by industry and > govts, which is precisely what you are inviting us to do. Then why did we/you participate in WSIS? Why, for that matter, do you participate in ICANN if this is a disqualifier? That's the way the world is, so why not pack up our tents and go home? >> processes are nonetheless consequential, no? Re: top down, ok if by this >> you mean CS is excluded and a number of segments of relevant Internet >> industries opt not to get involved. But for those industry groupings that >> opt to be involved, it is as bottom up as any other standards process. > > Sure. But think of resource allocation. Scarce time, labor money. I don't see > the case for CS involvement in ITU processes, or for fighting a process battle > in that forum. > > You give me a specific issue worth fighting for, and show me that ITU is the > best place to fight it, then I'll be there. But if you want me to knock my > head against the wall of a 150 year old bureaucracy trying to gain some > generic recognition for something called "civil society" no thanks. Ok, restrict your head banging to a nine year old bureaucracy instead. FYI, today begins a four day meeting of WP 2 of SG 17 and there's a ton of people from irrelevant outfits like VeriSign over there. Here's the piffle WP 2 is currently working on: * Supplement 1 to X.800-X.849 series on security: Security baseline for network operators * Security architecture aspects of end users and networks in telecommunications * Framework for creation, storage, distribution and enforcement of policies for network security * Network security assessment/guidelines based on ITU-T Recommendation X.805 * Framework for EAP-based authentication and key management * Guidelines for implementing system and network security * Overview of cybersecurity * A vendor-neutral framework for automatic notification of security related information and dissemination of updates * Guidelines for telecommunication service providers for addressing the risk of spyware and potentially unwanted software * Guideline on preventing worm spreading in a data communication network * User control enhanced digital identity interchange framework * Identity management use cases and gap analysis * Identity management framework for global interoperability * Supplement to X-series Recommendations on identity management: Identity management lexicon * Requirements for global interoperable identity management * Network security management framework * Privacy guideline for RFID * Requirement of security information sharing framework * Service oriented architecture framework * Service oriented architecture security * Information security management guidelines for telecommunications based on ISO/IEC 27002 * Risk management guidelines for telecommunications * Security incident management guidelines for telecommunications * Telebiometrics related to human physiology * BioAPI interworking protocol * Telebiometrics authentication infrastructure * Telebiometrics digital key framework * A guideline of technical and managerial countermeasures for biometric data security * A guideline for secure and efficient transmission of multibiometric data * Telebiometrics system mechanism - General biometric authentication protocol and profile on telecommunication system * Telebiometrics system mechanism - Protection profile for client terminals * Device certificate profile for the home network * Guideline on user authentication mechanism for home network services * Differentiated security service for secure mobile end-to-end data communication * Authentication architecture in mobile end-to-end data communication * Correlative reacting system in mobile network * Security architecture for message security in mobile web services * Guideline on secure password-based authentication protocol with key exchange * Authorization framework for home network * Security requirements and framework in multicast communication * Privacy protection framework for networked RFID services * Security requirements for peer-to-peer communications * Security architecture for peer-to-peer network * Secure end-to-end data communication techniques using TTP services * Requirement and Framework for USN * Requirement on countering spam * Technical framework for countering email spam * Framework of countering IP multimedia spam * Guideline on countering email spam * Overview of countering spam for IP multimedia applications * Technical means for countering spam * Interactive countering spam gateway system * SMS filtering system based on users’ rules No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 09/12/2007 11:06 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 09/12/2007 11:06 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 10 18:13:00 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:13:00 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Microsoft skills training in Bhutan curriculum In-Reply-To: <20071210145423.GA9189@nic.fr> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207101408.031b2e60@peoplewho.org> <20071210145423.GA9189@nic.fr> Message-ID: <475DC7FC.4060103@rits.org.br> Microsoft is a kind of virtual Coca-Cola for most countries... In the case of Coke, most countries (incredibly) do not have their own soft drinks, due to the absolute dominance of this world monopoly on flavored gaseous water, aka the dark water of imperialism. I know, if a national soft drink is popular, the Coke magnates will either overrun it or adopt it and make money out of it. They tried to do this in Brazil with dozens of local producers of guaraná (managed to bankrupt many of them), but this drink is so established which they now produce a (lousy) version of it. It seems M$-Cola has huge leverage with less developed areas' governments, probably due to a misunderstanding (or lack of interest) on how the "donations" work and their consequences. But they could have their own "soft drink" -- in this case, free and open source software. --c.a. Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 01:24:46PM +0100, > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote > a message of 133 lines which said: > >> That is great news but when will Microsoft be bringing this to >> Cameroon? > > Sure, it is time to replace the public monopolies by private > monopolies. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 10 18:14:16 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:14:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <049801c83b5f$1ddb43a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <049801c83b5f$1ddb43a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <475DC848.8030603@rits.org.br> You can sure include the caucus in the list, Ian. Nobody is perfect... :) --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > What Bill said – if we are going to do anything in the field of Internet > governance, we have to deal with less than perfect organizations such as UN, > governments, corporations, ITU, ICANN, IGP, and, dare I say it, the civil > society caucus. > > > > If we can find a way to participate, we should. We should at least follow > Bill’s suggestion that we ask for CS participation on the Committee of > Experts. We could submit a raft of names for consideration asking that at > least one be appointed (all submitted candidates should be people who we > know would report back and liaise with CS) > > > > 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 > > > > _____ > > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: 10 December 2007 19:54 > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > > > > Good morning, sunshine, > > On 12/10/07 3:14 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: William Drake [HYPERLINK > "mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch%5d"mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >>> See above. Re: flawed yes, but fatally---this obviously depends on the >>> issue, the industry players involved, their degree of consensus and >>> support >>> for the approach taken and their ability to implement it, which with >>> respect >>> to security I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about before actually >>> investigating. When law enforcement, national security, and intelligence >>> agencies work with major telcos, manufacturers, applications providers > etc >>> it seems odd to just assume this cannot matter at all. >> That kind of work is going on in many places, and the ITU is not the most >> significant place for it. Indeed, the ITU is rather marginalized these > days. > > This authoritative pronouncement is based on what, precisely? You've mapped > the topology of all the work being done on all the security issues in all > the relevant institutions, examined the ITU work program in relation to > this, and determined that there is no interface and cross-pollination > between these efforts, and that the routine practice of bringing work from, > e.g. regional and tech-specific forums into ITU for multilateral adoption at > the global level is of no significance to anything, and hence all the > thousands of people involved from every government, major network operator, > manufacturer, etc that are constantly over here just come to go shopping? > Or are you really saying that you don't follow these things and therefore > they don't matter? > > I have, as you know, written quite a bit over the years about the historical > evolution and contemporary decline of the telecom regime, so I not only get > the marginalization argument, but have made it. However, it's worth noting > that this marginalization is relative; for example, while the telecom > regulation treaty directly shapes a declining share of activity, carriers > from the US alone (just one of 191 member states) still settle over $7 > billion a year under its terms and are fairly concerned about current > proposals for change. But that doesn't matter I guess, since it's not about > domain names. The extent of marginalization is also highly variable: for > spectrum management it's non-existent, for standards, including > security-related aspects, it depends on a host of factors per previous. In > some cases the main action is elsewhere, in some it's not. > >> And if civil society critics succeeded, after the kind of HUGE effort that > it >> would take, in getting an influential seat at some ITU table then the > chances >> are great that certain parties would forum-shift to somewhere else. > > I have absolutely no illusions that CS would make a HUGE effort and wasn't > proposing this. But since the Argentine-Swiss proposals to open the door to > CS are the focus of active debate right now, it'd be nice if CS wasn't > entirely silent, which just makes it easier for the more retrograde > governments to say why bother, they don't care anyway. At a post-WSIS ITU > meeting a couple years ago, I presented a quickly assembled statement that > was signed by two dozen caucus people criticizing the CS lock out and saying > this is one of the reasons CS doesn't want ITU near IG, and it did get their > attention. But now that friendly governments are actually trying to do > something about the matter, we're not there to offer any support. Wille and > I made presentations on CS inclusion at a meeting this year that were > perceived I think as sort of solo views, not supported by any broader > constituency demand. It'd have been nice if we'd had a sign on or > something, which is not all that hard to do, except when the gestalt is, who > cares, it's not ICANN. > >> No one said the issues of lawful intercept and cybersecurity "don't > matter." >> Indeed, if you've been paying attention to IGP's work at all you should > know >> that we've been focusing on that quite a bit, with some relatively good >> results in the DNSSEC sphere. > > Like all good citizens, I am a dutiful student and hang on IGP's every word. > Brendan's DNSSEC stuff is interesting and important, but it's a piece of a > much larger puzzle, which is what we're talking about. > >> But this kind of politics is trench warfare and it makes little sense for > CS >> groups to enter into a battle on the terms and conditions set by industry > and >> govts, which is precisely what you are inviting us to do. > > Then why did we/you participate in WSIS? Why, for that matter, do you > participate in ICANN if this is a disqualifier? That's the way the world > is, so why not pack up our tents and go home? > >>> processes are nonetheless consequential, no? Re: top down, ok if by this >>> you mean CS is excluded and a number of segments of relevant Internet >>> industries opt not to get involved. But for those industry groupings > that >>> opt to be involved, it is as bottom up as any other standards process. >> Sure. But think of resource allocation. Scarce time, labor money. I don't > see >> the case for CS involvement in ITU processes, or for fighting a process > battle >> in that forum. >> >> You give me a specific issue worth fighting for, and show me that ITU is > the >> best place to fight it, then I'll be there. But if you want me to knock my > >> head against the wall of a 150 year old bureaucracy trying to gain some >> generic recognition for something called "civil society" no thanks. > > Ok, restrict your head banging to a nine year old bureaucracy instead. > > FYI, today begins a four day meeting of WP 2 of SG 17 and there's a ton of > people from irrelevant outfits like VeriSign over there. Here's the piffle > WP 2 is currently working on: > > > > * Supplement 1 to X.800-X.849 series on security: Security baseline > for network operators > * Security architecture aspects of end users and networks in > telecommunications > * Framework for creation, storage, distribution and enforcement of > policies for network security > * Network security assessment/guidelines based on ITU-T Recommendation > X.805 > * Framework for EAP-based authentication and key management > * Guidelines for implementing system and network security > * Overview of cybersecurity > * A vendor-neutral framework for automatic notification of security > related information and dissemination of updates > * Guidelines for telecommunication service providers for addressing > the risk of spyware and potentially unwanted software > * Guideline on preventing worm spreading in a data communication > network > * User control enhanced digital identity interchange framework > * Identity management use cases and gap analysis > * Identity management framework for global interoperability > * Supplement to X-series Recommendations on identity management: > Identity management lexicon > * Requirements for global interoperable identity management > * Network security management framework > * Privacy guideline for RFID > * Requirement of security information sharing framework > * Service oriented architecture framework > * Service oriented architecture security > * Information security management guidelines for telecommunications > based on ISO/IEC 27002 > * Risk management guidelines for telecommunications > * Security incident management guidelines for telecommunications > * Telebiometrics related to human physiology > * BioAPI interworking protocol > * Telebiometrics authentication infrastructure > * Telebiometrics digital key framework > * A guideline of technical and managerial countermeasures for > biometric data security > * A guideline for secure and efficient transmission of multibiometric > data > * Telebiometrics system mechanism - General biometric authentication > protocol and profile on telecommunication system > * Telebiometrics system mechanism - Protection profile for client > terminals > * Device certificate profile for the home network > * Guideline on user authentication mechanism for home network services > > * Differentiated security service for secure mobile end-to-end data > communication > * Authentication architecture in mobile end-to-end data communication > * Correlative reacting system in mobile network > * Security architecture for message security in mobile web services > * Guideline on secure password-based authentication protocol with key > exchange > * Authorization framework for home network > * Security requirements and framework in multicast communication > * Privacy protection framework for networked RFID services > * Security requirements for peer-to-peer communications > * Security architecture for peer-to-peer network > * Secure end-to-end data communication techniques using TTP services > * Requirement and Framework for USN > * Requirement on countering spam > * Technical framework for countering email spam > * Framework of countering IP multimedia spam > * Guideline on countering email spam > * Overview of countering spam for IP multimedia applications > * Technical means for countering spam > * Interactive countering spam gateway system > * SMS filtering system based on users’ rules > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 09/12/2007 > 11:06 > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 09/12/2007 > 11:06 > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 10 21:04:40 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:04:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: <120752.59090.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <120752.59090.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071211020440.GA13789@hserus.net> kwasi boakye-akyeampong [10/12/07 12:30 +0000]: > Good point Milton. What is the point in giving fellowships to people > from a certain part of the world x times a year to attend meetings, > conferences, workshops, etc., when things remain largely the same. Is > anybody taking stock? As the fellowships chair for the APRICOT network operators conference - http://www.apricot.net - what I do is give fellowships for the annual apricot meeting to 20 people from developing economies, who work in the network operator community, and would benefit from APRICOT. I can say that the fellowships program is a mixed bag. Occasionally you get some really good people who actually contribute to the program, and are doing quite a lot of good work in their countries .. work which can be supplemented (with resources, expertise, some funding) by others they meet at such events. Quite often you get people you hope will do good, but actually treat the fellowship as an expenses paid holiday to somewhere nice One possible solution is doing events at cities that don't really have much to recommend them (aka not "tourist destinations" like Rio). Doing the next IGF at a polluted, expensive place like New Delhi would be a great idea - or do it in Manila, Minneapolis, somewhere like that. Or find some way to actually mentor fellows from the start to finish - so that they can be drawn into the process. And improve fellowship selection so that finding quality people from a particular location takes priority over the usual CS catchphrases like "inclusive". Ideally both of these. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 10 22:35:22 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:35:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2B5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <009c01c83b30$3804d950$a80e8bf0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2B5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <003401c83ba6$dd6b3620$9841a260$@com> I don't know why they decided to focus on one and not the other - the reasons for the Summit should be in the proposal to the ICANN Board, so we should know then. I'm confused by the difference you make here between freedom of association and democracy - if we have an organization in which the decisions are made by majority vote of the members, how is that not a democratic organization, or at least an organization that is run on democratic principles? To me, freedom of association is the ability to associate with anyone that you want - as opposed to apartheid, for example, where one was prohibited from associating with people of one's choice based on race. But as one can decide to join an association where decisions are not made by the membership, they aren't similar, hence my confusion. Seems to me that you define both terms differently? Also - the At Large has power over ALAC's work schedule and budget proposals, and the resources assigned to ALAC as the RALOs appoint 10 of the 15, and those reps are there to implement the wishes of the RALO. "ALAC is there to give ICANN user perspectives on actual policy choices that ICANN has to make, and if ALAC consistently does not do that, what are we to conclude?" Maybe that the users are not interested or not informed enough? If the latter, then there are things that ALAC can and should do to inform and educate (and several are underway). If the former, then the ALSes that have joined and find that they are not interested enough in the policy issues, should be de-accredited, leaving ALSes that are truly interested in the issues. Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 13:21 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > > > >That Milton, is one of the things that we have to accept in a bottom- > up > >process that gives the users the power. They may decide to do things > that > >you, me, others don't agree with. But if a lot more of them vote to > spend > >energy and resources for the Summit and none for the .us contract, > than > the > >ones who vote the other way, that's the democratic process. > > No, Jacky, that's not "democracy" that's "freedom of association," > which > is something I strongly favor but has little relevance to the issue of > how users are represented in global governance of ICANN issues. This > freedom of assocation doesn't give "users the power" over anything > except what to do with their own time and resources -- a freedom they > already have anyway. They don't need ALAC for that. > > The issue you are studiously ignoring is this: if ALAC is there to give > ICANN user perspectives on actual policy choices that ICANN has to > make, > and if ALAC consistently does not do that, what are we to conclude? > > A number of conclusions are possible. One is that the people who are > attracted to ALAC are not all that interested in the day to day issues > of ICANN policy making but in other things... Another is that the > structure of ALAC tends to encourage its members to do other things > than > pay attention to detailed policy issues, because the rewards for those > other activities are perceived to be higher. Another is that ALAC-ers > don't feel that they can really influence the specific policy issues on > which comment is possible, so they choose not to do so and concentrate > their time on things they feel they can control. > > I don't know which of these is right, if any, but would be interested > in > your perspective. > > --MM > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 10 22:40:07 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:40:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Microsoft skills training in Bhutan curriculum In-Reply-To: <475DC7FC.4060103@rits.org.br> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071207101408.031b2e60@peoplewho.org> <20071210145423.GA9189@nic.fr> <475DC7FC.4060103@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <003801c83ba7$877cf630$9676e290$@com> Clap clap clap! 3 cheers for Carlos!! That was my virtual standing ovation. Same thing is happening here - they are offering to "help" the government and "donate" software and training. The volunteer FOSS group (very small) is trying to counter, but it is not easy to get the ear of the Govt compared to the very well funded MS battalions. We're trying to get the schools into FOSS before MS gets there. Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 19:13 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Stephane Bortzmeyer > Cc: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; Sylvia Caras > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Microsoft skills training in Bhutan > curriculum > > Microsoft is a kind of virtual Coca-Cola for most countries... In the > case of Coke, most countries (incredibly) do not have their own soft > drinks, due to the absolute dominance of this world monopoly on > flavored > gaseous water, aka the dark water of imperialism. I know, if a national > soft drink is popular, the Coke magnates will either overrun it or > adopt > it and make money out of it. They tried to do this in Brazil with > dozens > of local producers of guaraná (managed to bankrupt many of them), but > this drink is so established which they now produce a (lousy) version > of it. > > It seems M$-Cola has huge leverage with less developed areas' > governments, probably due to a misunderstanding (or lack of interest) > on > how the "donations" work and their consequences. But they could have > their own "soft drink" -- in this case, free and open source software. > > --c.a. > > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 01:24:46PM +0100, > > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote > > a message of 133 lines which said: > > > >> That is great news but when will Microsoft be bringing this to > >> Cameroon? > > > > Sure, it is time to replace the public monopolies by private > > monopolies. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Dec 11 04:53:13 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:53:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <049801c83b5f$1ddb43a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <049801c83b5f$1ddb43a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: What is needed is, for each issue of interest, to identify who (from CS) is doing what in which organization/venue/framework, and then report (thus be accountable), keep track and take stock of all this. Some of us are active at the regional level, and this does make sense and probably leads to important outcome. Others act rather at the national level. And only few can target the global level. But such a practical organization first supposes to think beyond simply being "CS" or not, and to see where we agree on positions/ views. I assume this list (to take only this example) has clearly shown that being "CS" doesn't mean being like-minded.. Actually, CS means almost nothing, but that's another debate:) Best, Meryem Le 10 déc. 07 à 20:01, Ian Peter a écrit : > What Bill said – if we are going to do anything in the field of > Internet governance, we have to deal with less than perfect > organizations such as UN, governments, corporations, ITU, ICANN, > IGP, and, dare I say it, the civil society caucus. > > > > If we can find a way to participate, we should. We should at least > follow Bill’s suggestion that we ask for CS participation on the > Committee of Experts. We could submit a raft of names for > consideration asking that at least one be appointed (all submitted > candidates should be people who we know would report back and > liaise with CS) > > > > 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 > > > > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: 10 December 2007 19:54 > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: > Irony] > > > > Good morning, sunshine, > > On 12/10/07 3:14 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > >> See above. Re: flawed yes, but fatally---this obviously depends > on the > >> issue, the industry players involved, their degree of consensus and > >> support > >> for the approach taken and their ability to implement it, which > with > >> respect > >> to security I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about before > actually > >> investigating. When law enforcement, national security, and > intelligence > >> agencies work with major telcos, manufacturers, applications > providers etc > >> it seems odd to just assume this cannot matter at all. > > > > That kind of work is going on in many places, and the ITU is not > the most > > significant place for it. Indeed, the ITU is rather marginalized > these days. > > This authoritative pronouncement is based on what, precisely? > You've mapped the topology of all the work being done on all the > security issues in all the relevant institutions, examined the ITU > work program in relation to this, and determined that there is no > interface and cross-pollination between these efforts, and that the > routine practice of bringing work from, e.g. regional and tech- > specific forums into ITU for multilateral adoption at the global > level is of no significance to anything, and hence all the > thousands of people involved from every government, major network > operator, manufacturer, etc that are constantly over here just come > to go shopping? Or are you really saying that you don't follow > these things and therefore they don't matter? > > I have, as you know, written quite a bit over the years about the > historical evolution and contemporary decline of the telecom > regime, so I not only get the marginalization argument, but have > made it. However, it's worth noting that this marginalization is > relative; for example, while the telecom regulation treaty directly > shapes a declining share of activity, carriers from the US alone > (just one of 191 member states) still settle over $7 billion a year > under its terms and are fairly concerned about current proposals > for change. But that doesn't matter I guess, since it's not about > domain names. The extent of marginalization is also highly > variable: for spectrum management it's non-existent, for standards, > including security-related aspects, it depends on a host of factors > per previous. In some cases the main action is elsewhere, in some > it's not. > > > And if civil society critics succeeded, after the kind of HUGE > effort that it > > would take, in getting an influential seat at some ITU table then > the chances > > are great that certain parties would forum-shift to somewhere else. > > I have absolutely no illusions that CS would make a HUGE effort and > wasn't proposing this. But since the Argentine-Swiss proposals to > open the door to CS are the focus of active debate right now, it'd > be nice if CS wasn't entirely silent, which just makes it easier > for the more retrograde governments to say why bother, they don't > care anyway. At a post-WSIS ITU meeting a couple years ago, I > presented a quickly assembled statement that was signed by two > dozen caucus people criticizing the CS lock out and saying this is > one of the reasons CS doesn't want ITU near IG, and it did get > their attention. But now that friendly governments are actually > trying to do something about the matter, we're not there to offer > any support. Wille and I made presentations on CS inclusion at a > meeting this year that were perceived I think as sort of solo > views, not supported by any broader constituency demand. It'd have > been nice if we'd had a sign on or something, which is not all that > hard to do, except when the gestalt is, who cares, it's not ICANN. > > > No one said the issues of lawful intercept and cybersecurity > "don't matter." > > Indeed, if you've been paying attention to IGP's work at all you > should know > > that we've been focusing on that quite a bit, with some > relatively good > > results in the DNSSEC sphere. > > Like all good citizens, I am a dutiful student and hang on IGP's > every word. Brendan's DNSSEC stuff is interesting and important, > but it's a piece of a much larger puzzle, which is what we're > talking about. > > > But this kind of politics is trench warfare and it makes little > sense for CS > > groups to enter into a battle on the terms and conditions set by > industry and > > govts, which is precisely what you are inviting us to do. > > Then why did we/you participate in WSIS? Why, for that matter, do > you participate in ICANN if this is a disqualifier? That's the way > the world is, so why not pack up our tents and go home? > > >> processes are nonetheless consequential, no? Re: top down, ok > if by this > >> you mean CS is excluded and a number of segments of relevant > Internet > >> industries opt not to get involved. But for those industry > groupings that > >> opt to be involved, it is as bottom up as any other standards > process. > > > > Sure. But think of resource allocation. Scarce time, labor money. > I don't see > > the case for CS involvement in ITU processes, or for fighting a > process battle > > in that forum. > > > > You give me a specific issue worth fighting for, and show me that > ITU is the > > best place to fight it, then I'll be there. But if you want me to > knock my > > head against the wall of a 150 year old bureaucracy trying to > gain some > > generic recognition for something called "civil society" no thanks. > > Ok, restrict your head banging to a nine year old bureaucracy instead. > > FYI, today begins a four day meeting of WP 2 of SG 17 and there's a > ton of people from irrelevant outfits like VeriSign over there. > Here's the piffle WP 2 is currently working on: > > Supplement 1 to X.800-X.849 series on security: Security baseline > for network operators > Security architecture aspects of end users and networks in > telecommunications > Framework for creation, storage, distribution and enforcement of > policies for network security > Network security assessment/guidelines based on ITU-T > Recommendation X.805 > Framework for EAP-based authentication and key management > Guidelines for implementing system and network security > Overview of cybersecurity > A vendor-neutral framework for automatic notification of security > related information and dissemination of updates > Guidelines for telecommunication service providers for addressing > the risk of spyware and potentially unwanted software > Guideline on preventing worm spreading in a data communication network > User control enhanced digital identity interchange framework > Identity management use cases and gap analysis > Identity management framework for global interoperability > Supplement to X-series Recommendations on identity management: > Identity management lexicon > Requirements for global interoperable identity management > Network security management framework > Privacy guideline for RFID > Requirement of security information sharing framework > Service oriented architecture framework > Service oriented architecture security > Information security management guidelines for telecommunications > based on ISO/IEC 27002 > Risk management guidelines for telecommunications > Security incident management guidelines for telecommunications > Telebiometrics related to human physiology > BioAPI interworking protocol > Telebiometrics authentication infrastructure > Telebiometrics digital key framework > A guideline of technical and managerial countermeasures for > biometric data security > A guideline for secure and efficient transmission of multibiometric > data > Telebiometrics system mechanism - General biometric authentication > protocol and profile on telecommunication system > Telebiometrics system mechanism - Protection profile for client > terminals > Device certificate profile for the home network > Guideline on user authentication mechanism for home network services > Differentiated security service for secure mobile end-to-end data > communication > Authentication architecture in mobile end-to-end data communication > Correlative reacting system in mobile network > Security architecture for message security in mobile web services > Guideline on secure password-based authentication protocol with key > exchange > Authorization framework for home network > Security requirements and framework in multicast communication > Privacy protection framework for networked RFID services > Security requirements for peer-to-peer communications > Security architecture for peer-to-peer network > Secure end-to-end data communication techniques using TTP services > Requirement and Framework for USN > Requirement on countering spam > Technical framework for countering email spam > Framework of countering IP multimedia spam > Guideline on countering email spam > Overview of countering spam for IP multimedia applications > Technical means for countering spam > Interactive countering spam gateway system > SMS filtering system based on users’ rules > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: > 09/12/2007 11:06 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: > 09/12/2007 11:06 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 11 07:58:19 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:58:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: <20071211020440.GA13789@hserus.net> Message-ID: <618603.93557.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Suresh writes: "Or find some way to actually mentor fellows from the start to finish - so that they can be drawn into the process. And improve fellowship selection so that finding quality people from a particular location takes priority over the usual CS catchphrases like "inclusive"." And I coundn't agree more with him. He was trying to make a point by suggesting hosting events in some remote and obscure place. That may be less attractive to those who don't really mean business. I'm not sure how it's going to be done but I believe strengthening regional structures is one possible solution. That way selection of participants for global CS/ IG related events will come from the regions themselves but not from a panel who may not have an idea who those they are selecting are and their motives for participation. Participants will then be made accountable to their respective regions. Kwasi Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [10/12/07 12:30 +0000]: > Good point Milton. What is the point in giving fellowships to people > from a certain part of the world x times a year to attend meetings, > conferences, workshops, etc., when things remain largely the same. Is > anybody taking stock? As the fellowships chair for the APRICOT network operators conference - http://www.apricot.net - what I do is give fellowships for the annual apricot meeting to 20 people from developing economies, who work in the network operator community, and would benefit from APRICOT. I can say that the fellowships program is a mixed bag. Occasionally you get some really good people who actually contribute to the program, and are doing quite a lot of good work in their countries .. work which can be supplemented (with resources, expertise, some funding) by others they meet at such events. Quite often you get people you hope will do good, but actually treat the fellowship as an expenses paid holiday to somewhere nice One possible solution is doing events at cities that don't really have much to recommend them (aka not "tourist destinations" like Rio). Doing the next IGF at a polluted, expensive place like New Delhi would be a great idea - or do it in Manila, Minneapolis, somewhere like that. Or find some way to actually mentor fellows from the start to finish - so that they can be drawn into the process. And improve fellowship selection so that finding quality people from a particular location takes priority over the usual CS catchphrases like "inclusive". Ideally both of these. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 11 08:26:30 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:56:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: <618603.93557.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20071211020440.GA13789@hserus.net> <618603.93557.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <017b01c83bf9$721feed0$565fcc70$@net> Weeding out freeloaders from a fellowships process takes effort. But yes, it can be done, given people who are active in a particular region and good at identifying who are genuine + deserving fellows and who are freeloaders out for an expenses paid vacation. The issue is not accountability as such. And it is actually tough to play mother hen to a couple of dozen people. You can, however, do a lot by not leaving them to their own devices once they arrive at the conference venue. Regular sessions targeted at fellows tends to help (orientation / welcome program to start with, and if possible hooking groups of fellows up with a mentor). Before that, targeting the right people / groups for fellowships announcements, and developing what can only be called a "bullshit detector" might help. Of course, it is even easier when you operate a conference for network operators (people who run networks at ISPs) in the Asia Pacific region, and so can easily fend off requests from people whose job profiles, or geographic location, don't match selection critieria. That (being asiapac specific) certainly helps us when various people claiming to be from Nigerian "trading companies" apply for fellowships and ask for visa invitation letters . it is not just freeloaders looking out for junkets we have to be careful of, there is a lot of fraud out there too. Especially where someone issuing a visa invitation letter often has to assume responsibility for repatriating a fellow [per visa regulations]. Speaking of that, visa regulations are often the single largest barrier to attending these global events. Especially where some countries' embassies may have completely unreasonable, locally invented requirements for issuing a visa. I hardly need to tell you that, or people from other developing economies who have to travel internationally. Funnily enough, the easiest places to get visas to are (say) the USA, Australia etc. If you want to go to, say, Argentina from India .. suffice to say that's the only country that demands notarized affidavits, letters from "the chamber of commerce your employer is a member of" etc for a business visa.. somewhat tough when you are a consultant, going to speak at a conference. We Indians kind of inherited red tape and bureaucracy from 300 years of being a British colony .. and then went ahead and refined it. As I found to my irritation when dealing with an Indian clerk working for the argentinian embassy in New Delhi, not too long back . J suresh From: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:28 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? Suresh writes: "Or find some way to actually mentor fellows from the start to finish - so that they can be drawn into the process. And improve fellowship selection so that finding quality people from a particular location takes priority over the usual CS catchphrases like "inclusive"." And I coundn't agree more with him. He was trying to make a point by suggesting hosting events in some remote and obscure place. That may be less attractive to those who don't really mean business. I'm not sure how it's going to be done but I believe strengthening regional structures is one possible solution. That way selection of participants for global CS/ IG related events will come from the regions themselves but not from a panel who may not have an idea who those they are selecting are and their motives for participation. Participants will then be made accountable to their respective regions. Kwasi -------------- 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 Dec 11 09:19:45 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:19:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: <017b01c83bf9$721feed0$565fcc70$@net> References: <20071211020440.GA13789@hserus.net> <618603.93557.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <017b01c83bf9$721feed0$565fcc70$@net> Message-ID: Kwasi's remarks sounds like some incisive insult to the African that I am and I will not let him have it easily. If he has no ambition, let him quietly stay at his corner and let the ambitious ones strive. He talks of having attended "all these meetings and achieving nothing" The answer is clear: Kwasi had no ambition nor clar objectives before going to these meetings. May be he too wanted to be there like others. It is not new that confabs and international come together are a market place for the sharing of ideas, networking and even securing aids. Take for example, the World Economic Forum, through whose attendance my organization has succeeded to network with an Indian organization and have started solar electrifying 4 villages in Cameroon. More villages are in the pipelines. In international forums, while the specialists are there expounding their knowledge, other stakers are there looking for solutions to the multiple problems of the rural masses back in their various homes. That is the other face of the meetings. Do not only count on resolutions. On Internet connectivity, which is the main problem in my country, my presence at any IGF will be to look at the means in which the civil society can assist in solving this solution. What I think should be done is that organizers of meetings should be more proactive by having postulants of meetings answer questions regarding to tangible and measurable outcomes when they do attend these meetings. The outcomes should be measured during following meetings. This done, meetings will help in moving the world forward and people like Kwasi will not more be bewildered. Aaron On 12/11/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > Weeding out freeloaders from a fellowships process takes effort. But yes, > it can be done, given people who are active in a particular region and good > at identifying who are genuine + deserving fellows and who are freeloaders > out for an expenses paid vacation. > > > > The issue is not accountability as such. And it is actually tough to play > mother hen to a couple of dozen people. > > > > You can, however, do a lot by not leaving them to their own devices once > they arrive at the conference venue. Regular sessions targeted at fellows > tends to help (orientation / welcome program to start with, and if possible > hooking groups of fellows up with a mentor). > > > > Before that, targeting the right people / groups for fellowships > announcements, and developing what can only be called a "bullshit detector" > might help. Of course, it is even easier when you operate a conference for > network operators (people who run networks at ISPs) in the Asia Pacific > region, and so can easily fend off requests from people whose job profiles, > or geographic location, don't match selection critieria. > > > > That (being asiapac specific) certainly helps us when various people > claiming to be from Nigerian "trading companies" apply for fellowships and > ask for visa invitation letters … it is not just freeloaders looking out for > junkets we have to be careful of, there is a lot of fraud out there too. > Especially where someone issuing a visa invitation letter often has to > assume responsibility for repatriating a fellow [per visa regulations]. > > > > Speaking of that, visa regulations are often the single largest barrier to > attending these global events. Especially where some countries' embassies > may have completely unreasonable, locally invented requirements for issuing > a visa. I hardly need to tell you that, or people from other developing > economies who have to travel internationally. > > > > Funnily enough, the easiest places to get visas to are (say) the USA, > Australia etc. If you want to go to, say, Argentina from India .. suffice > to say that's the only country that demands notarized affidavits, letters > from "the chamber of commerce your employer is a member of" etc for a > business visa.. somewhat tough when you are a consultant, going to speak at > a conference. > > > > We Indians kind of inherited red tape and bureaucracy from 300 years of > being a British colony .. and then went ahead and refined it. As I found > to my irritation when dealing with an Indian clerk working for the > argentinian embassy in New Delhi, not too long back … J > > > > suresh > > > > > > > > From: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: Re: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from > developing countries (Africa)? > > > > > Suresh writes: > > > "Or find some way to actually mentor fellows from the start to finish - so > that they can be drawn into the process. And improve fellowship selection > so that finding quality people from a particular location takes priority > over the usual CS catchphrases like "inclusive"." > > > And I coundn't agree more with him. He was trying to make a point by > suggesting hosting events in some remote and obscure place. That may be less > attractive to those who don't really mean business. > > > > > > I'm not sure how it's going to be done but I believe strengthening regional > structures is one possible solution. That way selection of participants for > global CS/ IG related events will come from the regions themselves but not > from a panel who may not have an idea who those they are selecting are and > their motives for participation. Participants will then be made accountable > to their respective regions. > > > > > > Kwasi > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 11 09:32:50 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:02:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: References: <20071211020440.GA13789@hserus.net> <618603.93557.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <017b01c83bf9$721feed0$565fcc70$@net> Message-ID: <019e01c83c02$b6f06c70$24d14550$@net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > On Internet connectivity, which is the main problem in my country, my > presence at any IGF will be to look at the means in which the civil > society can assist in solving this solution. You can set up wireless mesh networks, and/or deploy OLPC which does the same thing. Or you can do what Mahabir Pun has done in Nepal to connect yak herders in remote villages in Nepal, and for which he deservedly won the Ramon Magsaysay award this year. That'd be local networking though. Internet access .. fully open to ideas on what you can do, as CS, to go after, say, the various satellite providers that provide connectivity to most of Africa. In several countries, that's the monopoly incumbent telco, owned and operated by the government in that country. That'd not be an international problem, unfortunately. It is an entirely local problem. Which you can probably enlist some international help to resolve, but the solution for which would be entirely local (and, I suspect, deeply political, in most cases) Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention is that it quite often is not something that CS will be able to resolve all that easily, by itself. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From krischenowski at dotberlin.de Tue Dec 11 10:38:18 2007 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:38:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] .berlin and ALAC Message-ID: <040b01c83c0b$daf62390$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> I coming back to a posting of Michael Leibrandt from Dec 2, where Michael wrote: "... The parliament of Berlin has voted down the .berlin proposal with a majority decision. Does anybody think that such a local decision should be ignored by an ICANN ALAC? ..." The part of the statement regarding .berlin is definitely wrong; therefore I'd like to make a counterstatement: To say it in one sentence: The Parliament of Berlin did not (!) vote .berlin down, it was just a recommendation of a subcommittee which voted against supporting a motion submitted by one of the opposition parties in which the senate is asked to support .berlin. A little bit more in detail: In the Berlin House of Representatives (Berlin Parliament) the Christian Democrats filed a resolution to support the .berlin TLD. This was based on another resolution that the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (ruling coalition) in the German Bundestag (German Parliament). Contrary to the German Bundestag, in the Parliament of Berlin the Christian Democrats are in the opposition. The majority is by a coalition of the Social Democrats and The Left Wing Party (the former Communist Party). Since the resolution to support .berlin comes from the opposition, it seems to be a natural reflex of the red-red coalition to vote against it. In the case Michael mentioned not the parliament, but a subcommittee voted against support of the CDU motion based on the argument that the city has an official city portal and therefore does not need .berlin. This recommendation will go now to the next level, the main committee. Let's wait and see. Dirk Krischenowski Founder and CEO www.dotberlin.de ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 11:23:47 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:23:47 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] .berlin and ALAC References: <040b01c83c0b$daf62390$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DE0E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> We had a great workshop on the issue of GEO-TLD during the IGF in Rio. We discussed also concerns of public administrations but in a way that such concerns should not be used to block a development but to find a consensus with the aim to promote competition, to offer more innovative services and to give consumers more choice. Here is the report which I gave the other day in the reporting back session. Report on CIR-Workshop "Broadening the Domain Name Space: Top Level Domains for Cities, Regions and Continents? IGF, Rio de Janeiro, November 15, 2007 Excerpt from the "Reporting Back Session" NITIN DESAI: I now have Wolfgang Kleinwächter, on the broadening of the domain name space. WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter, from the University of Aarhus. I was, together with five other organizations, the convenor of one of the workshops on critical Internet resources. The subject of the workshop was: "Broadening the domain name space, top-level domains for cities, regions, and continents." It was on the so-called GEO TLDs. The workoshop turned to become the first global summit of GEO-TLD projects in the world, both of existing in emerging projects of top-level domains which has a reference to a geographic name, to a city, a region, or some other geographical or geopolitical name. We started with the presentation of three existing top-level domains, dot EU, dot Asia, and dot cat, for Catalonia. And then we had the presentation of emerging projects, which included cities, regions, and continents. The projects presented included dot NYC for New York City, dot Berlin, dot Paris, dot cym for Wales, dot GAL for Galicia, dot btn for the Bretagne, dot mercusor for a group of Latin American countries, dot lat also for Latin American countries, and dot Africa. After the presentations we had a discussion about whether it makes sense or not to have such kind of new top-level domains in the process of the introduction of new gTLDs, which will be started by ICANN soon. We heard comments from the user community, the individual users and the business users. And then we had a nice discussion with members from the audience. We had around 130 people in the room. Summarizing the debate we can send four messages from the workshop to the global Internet community and the involved and concerned institutions and organisations:: 1. There is a growing wave of projects for new TLDs which have geographical element in it. This is seen as a new opportunity for global cultural branding, for the stimulation of new local business and for giving the consumer more choices. 2. GEO-TLDs would enrich the domain name system, would introduce a new element into the DNS, stimulate competition and would give users more choice. 3. ICANN should speed up its procedures and to open the door for the accreditation of new gTLDs as soon as possible and to include GEO-TLDs into this process. 4. Public Policy interests, raised by relevant public institutions, have to be taken into account adequately but should not prevent to move forward Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ________________________________ Fra: Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN [mailto:krischenowski at dotberlin.de] Sendt: ti 11-12-2007 16:38 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org Emne: [governance] .berlin and ALAC I coming back to a posting of Michael Leibrandt from Dec 2, where Michael wrote: "... The parliament of Berlin has voted down the .berlin proposal with a majority decision. Does anybody think that such a local decision should be ignored by an ICANN ALAC? ..." The part of the statement regarding .berlin is definitely wrong; therefore I'd like to make a counterstatement: To say it in one sentence: The Parliament of Berlin did not (!) vote .berlin down, it was just a recommendation of a subcommittee which voted against supporting a motion submitted by one of the opposition parties in which the senate is asked to support .berlin. A little bit more in detail: In the Berlin House of Representatives (Berlin Parliament) the Christian Democrats filed a resolution to support the ..berlin TLD. This was based on another resolution that the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (ruling coalition) in the German Bundestag (German Parliament). Contrary to the German Bundestag, in the Parliament of Berlin the Christian Democrats are in the opposition. The majority is by a coalition of the Social Democrats and The Left Wing Party (the former Communist Party). Since the resolution to support .berlin comes from the opposition, it seems to be a natural reflex of the red-red coalition to vote against it. In the case Michael mentioned not the parliament, but a subcommittee voted against support of the CDU motion based on the argument that the city has an official city portal and therefore does not need .berlin. This recommendation will go now to the next level, the main committee. Let's wait and see. Dirk Krischenowski Founder and CEO www.dotberlin.de ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 11 12:17:27 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:17:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? Message-ID: Nyangke, Suresh, I agree there are a range of technical solutions and dimensions to the problem of access in developing nations, but disagree that there is not an international dimension to those probelms that can fruitfully discussed on this list as well as at IGF meetings. For example, at the regional level discussion at Caribbean Internet Forum meetings on high bandwidth pricing due to limited capacity in the region led directly to political and business forces coordinating across islands, resulting in private investment in several fibers, with recommendations for access policies to encourage on-island competition to bring prices down. The new fibers aren;t all lit just yet but a lot has changed in a few years time, due to coordinated civil society, business & government actions; which will ultimately affect connectivity options within several nations. Acting inside one country at a time could not resolve that issue. In the African case, I am aware of new fiber initiatives seeking landing rights at this very minute, where it would increase backbone capacity and likely drive down prices in many nations, and hence increase access. So if civil society/the international community were to speak up and encourage governements to let the new players in, that could only help. To be clear, I have no stake in those initiatives, just have my fingers crossed that the usual suspect incumbent players don't succeed in derailing them. For IGF India, more discussion of areas where technology and policy (and business) can intersect to improve access opportunities in developing nations might be helpful; I intend to propose some ideas there myself. So international CS can't resolve these problems by itself, I agree, but it can help government and business focus on the true barriers to access, and provide some focus for local user communities to rally around to bring their own pressure to bear. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> suresh at hserus.net 12/11/07 9:32 AM >>> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > On Internet connectivity, which is the main problem in my country, my > presence at any IGF will be to look at the means in which the civil > society can assist in solving this solution. You can set up wireless mesh networks, and/or deploy OLPC which does the same thing. Or you can do what Mahabir Pun has done in Nepal to connect yak herders in remote villages in Nepal, and for which he deservedly won the Ramon Magsaysay award this year. That'd be local networking though. Internet access .. fully open to ideas on what you can do, as CS, to go after, say, the various satellite providers that provide connectivity to most of Africa. In several countries, that's the monopoly incumbent telco, owned and operated by the government in that country. That'd not be an international problem, unfortunately. It is an entirely local problem. Which you can probably enlist some international help to resolve, but the solution for which would be entirely local (and, I suspect, deeply political, in most cases) Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention is that it quite often is not something that CS will be able to resolve all that easily, by itself. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:33:45 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:33:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee It was Suresh that was narrowing the solutioning of those problems to local level well as I looked at it from your point of perception. Suresh I agree, nobody cares. That is why I am a proponent of the civil society being more proactive to finding solutions to the problems of the masses and allowing these corrupt so called Governments to rot. Look at Yunnus and the Grameen bank. I hope you got me? Aaron On 12/11/07, Lee McKnight wrote: > Nyangke, Suresh, > > I agree there are a range of technical solutions and dimensions to the > problem of access in developing nations, but disagree that there is not > an international dimension to those probelms that can fruitfully > discussed on this list as well as at IGF meetings. > > For example, at the regional level discussion at Caribbean Internet > Forum meetings on high bandwidth pricing due to limited capacity in the > region led directly to political and business forces coordinating across > islands, resulting in private investment in several fibers, with > recommendations for access policies to encourage on-island competition > to bring prices down. The new fibers aren;t all lit just yet but a lot > has changed in a few years time, due to coordinated civil society, > business & government actions; which will ultimately affect connectivity > options within several nations. Acting inside one country at a time > could not resolve that issue. > > In the African case, I am aware of new fiber initiatives seeking landing > rights at this very minute, where it would increase backbone capacity > and likely drive down prices in many nations, and hence increase access. > So if civil society/the international community were to speak up and > encourage governements to let the new players in, that could only help. > To be clear, I have no stake in those initiatives, just have my fingers > crossed that the usual suspect incumbent players don't succeed in > derailing them. > > For IGF India, more discussion of areas where technology and policy (and > business) can intersect to improve access opportunities in developing > nations might be helpful; I intend to propose some ideas there myself. > > So international CS can't resolve these problems by itself, I agree, but > it can help government and business focus on the true barriers to > access, and provide some focus for local user communities to rally > around to bring their own pressure to bear. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> suresh at hserus.net 12/11/07 9:32 AM >>> > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > > > On Internet connectivity, which is the main problem in my country, my > > presence at any IGF will be to look at the means in which the civil > > society can assist in solving this solution. > > You can set up wireless mesh networks, and/or deploy OLPC which does the > same thing. Or you can do what Mahabir Pun has done in Nepal to connect > yak > herders in remote villages in Nepal, and for which he deservedly won the > Ramon Magsaysay award this year. > > That'd be local networking though. Internet access .. fully open to > ideas on > what you can do, as CS, to go after, say, the various satellite > providers > that provide connectivity to most of Africa. In several countries, > that's > the monopoly incumbent telco, owned and operated by the government in > that > country. > > That'd not be an international problem, unfortunately. It is an entirely > local problem. Which you can probably enlist some international help to > resolve, but the solution for which would be entirely local (and, I > suspect, > deeply political, in most cases) > > Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention is that it quite often is not > something that CS will be able to resolve all that easily, by itself. > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Dec 11 12:40:53 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:40:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] (offlist) Re:How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? Message-ID: Aaron, In the interest of writing quickly I compressed you and Suresh in the same bucket, sorry. But right we agree international pressure and individuals can do some things government may not have a desire to even try. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> nyangkweagien at gmail.com 12/11/07 12:33 PM >>> Lee It was Suresh that was narrowing the solutioning of those problems to local level well as I looked at it from your point of perception. Suresh I agree, nobody cares. That is why I am a proponent of the civil society being more proactive to finding solutions to the problems of the masses and allowing these corrupt so called Governments to rot. Look at Yunnus and the Grameen bank. I hope you got me? Aaron On 12/11/07, Lee McKnight wrote: > Nyangke, Suresh, > > I agree there are a range of technical solutions and dimensions to the > problem of access in developing nations, but disagree that there is not > an international dimension to those probelms that can fruitfully > discussed on this list as well as at IGF meetings. > > For example, at the regional level discussion at Caribbean Internet > Forum meetings on high bandwidth pricing due to limited capacity in the > region led directly to political and business forces coordinating across > islands, resulting in private investment in several fibers, with > recommendations for access policies to encourage on-island competition > to bring prices down. The new fibers aren;t all lit just yet but a lot > has changed in a few years time, due to coordinated civil society, > business & government actions; which will ultimately affect connectivity > options within several nations. Acting inside one country at a time > could not resolve that issue. > > In the African case, I am aware of new fiber initiatives seeking landing > rights at this very minute, where it would increase backbone capacity > and likely drive down prices in many nations, and hence increase access. > So if civil society/the international community were to speak up and > encourage governements to let the new players in, that could only help. > To be clear, I have no stake in those initiatives, just have my fingers > crossed that the usual suspect incumbent players don't succeed in > derailing them. > > For IGF India, more discussion of areas where technology and policy (and > business) can intersect to improve access opportunities in developing > nations might be helpful; I intend to propose some ideas there myself. > > So international CS can't resolve these problems by itself, I agree, but > it can help government and business focus on the true barriers to > access, and provide some focus for local user communities to rally > around to bring their own pressure to bear. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> suresh at hserus.net 12/11/07 9:32 AM >>> > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > > > On Internet connectivity, which is the main problem in my country, my > > presence at any IGF will be to look at the means in which the civil > > society can assist in solving this solution. > > You can set up wireless mesh networks, and/or deploy OLPC which does the > same thing. Or you can do what Mahabir Pun has done in Nepal to connect > yak > herders in remote villages in Nepal, and for which he deservedly won the > Ramon Magsaysay award this year. > > That'd be local networking though. Internet access .. fully open to > ideas on > what you can do, as CS, to go after, say, the various satellite > providers > that provide connectivity to most of Africa. In several countries, > that's > the monopoly incumbent telco, owned and operated by the government in > that > country. > > That'd not be an international problem, unfortunately. It is an entirely > local problem. Which you can probably enlist some international help to > resolve, but the solution for which would be entirely local (and, I > suspect, > deeply political, in most cases) > > Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention is that it quite often is not > something that CS will be able to resolve all that easily, by itself. > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 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 From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 11 14:27:59 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:27:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > I have, as you know, written quite a bit over the years > about the historical evolution and contemporary decline > of the telecom regime, so I not only get the marginalization > argument, but have made it. You are getting all defensive and prickly again, which doesn't accomplish anything. It seems to me that you are making a very strong argument that Bill Drake believes in the importance of, and wants to get more involved in, ITU discussions of security. If that is the case, great. Do it! And if you can convince others to get involved, that's fine. My point is not to tell others not to do anything they think should be done, and I apologize if you took it that way. My debate was about whether this particular grouping of civil society has the resources and expertise to become deeply involved as a collectivity. My impression was that this was an internet governance group, focused on the IGF, not a general ICT policy or telecom policy group. This collection of civil society actors has its strengths, but it is barely able to maintain a coordinated presence in the IGF, and is really only tangentially connected to the nitty-gritty policy work of ICANN (despite your constant "if it's not ICANN who cares"? comments, I don't see any but a handful of these people -- except for the employees -- at ICANN meetings or workgroups). So if you are proposing to add ITU committees and processes to the group, I am simply questioning whether it can be feasible. I do _not_ question whether you personally can do it, and do not question that someone ought to be in there. > I have absolutely no illusions that CS would make a HUGE > effort and wasn't proposing this. But since the Argentine- > Swiss proposals to open the door to CS are the focus of > active debate right now, it'd be nice if CS wasn't entirely silent, > which just makes it easier for the more retrograde governments > to say why bother, they don't care anyway. At a post- > It'd have been nice if we'd had a sign on or something, > which is not all that hard to do, OK, so here's where your argument gets interesting, and complicated. And it illustrates why I am worried about capacity constraints. Yes, in some sense CS should respond to proposals to open the door to CS. The question is, who goes in that door other than you and perhaps Willie? And I don't just mean signing a statement, which takes a few minutes, I mean actually participating in these standards committees, which takes years? And what other processes do you absent yourselves from by virtue of participating in ITU committees? This group? GigaNet? Your wife? Do we have the ability to seriously contribute? What happens when they open the door and no one enters? It's irresponsible not to ask those questions. Would it be a great victory for democracy for one guy from this group to be let into these committees? What would you do? What positions would you advocate? What is keeping you out now? Why do you need this group to validate your participation? Does this group have any legitimate ability to validate your participation? Is ITU really waiting for our word? These are honest questions, not rhetorical ones. Inquiring minds want to know. > FYI, today begins a four day meeting of WP 2 of SG 17 and > there's a ton of people from irrelevant outfits like VeriSign > over there. Here's the piffle WP 2 is currently working on: What follows is a long detailed list of highly technical - policy -economic issues. Which is precisely my point. Who in this group is ready to go toe to toe with full-time, paid, telephone company engineers and government ministry reps on "network security assessment/guidelines based on ITU-T recommendation X.805? Etc. If you can go to this meeting, go. I have no doubt that a single dedicated individual can have an impact if they get access, know the issues, focus their efforts, and devote about 20 hours a week to following the issue. I would wonder about who pays for the time and expenses of that person. That's what some of us have done in the ICANN/IGF complex of institutions, and even that is beginning to strain our capacity. Now you're multiplying the remit by about ten-fold, in an environment that is not clearly the most direct and strategic. Just pay attention to maximizing the effective use of our resources (to the extent that there is any "our" here anyway). That's all I am saying. It's easy for folks on this list to cheerlead you on, but when you go into those committees and have real work to do, take a look around you and see which of them is there. -------------- 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 Dec 11 14:37:44 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:37:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] .berlin and ALAC In-Reply-To: <040b01c83c0b$daf62390$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> References: <040b01c83c0b$daf62390$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2CF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- >"... The parliament of Berlin has voted >down the .berlin proposal with a >majority decision. Does anybody think that >such a local decision should be >ignored by an ICANN ALAC? ..." My response to Michael Leibrandt: Does the parliament of the German city of Berlin hold global ownership rights over the character string "berlin?" If so, let me see the title deed. If the city of Berlin in Germany had been asked whether the city in New Jersey, USA could name itself Berlin also, would it have approved or not? Would it matter? If Social Democrats and Lefties don't like having a local TLD, why are they not satisfied with refusing to patronize it, rather than suppressing it altogether? Finally, what does ALAC have to do with it? A decision on TLDs will be made by ICANN's new TLD process and its Board, not by ALAC. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Dec 11 18:19:48 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:19:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit In-Reply-To: <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <530E0971-5B0E-4F88-A2D3-97CD655B69D7@ras.eu.org> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:32, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > However, since the idea of a summit came out months ago, I have > been repeating that the ICANN Board will never put money on this if > a clear explanation of "how will this event make a difference" > isn't provided. So (AFAIK, as I'm not inside the process any more) > the organizers are now working on providing exactly that. In > general, I think that the event could be very useful or very > useless depending on how its agenda and purposes are set up. I > expect that this will be presented to the broader community in the > near future. and Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > Why not to start with 12 people in a working group to draft a > strategy to find out what to do and how to intervene? Do you both mean, say, something like this: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal (motion sent to ALAC mailing list on Nov 1st, and - as far as I've understood - prepared by Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc-France)) ? excerpts: ""ICANN Ensemble" A global summit of the ICANN At-Large community" - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) - Vision "The Summit's intent to 3.1.Help the At-Large structures to better understand At-Large mandates, structures, processes. 3.2.Provide the tools needed by At-Large leadership to involve and engage their members. 3.3.Drive the development of timely policy study and recommendations reflecting the At-Large point of view on both global and regional levels. 3.4.Encourage the exchange of ideas, experiences and energy within ICANN's At-Large community." - 4.Objectives "4.1.An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact with other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and advisory committees. 4.2.An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities therein. 4.3.Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. 4.4.An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. 4.5.A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the timing and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN" - 5.Deliverables "5.1.Resolutions based on policy development. Any resolutions which are not agreed to at the Final Plenary or require more regional consultation should be accompanied by hard deadlines for passage. 5.2.Establishment of working groups related to specific policies with explicit goals and timetables for production of papers or resolutions. 5.3.ALS leadership who are fully aware of ICANN, its workings and its issues, who are ready and able to bring this information to their members. 5.4.Improved contacts and relationships between ICANN ALSs, within and between regions, and between At-Large and other ICANN constituencies. 5.5.Work on a “Individual Internet Users” declaration." - 9.Notes "[...] •Summit organizers -- with the assistance of ALAC, RALO chairs and ICANN staff -- will distribute in advance to ALSs information related to ICANN issues requiring attention. Each ALS is expected to discuss the policy issues sufficiently so that its delegates to the Summit can participate and vote on group resolutions. [...] •All points of view will be welcomed; however, it is stressed that the Summit is intended to be a positive, progressive event and delegates are expected to participate in that spirit. Advocacy outside the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist will not be welcomed." (end of quotes) In summary: - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, let's call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" party, rather than "Internet users summit". - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's at stake??) - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of all "Individual Internet Users" on earth My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this list, we can imagine what this means. Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an ALS "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an academic stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per Suresh's indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS activities.. In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that Paris is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. Have fun. 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Tue Dec 11 18:20:33 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:20:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: internet in the developing world References: <106181.57055.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20071206151158.GA16162@nic.fr> Message-ID: <016301c83c4c$7099d550$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> I fully agree with Stephane's statement. What's more, the African Internet traffic is already at a large extent routed through the SAT-3/WASC optical fiber undersea cable which is operational since 2003 ... So please correct your information base accordingly. As far as the eastern and southern coast of Africa is concerned, there are still some disputes and arguments about financing and ownership of projects like EASSy.. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" To: Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:11 PM Subject: [governance] Re: internet in the developing world > Too bad this excellent summary ends with the standard propaganda for > deregulation, mixing political/police regulations like it exists in > Tunisia and various business regulations which try to keep the > country's economic system away from the jungle's law. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé11564 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 11 20:28:35 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:28:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071212012835.GA22314@hserus.net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [11/12/07 18:33 +0100]: >It was Suresh that was narrowing the solutioning of those problems to >local level well as I looked at it from your point of perception. >I agree, nobody cares. That is why I am a proponent of the civil >society being more proactive to finding solutions to the problems of >the masses and allowing these corrupt so called Governments to rot. >Look at Yunnus and the Grameen bank. I hope you got me? I am all for CS being more proactive. I still dont particularly believe that international effort is going to help or solve something that calls for significant local efforts. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 11 20:39:53 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:39:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] (offlist) Re:How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071212013953.GC22314@hserus.net> not entirely offlist, that. Lee McKnight [11/12/07 12:40 -0500]: >Aaron, > >In the interest of writing quickly I compressed you and Suresh in the >same bucket, sorry. > >But right we agree international pressure and individuals can do some >things government may not have a desire to even try. > >Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 11 20:38:25 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:38:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit In-Reply-To: <530E0971-5B0E-4F88-A2D3-97CD655B69D7@ras.eu.org> References: <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> <530E0971-5B0E-4F88-A2D3-97CD655B69D7@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071212013825.GB22314@hserus.net> Meryem Marzouki [12/12/07 00:19 +0100]: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal (motion > sent to ALAC mailing list on Nov 1st, and - as far as I've understood - > prepared by Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc-France)) ? > > i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per diem. > Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only drink > champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) By the same token, UN per diem rates for paris - 236 EUR, out of which 58% is the "hotel component". So about a hundred euros per diem (which includes things like taxi fare, meals etc) and 136 EUR for the hotel. http://www.who.int/bfi/PerDiem/pdindex.asp Those rates are normally calculated based on quite a lot of travel, and correspond to other similar rates (US govt per diems for example). srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shahid_ictdpb at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 21:23:41 2007 From: shahid_ictdpb at yahoo.com (Shahid Uddin Akbar) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:23:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Internet User Summit In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDE9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <127239.25200.qm@web56812.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Sounds realistic. Make a small working group and let them come up with strategies and other policy issues. how the voice from developing countries will be ensured? pl bring practioners to have something very critical to reach the broader communities of potential internet user... Regars, Shahid Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Milton: But what is their agenda, what do they have to say, what principles will guide them? And how will that be brought to bear on specific, real policy choices in real governance agencies? I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't. Wolfgang: Why not to start with 12 people in a working group to draft a strategy to find out what to do and how to intervene? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 11 21:28:43 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:58:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet User Summit In-Reply-To: <127239.25200.qm@web56812.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DDE9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <127239.25200.qm@web56812.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000301c83c66$b9e40b80$2dac2280$@net> "Inclusiveness" really doesn't cut it. I am not a fan of participation for the sake of participation .. usually leads to what I said earlier, expense paid trips for a lot of petty ministry bureaucrats, or NGO "gravy train" types .. who go from one conference to another on a series of fellowships, and then go shopping. Seen enough of those. Just like I have seen what happened when a friend of a friend was addressing Kenyan NGOs on open source and how it can help them, providing expertise + well designed resources for developing country ICT. He did have a friend speaking the local language who was sitting at the back of the audience .. who later told him that most of the local NGOs were like "what the hell is this Mzungu [white guy] talking about, and why doesn't he do what the others do, sign a check and get out of here so we can all go have a beer". From: Shahid Uddin Akbar [mailto:shahid_ictdpb at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:54 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; mueller at syr.edu; jam at jacquelinemorris.com; yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: Re: [governance] Internet User Summit Sounds realistic. Make a small working group and let them come up with strategies and other policy issues. how the voice from developing countries will be ensured? pl bring practioners to have something very critical to reach the broader communities of potential internet user... Regars, Shahid -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Wed Dec 12 00:50:18 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:50:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: <20071212012835.GA22314@hserus.net> References: <20071212012835.GA22314@hserus.net> Message-ID: At 5:28 PM -0800 12/11/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [11/12/07 18:33 +0100]: >>It was Suresh that was narrowing the solutioning of those problems to >>local level well as I looked at it from your point of perception. > >>I agree, nobody cares. That is why I am a proponent of the civil >>society being more proactive to finding solutions to the problems of >>the masses and allowing these corrupt so called Governments to rot. >>Look at Yunnus and the Grameen bank. I hope you got me? > >I am all for CS being more proactive. I still dont particularly believe >that international effort is going to help or solve something that calls >for significant local efforts. This is an interesting policy question in general terms. It is often the case that local efforts are hampered by lack of experience in dealing with specific types of goals, and in such cases non-local expertise can be significantly useful in helping to understand the dynamics and conceptualize the options for solutions. So, why are local problems necessarily not within the realm of international efforts? I don't disagree that the local solutions ultimately will need to be resourced (money, human effort) and politically driven locally, but the international community might well be able to add meaningful (and perhaps critical) value in terms of strategy. It may make sense to establish a general resource for strategic expertise at the international level to be applied to a variety of local circumstances. That whole "access to knowledge" thing, y'know. In spite of the wealth of data that is available in raw and distributed form on the web, making effective use of all that (wading through it -- even with Google's help you have to know what you're looking for to a significant extent -- to find what is relevant and putting it together into an effective plan) can be aided (and more importantly, accelerated through what otherwise would be a bootstrap learning process) tremendously by the participants of experts. And I hope that no one will suggest that local problems don't have the potential for broad international impact. The Internet is a global information and communication network, after all. Everything has global impact these days -- the only question is the delay of the multiplier effects, and that delay is shrinking every day. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 01:54:58 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:54:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: <120752.59090.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <120752.59090.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: All, On Dec 10, 2007 3:30 PM, kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > "I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to > do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a > meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't." > Anyway, the answer to the question: How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? is fairly simple, and can be found in many places: http://www.afrinic.net/training/index.htm http://www.afnog.org/index.html http://www.afrinic.net/meeting/index.htm http://icons.afrinic.net/ http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/ntw.shtml http://www.icann.org/fellowships/terms-and-conditions.htm http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/fellowship/overview.shtml http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/cctld/ http://ws.edu.isoc.org/ In my experience all of these programs engender effective participation amongst Africans, none of them are just a "jolly", tho they can be lots of fun! -- 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Dec 12 03:44:32 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:44:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, On 12/11/07 8:27 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > >> > I have, as you know, written quite a bit over the years >> > about the historical evolution and contemporary decline >> > of the telecom regime, so I not only get the marginalization >> > argument, but have made it. > >You are getting all defensive and prickly again, which doesn't accomplish anything. Tee hee, this is you talking? Thanks for the giggle. But the statement was neither. I just said that I get the marginalization point so you don¹t need to be pedantic about it, it¹s not a new thought; and that when stated as a sweeping generalization rather than made precise based on the actual empirics of different issue-areas, it¹s also counterfactual. >It seems to me that you are making a very strong argument that Bill Drake >believes in the importance of, and wants to get more involved in, ITU >discussions of security. If that is the case, great. Do it! And if >you can convince others to get involved, that's fine. My point is >not to tell others not to do anything they think should be done, >and I apologize if you took it that way. No, I was making an argument that governments and industry from around the world that can and do take actions of consequence plainly believe in the importance of and get involved in ITU, which seems a parsimonious explanation of why they spend a great deal of time and resources participating. This was in response to your totalizing pronouncement that nobody cares and nothing done there matters; I was saying, in keeping with the thrust of the thread Alex prompted some time ago, that there is in fact a world of global ICT decision making beyond ICANN, even if you don¹t happen to follow it. And I said nothing about me personally wanting to be more involved, but rather that it would be nice if CS had at least something to say about the topic of CS inclusion at a time when a few friendly governments are trying to push that boulder up the hill. >My debate was about whether this particular grouping of civil society >has the resources and expertise to become deeply involved as a collectivity. In fact, I said explicitly I didn¹t expect much in this regard, and didn¹t think much more was needed beyond a simple sign on letter supporting the initiative. Wouldn¹t want to distract from the all consuming pleasures of the ICANN pissing matches that have consumed the list of late (although one wonders just how many listservs are needed for this). >My impression was that this was an internet governance group, focused on the IGF, >not a general ICT policy or telecom policy group. This collection of civil society actors >has its strengths, but it is barely able to maintain a coordinated presence in the IGF, >and is really only tangentially connected to the nitty-gritty policy work of ICANN >(despite your constant "if it's not ICANN who cares"? comments, I don't see any >but a handful of these people -- except for the employees -- at ICANN meetings >or workgroups). So if you are proposing to add ITU committees and processes >to the group, I am simply questioning whether it can be feasible. I do _not_ question >whether you personally can do it, and do not question that someone ought to be in there. I take your point about the state and focus of the IGC. But I understood the thread Alex started to be on ³IG questions that are not ICANN,² at least that¹s the subject line, so when security came up, I pointed out that one of the places where a lot of activity related to Internet security is happening is in Sauron¹s tower here in multilateral Modor. And I noted that depending on how this activity is configured and implemented by governments and industry, some of it may indeed constitute IG. Where and when this may be true is again an empirical question, so sweeping dismissals that none of it can matter by definition just seem ideological. >What happens when they open the door and no one enters? >It's irresponsible not to ask those questions. I don¹t actually believe they¹ll open the door much, so probably it¹s moot. But it¹s still worth making the point as a matter of principle that they shouldn¹t be closed and out of synch with the rest of the UN agencies, if for no other reason than to potentially temper their exuberance a bit in designing policies and standards for NGN, security, mobile net, etc. that can be contrary to the public interest, raise hackles in the noncommercial sector, and generate post hoc opposition. That said, the question of participation needs to be differentiated. For the ongoing sector work, right, probably not a lot of CS groups would have the resources or motivation to go through the extant membership process and then come to Geneva four times a year for two weeks at a time (although I assume ISOC could, and probably on ITU issues there¹d be sufficient agreement with many of us). Of more interest probably would be other less regular meetings, and observer status, rather than actual sector membership. >Would it be a great victory for democracy for one guy from this group Again, a misconstruction of what I was saying. A couple people responded to the thread in this manner, but I said nothing about me personally wanting to participate. I¹m addressing institutional rules and the need for transparency and inclusion as a matter of principle. I¹ve said the same things at a couple of OECD meetings, to as little effect, being just one person. When there¹s no expressed demand from a constituency, those inside who might agree are left without a case and drop it. >Is ITU really waiting for our word? ITU is not a single entity controlled by a wizard behind the screen, it¹s an agglomeration of 191 countries and if memory serves > 700 corporate/organizational members plus secretariat etc. Probably most actors don¹t give a damn about CS but some seem to feel differently. At a minimum, I suspect the Swiss and Argentine governments wouldn¹t mind if CS were to mumble a little support for their initiative on our behalf. >What follows is a long detailed list of highly technical - policy -economic issues. >Which is precisely my point. Who in this group is ready to go toe to toe with full-time, >paid, telephone company engineers and government ministry reps on "network security >assessment/guidelines based on ITU-T recommendation X.805? Etc. Yes, but it wasn¹t my point. I provided that list in response to your sweeping assertion that the ITU is marginalized and irrelevant. I¹m saying there may be stuff going on worth monitoring and knowing about, from both CS advocacy and scholarly standpoints, rather than just assuming it away. The question of whether CS could and should actively participate in all aspects of this work on an ongoing basis is a different matter, and per above I wasn¹t suggesting this. Cheers, Bill *********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** -------------- 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 Wed Dec 12 03:44:24 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:44:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do we engender effective participation from developing countries (Africa)? In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <120752.59090.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dan Krimm Some understanding of this policy issues stems from one's background. You developed a rock solid case that I can only say, Amen These are the types of enlightened views from the "West" that w from th "East" will gladly welcome, not those distractive debates by proponents of the old order. Globalisation and Inernet are fast closing the gap up, you know, Kudos Aaron On 12/12/07, McTim wrote: > All, > > On Dec 10, 2007 3:30 PM, kwasi boakye-akyeampong > wrote: > > > > "I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to > > do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a > > meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't." > > > > Anyway, the answer to the question: > How do we engender effective participation from developing countries > (Africa)? is fairly simple, and can be found in many places: > http://www.afrinic.net/training/index.htm > http://www.afnog.org/index.html > http://www.afrinic.net/meeting/index.htm > http://icons.afrinic.net/ > http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/ntw.shtml > http://www.icann.org/fellowships/terms-and-conditions.htm > http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/fellowship/overview.shtml > http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/cctld/ > http://ws.edu.isoc.org/ > > In my experience all of these programs engender effective participation > amongst Africans, none of them are just a "jolly", tho they can be lots of > fun! > > -- > 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 > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 08:31:46 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:31:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: URGENT ALERT - climate-wrecking at Bali In-Reply-To: <52322636b6ae642cdd1cc6b039f71af5@dp1.avaaz.org> References: <52322636b6ae642cdd1cc6b039f71af5@dp1.avaaz.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Hilder - Avaaz.org Date: Dec 12, 2007 10:56 AM Subject: URGENT ALERT - climate-wrecking at Bali To: "nyangkweagien at gmail.com" Dear friends, The US, Canada and Japan are climate-wrecking at Bali - here's our global emergency petition to save the talks, add your name automatically by clicking below! "* We call urgently for the US, Canada and Japan to stop blocking serious 2020 targets for emissions reductions, and for the rest of the world to refuse to accept anything less."* [image: Click Here to Sign Now] *We're here at the climate summit in Bali -- but it's reached crisis point.*Working late, negotiators were nearing consensus that * developed countries should pledge post-Kyoto emissions cuts by 2020*--a step which the scientists say is needed to avert the worst ravages of global warming, and which will help to bring China and the developing world onboard. But then the news broke: *the US, Canada and Japan rejected any mention of such cuts.* Every few hours the draft changes. We can't let three governments hold the world to ransom: so *we're launching a global emergency petition before the summit climax in 48 hours. *We'll deliver our message every way we can -- a stark *full-page advertisement in the Financial Times* Asia, stunts at the conference gates, direct to country delegations -- telling Canada, Japan and the US to accept the option of post-Kyoto targets, and the rest of the world to settle for nothing less. Please take a moment right now to *sign the new global emergency petition*-- the text is in the box above, so click this link to sign automatically if you've taken action with us before -- then *tell all your friends*: http://www.avaaz.org/bali_emergency/5.php Today marks the 10th anniversary of the expiring Kyoto pact, but Japan, the US and Canada don't seem to want a workable global deal to follow it.* There is almost universal agreement in Bali *that the idea of 2020 climate targets should be included, making possible a deal to bring the developing world onboard over time. As the news links below make clear, the US, Japan and Canada are destroying that delicate bargain, not even allowing the idea to be mentioned. *We're doing everything we can. *Tens of thousands of Canadian Avaaz members have launched an ad campaign telling their government not to betray them -- our Japanese members are emailing their leaders -- while our American members will send their own message to Bali as Al Gore and Congressional and local representatives land there, asking negotiators to ignore the official US delegation because it does not represent them. Coming from every country on earth, *all of us can play a direct role in the Bali face-off *by signing this global emergency petition -- delivered at the summit gates, in a full-page Financial Times ad, and direct to delegates. *Add your name at this link, act now and spread the word -- we have just 48 hours: * http://www.avaaz.org/bali_emergency/5.php With determination and hope, Paul, Ricken, Galit, Ben, Iain, Graziela, Milena and the whole Avaaz team PS This article explains a bit of what's going on: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/10/news/climate.php The New Scientist has more detail here: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/12/bali-draft-hints-emissions-targets-may_10.html We're in the thick of things here at Bali -- Avaaz was the only organisation allowed to demonstrate inside the fortified summit Saturday. As hundreds of thousands marched around the world, we brought over half a million voices to the heart of the decision-making venue, carrying big banners and scores of country flags. We've also been hosting the daily Fossil Awards of the Climate Action Network, the umbrella of all the NGOs here – see http://www.avaaz.org/fossils. *ABOUT AVAAZ* Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means "voice" in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in London, New York, Paris, Washington DC, Geneva, and Rio de Janeiro. You are getting this message because you signed "" on 2007-09-29 using the email address nyangkweagien at gmail.com. To ensure that Avaaz messages reach your inbox, please add avaaz at avaaz.orgto your address book. To change your email address, language settings, or other personal information, click here, or simply *go here to unsubscribe .* To contact Avaaz, please *do not reply to this email.* Instead, write to info at avaaz.org. You can also send postal mail to our New York office: 260 Fifth Avenue, 9th floor, New York, NY 10001 U.S.A. If you have technical problems, please go to http://www.avaaz.org. -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- 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 Wed Dec 12 12:13:41 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:13:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12 dec 2007, at 03.44, William Drake wrote: > No, I was making an argument that governments and industry from > around the world that can and do take actions of consequence > plainly believe in the importance of and get involved in ITU, which > seems a parsimonious explanation of why they spend a great deal of > time and resources participating. one small anecdotal data point i have. The S. Korean ministry of information and tech in 2007 made a decision to focus its standards making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence architecture/ protocols, which caused the leading research institute to reassign everyone to IT work and to lay off contractors (that's me) who were working on any other standards activity. anyone who has been to the ITU SG meetings lately wil have noticed this change of focus on their part (several have pointed it out to me). to have substantial indistrial player like S. Korea make suc a decsion is not a small thing, especially if you look at how intertwined their Industrial R&D is with Govt policy and research funding. Yes, this is only a technical standards body in ITU-T and not one of the more policy oriented bodies. But one accepts any part of the thesis that technology and policy are tight coupled and that much of technology represents hardened policy, then this is a significant data point. This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the way various technological choices could facilitate the ability to set policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate system entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of the traffi passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow down, record ... I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. So the more that people who care can participate in all phases of heir activities, the better. I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS o get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get expressed and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect the trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision by decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Dec 12 16:29:40 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:29:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Avri, On 12/12/07 6:13 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > On 12 dec 2007, at 03.44, William Drake wrote: > >> No, I was making an argument that governments and industry from >> around the world that can and do take actions of consequence >> plainly believe in the importance of and get involved in ITU, which >> seems a parsimonious explanation of why they spend a great deal of >> time and resources participating. > > > one small anecdotal data point i have. The S. Korean ministry of > information and tech in 2007 made a decision to focus its standards > making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence architecture/ > protocols, which caused the leading research institute to reassign > everyone to IT work and to lay off contractors (that's me) who were > working on any other standards activity. anyone who has been to the > ITU SG meetings lately wil have noticed this change of focus on their > part (several have pointed it out to me). to have substantial > indistrial player like S. Korea make suc a decsion is not a small > thing, especially if you look at how intertwined their Industrial R&D > is with Govt policy and research funding. As it happens, the Korean delegation at the little working party meeting going on now numbers 13 people, the largest. For other issues it's a different mix, variable geometry. But in general, there's obviously substantial interest among governments and large firms in hardened information infrastructures that can securely handle substantial levels of e-com, e-gov, interfaces with other critical infrastructures, etc., and clear recognition that vulnerabilities can originate anywhere, and sometimes it makes sense to look to existing global coordination mechanisms rather than undertaking the costs of inventing new ones. > Yes, this is only a technical standards body in ITU-T and not one of > the more policy oriented bodies. But one accepts any part of the > thesis that technology and policy are tight coupled and that much of > technology represents hardened policy, then this is a significant > data point. This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the > way various technological choices could facilitate the ability to > set policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate > system entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of > the traffi passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow > down, record ... > > > I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically > picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant > force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, > will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. So > the more that people who care can participate in all phases of heir > activities, the better. One would think. > I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS > o get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get > expressed and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect > the trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision > by decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be > stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. On substantive issues sure, the golden day won't come, but on the procedural issues of transparency and open doors, if there's no unified front there won't be the possibility to get involved and disagree amongst ourselves in the first place. Whatever. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.... 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 avri at psg.com Wed Dec 12 16:35:43 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:35:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D937B95-AA70-435D-AAD4-4AE6AD2C8C68@psg.com> On 12 dec 2007, at 16.29, William Drake wrote: >> Sure if there is a unified position CS an be >> stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. > > On substantive issues sure, the golden day won't come, but on the > procedural > issues of transparency and open doors, if there's no unified front > there > won't be the possibility to get involved and disagree amongst > ourselves in > the first place. sure. though i am sure we could get into a food fight about what those terms mean, we probably all accept that for some definition of 'transparent' and 'open' we might, for some definition of 'united', be united. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Dec 12 17:34:37 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:34:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <476061FD.5020003@wzb.eu> So, do I understand this correctly, some countries have decided to go intergovernmental again for areas such as security stuff and use the ITU as their preferred platform to coordinate with other countries? Why would they choose the ITU instead of other standard setting organizations such as the IETF? Because the ITU is now more predictable or more efficient regarding outcomes? I get this idea that security is a topic I have neglected for too long and now need to find a window into. Very difficult to understand... je Avri Doria wrote: > > On 12 dec 2007, at 03.44, William Drake wrote: > >> No, I was making an argument that governments and industry from around >> the world that can and do take actions of consequence plainly believe >> in the importance of and get involved in ITU, which seems a >> parsimonious explanation of why they spend a great deal of time and >> resources participating. > > > one small anecdotal data point i have. The S. Korean ministry of > information and tech in 2007 made a decision to focus its standards > making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence > architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research institute to > reassign everyone to IT work and to lay off contractors (that's me) who > were working on any other standards activity. anyone who has been to > the ITU SG meetings lately wil have noticed this change of focus on > their part (several have pointed it out to me). to have substantial > indistrial player like S. Korea make suc a decsion is not a small thing, > especially if you look at how intertwined their Industrial R&D is with > Govt policy and research funding. > > Yes, this is only a technical standards body in ITU-T and not one of the > more policy oriented bodies. But one accepts any part of the thesis > that technology and policy are tight coupled and that much of > technology represents hardened policy, then this is a significant data > point. This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the way > various technological choices could facilitate the ability to set > policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate system > entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of the traffi > passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow down, record ... > > > I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically > picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant > force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, > will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. So the > more that people who care can participate in all phases of heir > activities, the better. > > I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS o > get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get expressed > and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect the > trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision by > decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be stronger, > but we don't need to wait for that golden day. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Dec 12 17:41:11 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:41:11 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <476061FD.5020003@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <1a2e01c83d10$204b0e60$8b00a8c0@IAN> Jeanette, my understanding is that WSIS gave responsibility for cybersecurity outcomes to ITU (rightly or wrongly) If you look at the strategic direction proposed by ITU and their roadmap for addressing the subject you would see a vast difference to any capabilities IETF has in addressing the subject holistically 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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: 13 December 2007 09:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] So, do I understand this correctly, some countries have decided to go intergovernmental again for areas such as security stuff and use the ITU as their preferred platform to coordinate with other countries? Why would they choose the ITU instead of other standard setting organizations such as the IETF? Because the ITU is now more predictable or more efficient regarding outcomes? I get this idea that security is a topic I have neglected for too long and now need to find a window into. Very difficult to understand... je Avri Doria wrote: > > On 12 dec 2007, at 03.44, William Drake wrote: > >> No, I was making an argument that governments and industry from around >> the world that can and do take actions of consequence plainly believe >> in the importance of and get involved in ITU, which seems a >> parsimonious explanation of why they spend a great deal of time and >> resources participating. > > > one small anecdotal data point i have. The S. Korean ministry of > information and tech in 2007 made a decision to focus its standards > making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence > architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research institute to > reassign everyone to IT work and to lay off contractors (that's me) who > were working on any other standards activity. anyone who has been to > the ITU SG meetings lately wil have noticed this change of focus on > their part (several have pointed it out to me). to have substantial > indistrial player like S. Korea make suc a decsion is not a small thing, > especially if you look at how intertwined their Industrial R&D is with > Govt policy and research funding. > > Yes, this is only a technical standards body in ITU-T and not one of the > more policy oriented bodies. But one accepts any part of the thesis > that technology and policy are tight coupled and that much of > technology represents hardened policy, then this is a significant data > point. This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the way > various technological choices could facilitate the ability to set > policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate system > entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of the traffi > passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow down, record ... > > > I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically > picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant > force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, > will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. So the > more that people who care can participate in all phases of heir > activities, the better. > > I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS o > get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get expressed > and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect the > trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision by > decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be stronger, > but we don't need to wait for that golden day. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007 11:29 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007 11:29 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 12 18:25:59 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:25:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >[South Korea] making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence >architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research >institute to reassign everyone to IT[U] work and to lay off >contractors (that's me) who were working on any other standards >activity. Avri, your anecdote is interesting and highly relevant. But I see something perhaps a bit different in it than you do. To me, this is an example of what I meant by the top-down paradigm. Yes, standardization activity in ITU is "bottom up" in the sense that it is driven by consensus-based committees that are dominated by (a sector of) industry. However, many people in the ITU, including the So. Koreans, still seem to believe that we are in a pre-1997 world in which standards agreed upon by the telcos in intergovernmental fora really do define the direction of global digital media. I don't think that will be the case anymore. Standards dominance is very, very difficult to achieve these days, and when it does happen (Microsoft) it usually occurs through de facto market dominance, not through interogovernmental bodies. There are a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions. The telcos would really, really like for a carefully defined "NGN convergence architecture" to supersede the unruly Internet. Maybe they will succeed in that goal. But there are a lot of other powerful players, including consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet companies, technology companies. Let's not argue any more about this: You and Bill are certainly right that such activities should not be ignored. Maybe the age of decentralized internet is ending and this is the beginning of the end. Maybe not. As I said before, anyone who wants to get involved, feel free, I am not arguing against it. But before you do, do ask intelligent questions about what is the best way to spend your time. And do ask whether your participation helps to legitimate activities that might best be criticized from the outside. >This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the >way various technological choices could facilitate the ability to >set policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate >system entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of >the traffi passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow >down, record ... But this is a danger regardless of what the ITU does. Deep packet inspection technologies, national laws such as the French one requiring monitoring, U.S.-based alliances between IPR interests and cable infrastructure providers, broadcast flag in the digital transition, all represent similar, and much more immediate threats. Are you sure, do you feel really confident, that ITU is the best place to confront these issues? >I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically >picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant >force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, >will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. I would argue that ITU has been seeking some kind of niche, some kind of toehold for gaining relevance and control over the internet, since 1995/6. The latest two are NGN and security. Most of the earlier attempts were failures. How much impact the decisions made there will have on the Internet remains to be seen, it is debatable. But it's good that someone (Bill) is monitoring these things at ITU. >So the more that people who care can participate in all phases of heir >activities, the better. Who can argue with this? My main points, which people keep not addressing, is: when the doors open, who walks in? It is not difficult to imagine scenarios in which you make things worse. Suppose the doors open and no one shows up, or no one is really equipped to navigate the negotiations in an effective way. Some very bad outcomes could be excused or legitimized. "Hey, don't complain that we are now inspecting all of your packets and have implemented a digital identity system that permits complete surveillance, working group SC-17(b)iii made this decision last month, and the civil society representative at the meeting raised no objections." Who was this "civil society representative"? Was s/he just asleep, overworked, bought off? Or simply didn't understand what was going on? Or outnumbered and ignored? >I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS >to get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get >expressed and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect >the trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision >by decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be >stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. See above. Whether CS is unified or not is a secondary issue, imho. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 12 18:27:25 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:27:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <476061FD.5020003@wzb.eu> References: <476061FD.5020003@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2F8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >Why would they choose the ITU instead of other standard >setting organizations such as the IETF? Because the >ITU is now more predictable or more efficient regarding outcomes? My guess: because the ITU is less dominated by the US. I.e., one country, one vote. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Dec 13 00:38:47 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:38:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3CC1589B-DE73-46DA-8A9B-AB55DCD51AE2@psg.com> Hi, I think a lot of the analysis below holds. but it isn't the Telcos that are making the decisions in the ITU SGs, but the sector members, i.e. the vendors that make the stuff. So it is a variant on the old model. the sector members agree and then the governments rubber stamp. Of course the govt's, some more then others, discuss all of the details with the sector members along the way. You find that in some countries, the sector members drive the national delegations on such things (e.g. who tells who what: Finland or Nokia, Sweden or Ericsson, ...), while in others there is a different mix (In S. Korea it is a genuine govt- Industry collaborative effort as far as I can tell). As for the NGN replacing the unruly Internet, that is much a fantasy as IPv6 replacing IPv4. Nothing goes away in the network, new things just learn to coexist with the old and vice versa. And the NGN is always just 10 years away in horizon time. BTW: I though I was discussing not arguing. I do not believe that the age of the decentralised Internet is going away, though there will be many areas of the Internet that have some degree of local control. And there will always be some services that for some period of time are at the core and which seem susceptible to centralised take over. Personally I still believe it can't happen. But more importantly, I think we should assume that it shouldn't happen and should participate everywhere possible to make sure it doesn't, just in case i am wrong about that. a. On 12 dec 2007, at 18.25, Milton L Mueller wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> [South Korea] making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence >> architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research >> institute to reassign everyone to IT[U] work and to lay off >> contractors (that's me) who were working on any other standards >> activity. > > Avri, > your anecdote is interesting and highly relevant. But I see something > perhaps a bit different in it than you do. To me, this is an > example of > what I meant by the top-down paradigm. Yes, standardization > activity in > ITU is "bottom up" in the sense that it is driven by consensus-based > committees that are dominated by (a sector of) industry. > > However, many people in the ITU, including the So. Koreans, still seem > to believe that we are in a pre-1997 world in which standards agreed > upon by the telcos in intergovernmental fora really do define the > direction of global digital media. I don't think that will be the case > anymore. Standards dominance is very, very difficult to achieve these > days, and when it does happen (Microsoft) it usually occurs through de > facto market dominance, not through interogovernmental bodies. > There are > a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions. The telcos > would really, really like for a carefully defined "NGN convergence > architecture" to supersede the unruly Internet. Maybe they will > succeed > in that goal. But there are a lot of other powerful players, including > consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet companies, technology > companies. > > Let's not argue any more about this: You and Bill are certainly right > that such activities should not be ignored. Maybe the age of > decentralized internet is ending and this is the beginning of the end. > Maybe not. As I said before, anyone who wants to get involved, feel > free, I am not arguing against it. But before you do, do ask > intelligent > questions about what is the best way to spend your time. And do ask > whether your participation helps to legitimate activities that might > best be criticized from the outside. > >> This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the >> way various technological choices could facilitate the ability to >> set policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate >> system entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of >> the traffi passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow >> down, record ... > > But this is a danger regardless of what the ITU does. Deep packet > inspection technologies, national laws such as the French one > requiring > monitoring, U.S.-based alliances between IPR interests and cable > infrastructure providers, broadcast flag in the digital transition, > all > represent similar, and much more immediate threats. Are you sure, > do you > feel really confident, that ITU is the best place to confront these > issues? > >> I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically >> picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant >> force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, >> will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. > > I would argue that ITU has been seeking some kind of niche, some > kind of > toehold for gaining relevance and control over the internet, since > 1995/6. The latest two are NGN and security. Most of the earlier > attempts were failures. How much impact the decisions made there will > have on the Internet remains to be seen, it is debatable. > > But it's good that someone (Bill) is monitoring these things at ITU. > >> So the more that people who care can participate in all phases of >> heir > >> activities, the better. > > Who can argue with this? My main points, which people keep not > addressing, is: when the doors open, who walks in? It is not > difficult > to imagine scenarios in which you make things worse. Suppose the doors > open and no one shows up, or no one is really equipped to navigate the > negotiations in an effective way. Some very bad outcomes could be > excused or legitimized. "Hey, don't complain that we are now > inspecting > all of your packets and have implemented a digital identity system > that > permits complete surveillance, working group SC-17(b)iii made this > decision last month, and the civil society representative at the > meeting > raised no objections." Who was this "civil society representative"? > Was > s/he just asleep, overworked, bought off? Or simply didn't understand > what was going on? Or outnumbered and ignored? > >> I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS >> to get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get >> expressed and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect >> the trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision >> by decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be >> stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. > > See above. Whether CS is unified or not is a secondary issue, imho. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 13 01:02:00 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:02:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, On 12/13/07 12:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > However, many people in the ITU, including the So. Koreans, still seem > to believe that we are in a pre-1997 world in which standards agreed > upon by the telcos in intergovernmental fora really do define the > direction of global digital media. I don't think that will be the case > anymore. Standards dominance is very, very difficult to achieve these > days, and when it does happen (Microsoft) it usually occurs through de > facto market dominance, not through interogovernmental bodies. There are > a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions. The telcos > would really, really like for a carefully defined "NGN convergence > architecture" to supersede the unruly Internet. Maybe they will succeed > in that goal. But there are a lot of other powerful players, including > consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet companies, technology > companies. I think we're moving toward agreement; 'a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions' sums it up nicely. And a lot of forum shopping (which is not binary, e.g. either one works in IETF or one works in ITU---anyway the two do coordinate on some stuff) standards competition, push and pull between different architectural visions and institutional turfs, etc, all of which can't be summarized by rote anymore as just netheads vs. bellheads. And then add to the mix the highly articulated state interest in security, particularly since Rudy's 15 minutes, and you end up with a pretty complex topography that has to be evaluated empirically and holistically, rather than with one eye closed. That's all I was saying, not that the ITU has/will/should inherit the earth, or that countervailing pressures don't exist elsewhere. BTW Microsoft is over at the intergovernmental body a lot, including now, alongside VeriSign, IBM, Lucent, Nortel...lot of Yanks involved in security and other aspects of ITU work. > free, I am not arguing against it. But before you do, do ask intelligent > questions about what is the best way to spend your time. And do ask Will try, thanks. Best, Bill *********************************************************** 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Dec 12 20:00:35 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:00:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit In-Reply-To: <530E0971-5B0E-4F88-A2D3-97CD655B69D7@ras.eu.org> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> <530E0971-5B0E-4F88-A2D3-97CD655B69D7@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <000901c83d23$93783ee0$ba68bca0$@com> This was a first draft at the proposal - there are loads of people working in a committee to develop this proposal further, so your comments should be sent to them, so that they can be taken into consideration. To that end I've copied the ALAC list on this email. Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit > > > Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:32, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > > > However, since the idea of a summit came out months ago, I have > > been repeating that the ICANN Board will never put money on this if > > a clear explanation of "how will this event make a difference" > > isn't provided. So (AFAIK, as I'm not inside the process any more) > > the organizers are now working on providing exactly that. In > > general, I think that the event could be very useful or very > > useless depending on how its agenda and purposes are set up. I > > expect that this will be presented to the broader community in the > > near future. > > and > > Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > > > Why not to start with 12 people in a working group to draft a > > strategy to find out what to do and how to intervene? > > Do you both mean, say, something like this: > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal > (motion sent to ALAC mailing list on Nov 1st, and - as far as I've > understood - prepared by Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc-France)) ? > > excerpts: > ""ICANN Ensemble" A global summit of the ICANN At-Large community" > - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) > > i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per > diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only > drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) > > - Vision > "The Summit's intent to > 3.1.Help the At-Large structures to better understand At-Large > mandates, structures, processes. > 3.2.Provide the tools needed by At-Large leadership to involve and > engage their members. > 3.3.Drive the development of timely policy study and recommendations > reflecting the At-Large point of view on both global and regional > levels. > 3.4.Encourage the exchange of ideas, experiences and energy within > ICANN's At-Large community." > > - 4.Objectives > > "4.1.An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact > with other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and > advisory committees. > 4.2.An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the > issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities > therein. > 4.3.Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. > 4.4.An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, > rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. > 4.5.A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the > timing and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN" > > - 5.Deliverables > > "5.1.Resolutions based on policy development. Any resolutions which > are not agreed to at the Final Plenary or require more regional > consultation should be accompanied by hard deadlines for passage. > 5.2.Establishment of working groups related to specific policies with > explicit goals and timetables for production of papers or resolutions. > 5.3.ALS leadership who are fully aware of ICANN, its workings and its > issues, who are ready and able to bring this information to their > members. > 5.4.Improved contacts and relationships between ICANN ALSs, within > and between regions, and between At-Large and other ICANN > constituencies. > 5.5.Work on a “Individual Internet Users” declaration." > > - 9.Notes > > "[...] > •Summit organizers -- with the assistance of ALAC, RALO chairs and > ICANN staff -- will distribute in advance to ALSs information related > to ICANN issues requiring attention. Each ALS is expected to discuss > the policy issues sufficiently so that its delegates to the Summit > can participate and vote on group resolutions. > [...] > > •All points of view will be welcomed; however, it is stressed that > the Summit is intended to be a positive, progressive event and > delegates are expected to participate in that spirit. Advocacy > outside the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or > obstructionist will not be welcomed." > > (end of quotes) > > In summary: > > - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, let's > call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" > party, rather than "Internet users summit". > > - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes > capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not > yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's at > stake??) > > - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of > all "Individual Internet Users" on earth > > My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: > > - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be > elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the > debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want > > - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside > the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist > will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this list, > we can imagine what this means. > > Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an > academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an ALS > "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an academic > stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per Suresh's > indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS > activities.. > > In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that Paris > is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice > holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as > "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. > > Have fun. > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Dec 13 02:41:43 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:41:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit In-Reply-To: <000901c83d23$93783ee0$ba68bca0$@com> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> <530E0971-5B0E-4F88-A2D3-97CD655B69D7@ras.eu.org> <000901c83d23$93783ee0$ba68bca0$@com> Message-ID: <2CE2A1DF-CA65-4B3F-A0C7-5564FC76DAF9@ras.eu.org> Hi Jacqueline, Actually, I tried to find on various ALAC lists any substantive discussions that this proposal (which, as I mentioned, was sent to ALAC structures on November 1st) would have created, and found nothing of this sort. I would have expected that the proposal (vision, objectives, deliverables, restricting conditions on attendance, frame, and tonality of expected discussions -- as well as the legitimacy and relevance of the very existence of such conditions) of an "Internet user Summit" would be at least discussed on a mailing list which archives are public (if the list itself is not open). If it's about an at-large structures/ALSes meeting, then fine; but if this thing claims to be an "Internet users" summit, then this is not understandable. How could I send comments to a committee which discussions are closed (thus, I don't even know on which current version of the proposal I should comment), and which existence is not even clearly announced and known? Also, I don't see why you've decided, without informing me first, to copy your answer (including my comments, thus actually copying my comments) to another, closed, list? As you should be well aware, one does formulate comments depending on which group of people they are addressed, and depending on a whole context (the "Internet users" summit was discussed on this governance list). A more respectful attitude would have been to provide the information that a committee was working on this, to provide the last version of the proposal, and then to encourage providing comments to this committee. In any case, your answer confirms my initial comments on this "Internet users" summit. In addition, I would appreciate your own comments on this, like, say, what is not anymore relevant as it has been modified or suppressed by the committee, since you seem to be part of it. Other members of this "committee" who are subscribers to this IGC list are also welcome to provide information and answers to questions. Here are again my initial comments: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit >> [...] >> - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) >> >> i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per >> diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only >> drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) >> [...] >> In summary: >> >> - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, let's >> call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" >> party, rather than "Internet users summit". >> >> - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes >> capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not >> yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's at >> stake??) >> >> - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of >> all "Individual Internet Users" on earth >> >> My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: >> >> - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be >> elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the >> debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want >> >> - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside >> the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist >> will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this list, >> we can imagine what this means. >> >> Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an >> academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an ALS >> "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an academic >> stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per Suresh's >> indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS >> activities.. >> >> In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that Paris >> is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice >> holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as >> "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. Best, Meryem Le 13 déc. 07 à 02:00, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > This was a first draft at the proposal - there are loads of people > working > in a committee to develop this proposal further, so your comments > should be > sent to them, so that they can be taken into consideration. To that > end I've > copied the ALAC list on this email. > > Jacqueline > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit >> >> >> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:32, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : >> >>> However, since the idea of a summit came out months ago, I have >>> been repeating that the ICANN Board will never put money on this if >>> a clear explanation of "how will this event make a difference" >>> isn't provided. So (AFAIK, as I'm not inside the process any more) >>> the organizers are now working on providing exactly that. In >>> general, I think that the event could be very useful or very >>> useless depending on how its agenda and purposes are set up. I >>> expect that this will be presented to the broader community in the >>> near future. >> >> and >> >> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : >> >>> Why not to start with 12 people in a working group to draft a >>> strategy to find out what to do and how to intervene? >> >> Do you both mean, say, something like this: >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal >> (motion sent to ALAC mailing list on Nov 1st, and - as far as I've >> understood - prepared by Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc-France)) ? >> >> excerpts: >> ""ICANN Ensemble" A global summit of the ICANN At-Large community" >> - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) >> >> i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per >> diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only >> drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) >> >> - Vision >> "The Summit's intent to >> 3.1.Help the At-Large structures to better understand At-Large >> mandates, structures, processes. >> 3.2.Provide the tools needed by At-Large leadership to involve and >> engage their members. >> 3.3.Drive the development of timely policy study and recommendations >> reflecting the At-Large point of view on both global and regional >> levels. >> 3.4.Encourage the exchange of ideas, experiences and energy within >> ICANN's At-Large community." >> >> - 4.Objectives >> >> "4.1.An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact >> with other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and >> advisory committees. >> 4.2.An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the >> issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities >> therein. >> 4.3.Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. >> 4.4.An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, >> rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. >> 4.5.A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the >> timing and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN" >> >> - 5.Deliverables >> >> "5.1.Resolutions based on policy development. Any resolutions which >> are not agreed to at the Final Plenary or require more regional >> consultation should be accompanied by hard deadlines for passage. >> 5.2.Establishment of working groups related to specific policies with >> explicit goals and timetables for production of papers or >> resolutions. >> 5.3.ALS leadership who are fully aware of ICANN, its workings and its >> issues, who are ready and able to bring this information to their >> members. >> 5.4.Improved contacts and relationships between ICANN ALSs, within >> and between regions, and between At-Large and other ICANN >> constituencies. >> 5.5.Work on a “Individual Internet Users” declaration." >> >> - 9.Notes >> >> "[...] >> •Summit organizers -- with the assistance of ALAC, RALO chairs and >> ICANN staff -- will distribute in advance to ALSs information related >> to ICANN issues requiring attention. Each ALS is expected to discuss >> the policy issues sufficiently so that its delegates to the Summit >> can participate and vote on group resolutions. >> [...] >> >> •All points of view will be welcomed; however, it is stressed that >> the Summit is intended to be a positive, progressive event and >> delegates are expected to participate in that spirit. Advocacy >> outside the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or >> obstructionist will not be welcomed." >> >> (end of quotes) >> >> In summary: >> >> - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, let's >> call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" >> party, rather than "Internet users summit". >> >> - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes >> capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not >> yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's at >> stake??) >> >> - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of >> all "Individual Internet Users" on earth >> >> My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: >> >> - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be >> elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the >> debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want >> >> - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside >> the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist >> will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this list, >> we can imagine what this means. >> >> Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an >> academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an ALS >> "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an academic >> stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per Suresh's >> indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS >> activities.. >> >> In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that Paris >> is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice >> holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as >> "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. >> >> Have fun. >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Dec 13 04:41:27 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:41:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <476061FD.5020003@wzb.eu> References: <476061FD.5020003@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Le 12 déc. 07 à 23:34, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > So, do I understand this correctly, some countries have decided to > go intergovernmental again for areas such as security stuff Oh, shame on them.. Shame on these governments that are doing intergovernmental stuff.. Haven't they learnt any lesson from WSIS, WGIG and IGF?! > and use the ITU as their preferred platform to coordinate with > other countries? ITU is *the* intergovernmental platform to coordinate on most of these issues. > Why would they choose the ITU instead of other standard setting > organizations such as the IETF? > Because the ITU is now more predictable or more efficient regarding > outcomes? Let me guess.. Because it's a UN intergovernmental Agency? Because ITU, as a UN intergovernmental Agency, can make binding decisions and adopt normative texts, with all governments having -- equally, at least in formal voting procedures -- their say? > I get this idea that security is a topic I have neglected for too > long and now need to find a window into. Very difficult to > understand... And we haven't even started discussing Intellectual property, content regulation, labor, consumer, trade, etc. issues, yet:) On security, after ITU, I suggest one investigates, say, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization).. Very interesting, very intertwinning technical and political decisions, very binding, very UN intergovernmental Agency, very closed, elaborating standards and making decisions having very immediate consequences on each individual citizen: I assume you have a passport and maybe you need a visa to enter some countries, probably a biometric passport and a biometric visa with the biometric data on an RFID chip (if not yet, this will happen soon). Guess who can set the world standards for machine-readable travel documents and now for biometric passports, who can decide which biometric identifier is the mandatory one, etc.? Guess how, in general, governments decisions at national and regional levels and global intergovernmental decisions are mutually reinforcing each other? Guess how, once a decision is made at global level, it impacts individual users at national level even beyond the subject of the decision itself: e.g. in this case, biometric ID cards are justified by the existence of biometric passports and other travel documents, and actually uses the same standards in view of rationalizing processes, limiting costs and centralizing control (for production of documents and for actual control of these documents, i.e. control of activities and movements, a.k.a. social control). Oh, and BTW, ICAO is one of the UN Agencies identified as co- facilitator of one of the post-WSIS action lines, although this action line deals with another part of ICAO mandate (environmental protection). Actually, almost all UN Agencies and structures are involved except which one? The OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). Isn't this interesting? It's by no mean about you personnally, Jeanette. I'm upset because I'm staggered at such naïveté (or is it arrogance?) appearing sometimes on this list. From time to time, people seem to wear blinckers: they only see the small piece they're focusing on, ignoring all other issues, all other venues where these issues are discussed, all other people or group having been working on these issues for decades. I'm not arguing that everyone and every group should deal with everything everywhere. But at least one should make the effort of getting a global though even rough idea of what's happening outside of one's small world, and use this knowledge to coordinate, to coalesce, to support other groups doing stuff one agrees on and be supported by them on one's own activities. One should also listen to others with whom s/he doesn't agree, not to try to find a "consensus", but to learn from them, and to fight their positions if needed. In summary, one should try to get a global, holistic picture of what's going on, make his/her own views, and act according to his/her possibilities. Instead of wondering what's the topic of the day and to forum-shopping running after the hype. Is that too demanding to people such as those on this list who seem to be able to travel everywhere, to attend so many meetings and conferences, and even sometimes to be in positions to act in various structures touching on Internet governance? Meryem > je > > Avri Doria wrote: >> On 12 dec 2007, at 03.44, William Drake wrote: >>> No, I was making an argument that governments and industry from >>> around the world that can and do take actions of consequence >>> plainly believe in the importance of and get involved in ITU, >>> which seems a parsimonious explanation of why they spend a great >>> deal of time and resources participating. >> one small anecdotal data point i have. The S. Korean ministry of >> information and tech in 2007 made a decision to focus its >> standards making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence >> architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research >> institute to reassign everyone to IT work and to lay off >> contractors (that's me) who were working on any other standards >> activity. anyone who has been to the ITU SG meetings lately wil >> have noticed this change of focus on their part (several have >> pointed it out to me). to have substantial indistrial player >> like S. Korea make suc a decsion is not a small thing, especially >> if you look at how intertwined their Industrial R&D is with Govt >> policy and research funding. >> Yes, this is only a technical standards body in ITU-T and not one >> of the more policy oriented bodies. But one accepts any part of >> the thesis that technology and policy are tight coupled and that >> much of technology represents hardened policy, then this is a >> significant data point. This can certainly be seen, one small >> example, in the way various technological choices could facilitate >> the ability to set policies (in the sense of actions to be taken >> by a intermediate system entity) for actions to be taken upon deep >> data inspection of the traffi passing through a network. Actions >> such as; drop, slow down, record ... >> I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been >> strategically picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as >> an insignificant force for the future. And would argue that the >> decisions made there, will have an effect on the nature on the >> Internet in the future. So the more that people who care can >> participate in all phases of heir activities, the better. >> I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in >> CS o get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get >> expressed and get expressed effectively and often for them to >> affect the trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on >> a decision by decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position >> CS an be stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. >> a. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Dec 13 04:52:50 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:52:50 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DE1C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> It is a multilayer multiplayer mechanisms where everybody who does some serious work and has a community can and will do something but nobody will be "the master of the game". And it is good to see how the decentralized architecture of the Internet - with dumb root servers in the center - is reflected more and more in the governance architecture. The only thing a root server knows (and has to know) is where the various domains have their name servers so that he can foreward a query to the right address. And if one root server does not like the query it will go to another root server. If somebody in the multilayer multiplayer mechanism wants to be in the "center" he risks to become "dumb" :-)))). Wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sendt: to 13-12-2007 07:02 Til: Mueller, Milton; Governance; Avri Doria Emne: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Hi Milton, On 12/13/07 12:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > However, many people in the ITU, including the So. Koreans, still seem > to believe that we are in a pre-1997 world in which standards agreed > upon by the telcos in intergovernmental fora really do define the > direction of global digital media. I don't think that will be the case > anymore. Standards dominance is very, very difficult to achieve these > days, and when it does happen (Microsoft) it usually occurs through de > facto market dominance, not through interogovernmental bodies. There are > a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions. The telcos > would really, really like for a carefully defined "NGN convergence > architecture" to supersede the unruly Internet. Maybe they will succeed > in that goal. But there are a lot of other powerful players, including > consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet companies, technology > companies. I think we're moving toward agreement; 'a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions' sums it up nicely. And a lot of forum shopping (which is not binary, e.g. either one works in IETF or one works in ITU---anyway the two do coordinate on some stuff) standards competition, push and pull between different architectural visions and institutional turfs, etc, all of which can't be summarized by rote anymore as just netheads vs. bellheads. And then add to the mix the highly articulated state interest in security, particularly since Rudy's 15 minutes, and you end up with a pretty complex topography that has to be evaluated empirically and holistically, rather than with one eye closed. That's all I was saying, not that the ITU has/will/should inherit the earth, or that countervailing pressures don't exist elsewhere. BTW Microsoft is over at the intergovernmental body a lot, including now, alongside VeriSign, IBM, Lucent, Nortel...lot of Yanks involved in security and other aspects of ITU work. > free, I am not arguing against it. But before you do, do ask intelligent > questions about what is the best way to spend your time. And do ask Will try, thanks. Best, Bill *********************************************************** 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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Thu Dec 13 09:08:32 2007 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:08:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <3CC1589B-DE73-46DA-8A9B-AB55DCD51AE2@psg.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <3CC1589B-DE73-46DA-8A9B-AB55DCD51AE2@psg.com> Message-ID: <006f01c83d91$a4d6ec40$ee84c4c0$@samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Having first-hand knowledge on this specific issue, I can and do endorse this analysis as well as the prescription offered. Carlton Samuels -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:39 AM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Hi, I think a lot of the analysis below holds. but it isn't the Telcos that are making the decisions in the ITU SGs, but the sector members, i.e. the vendors that make the stuff. So it is a variant on the old model. the sector members agree and then the governments rubber stamp. Of course the govt's, some more then others, discuss all of the details with the sector members along the way. You find that in some countries, the sector members drive the national delegations on such things (e.g. who tells who what: Finland or Nokia, Sweden or Ericsson, ...), while in others there is a different mix (In S. Korea it is a genuine govt- Industry collaborative effort as far as I can tell). As for the NGN replacing the unruly Internet, that is much a fantasy as IPv6 replacing IPv4. Nothing goes away in the network, new things just learn to coexist with the old and vice versa. And the NGN is always just 10 years away in horizon time. BTW: I though I was discussing not arguing. I do not believe that the age of the decentralised Internet is going away, though there will be many areas of the Internet that have some degree of local control. And there will always be some services that for some period of time are at the core and which seem susceptible to centralised take over. Personally I still believe it can't happen. But more importantly, I think we should assume that it shouldn't happen and should participate everywhere possible to make sure it doesn't, just in case i am wrong about that. a. On 12 dec 2007, at 18.25, Milton L Mueller wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> [South Korea] making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence >> architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research >> institute to reassign everyone to IT[U] work and to lay off >> contractors (that's me) who were working on any other standards >> activity. > > Avri, > your anecdote is interesting and highly relevant. But I see something > perhaps a bit different in it than you do. To me, this is an > example of > what I meant by the top-down paradigm. Yes, standardization > activity in > ITU is "bottom up" in the sense that it is driven by consensus-based > committees that are dominated by (a sector of) industry. > > However, many people in the ITU, including the So. Koreans, still seem > to believe that we are in a pre-1997 world in which standards agreed > upon by the telcos in intergovernmental fora really do define the > direction of global digital media. I don't think that will be the case > anymore. Standards dominance is very, very difficult to achieve these > days, and when it does happen (Microsoft) it usually occurs through de > facto market dominance, not through interogovernmental bodies. > There are > a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions. The telcos > would really, really like for a carefully defined "NGN convergence > architecture" to supersede the unruly Internet. Maybe they will > succeed > in that goal. But there are a lot of other powerful players, including > consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet companies, technology > companies. > > Let's not argue any more about this: You and Bill are certainly right > that such activities should not be ignored. Maybe the age of > decentralized internet is ending and this is the beginning of the end. > Maybe not. As I said before, anyone who wants to get involved, feel > free, I am not arguing against it. But before you do, do ask > intelligent > questions about what is the best way to spend your time. And do ask > whether your participation helps to legitimate activities that might > best be criticized from the outside. > >> This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the >> way various technological choices could facilitate the ability to >> set policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate >> system entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of >> the traffi passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow >> down, record ... > > But this is a danger regardless of what the ITU does. Deep packet > inspection technologies, national laws such as the French one > requiring > monitoring, U.S.-based alliances between IPR interests and cable > infrastructure providers, broadcast flag in the digital transition, > all > represent similar, and much more immediate threats. Are you sure, > do you > feel really confident, that ITU is the best place to confront these > issues? > >> I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically >> picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant >> force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, >> will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. > > I would argue that ITU has been seeking some kind of niche, some > kind of > toehold for gaining relevance and control over the internet, since > 1995/6. The latest two are NGN and security. Most of the earlier > attempts were failures. How much impact the decisions made there will > have on the Internet remains to be seen, it is debatable. > > But it's good that someone (Bill) is monitoring these things at ITU. > >> So the more that people who care can participate in all phases of >> heir > >> activities, the better. > > Who can argue with this? My main points, which people keep not > addressing, is: when the doors open, who walks in? It is not > difficult > to imagine scenarios in which you make things worse. Suppose the doors > open and no one shows up, or no one is really equipped to navigate the > negotiations in an effective way. Some very bad outcomes could be > excused or legitimized. "Hey, don't complain that we are now > inspecting > all of your packets and have implemented a digital identity system > that > permits complete surveillance, working group SC-17(b)iii made this > decision last month, and the civil society representative at the > meeting > raised no objections." Who was this "civil society representative"? > Was > s/he just asleep, overworked, bought off? Or simply didn't understand > what was going on? Or outnumbered and ignored? > >> I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS >> to get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get >> expressed and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect >> the trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision >> by decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be >> stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. > > See above. Whether CS is unified or not is a secondary issue, imho. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 13 09:54:00 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:54:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit In-Reply-To: <2CE2A1DF-CA65-4B3F-A0C7-5564FC76DAF9@ras.eu.org> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> <530E0971-5B0E-4F88-A2D3-97CD655B69D7@ras.eu.org> <000901c83d23$93783ee0$ba68bca0$@com> <2CE2A1DF-CA65-4B3F-A0C7-5564FC76DAF9@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <00a201c83d98$007bdd20$01739760$@com> Hi I'm not part of the Working group/committee, the At Large list is open, and as far as I know all discussions are open and openly archived. I redirected as I am not sure how many of them are actively monitoring this list. So I hope that the people on the WG who know how to answer your questions will reply to you soon. The leadership of the committee/working group for the Summit is also publicly listed, https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_officers_and_working_group_lead ers, so maybe you'd like to personally direct questions and comments to any of the leadership. Jacqueline > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 03:42 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] "Internet users" Summit > > Hi Jacqueline, > > Actually, I tried to find on various ALAC lists any substantive > discussions that this proposal (which, as I mentioned, was sent to > ALAC structures on November 1st) would have created, and found > nothing of this sort. I would have expected that the proposal > (vision, objectives, deliverables, restricting conditions on > attendance, frame, and tonality of expected discussions -- as well as > the legitimacy and relevance of the very existence of such > conditions) of an "Internet user Summit" would be at least discussed > on a mailing list which archives are public (if the list itself is > not open). If it's about an at-large structures/ALSes meeting, then > fine; but if this thing claims to be an "Internet users" summit, then > this is not understandable. > > How could I send comments to a committee which discussions are closed > (thus, I don't even know on which current version of the proposal I > should comment), and which existence is not even clearly announced > and known? > > Also, I don't see why you've decided, without informing me first, to > copy your answer (including my comments, thus actually copying my > comments) to another, closed, list? As you should be well aware, one > does formulate comments depending on which group of people they are > addressed, and depending on a whole context (the "Internet users" > summit was discussed on this governance list). A more respectful > attitude would have been to provide the information that a committee > was working on this, to provide the last version of the proposal, and > then to encourage providing comments to this committee. > > In any case, your answer confirms my initial comments on this > "Internet users" summit. In addition, I would appreciate your own > comments on this, like, say, what is not anymore relevant as it has > been modified or suppressed by the committee, since you seem to be > part of it. Other members of this "committee" who are subscribers to > this IGC list are also welcome to provide information and answers to > questions. > Here are again my initial comments: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit > >> [...] > >> - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) > >> > >> i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per > >> diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only > >> drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) > >> [...] > >> In summary: > >> > >> - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, > let's > >> call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" > >> party, rather than "Internet users summit". > >> > >> - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes > >> capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not > >> yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's > at > >> stake??) > >> > >> - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of > >> all "Individual Internet Users" on earth > >> > >> My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: > >> > >> - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be > >> elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the > >> debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want > >> > >> - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside > >> the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist > >> will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this > list, > >> we can imagine what this means. > >> > >> Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an > >> academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an ALS > >> "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an > academic > >> stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per > Suresh's > >> indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS > >> activities.. > >> > >> In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that Paris > >> is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice > >> holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as > >> "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. > > Best, > Meryem > > > Le 13 déc. 07 à 02:00, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > > > This was a first draft at the proposal - there are loads of people > > working > > in a committee to develop this proposal further, so your comments > > should be > > sent to them, so that they can be taken into consideration. To that > > end I've > > copied the ALAC list on this email. > > > > Jacqueline > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit > >> > >> > >> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:32, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > >> > >>> However, since the idea of a summit came out months ago, I have > >>> been repeating that the ICANN Board will never put money on this if > >>> a clear explanation of "how will this event make a difference" > >>> isn't provided. So (AFAIK, as I'm not inside the process any more) > >>> the organizers are now working on providing exactly that. In > >>> general, I think that the event could be very useful or very > >>> useless depending on how its agenda and purposes are set up. I > >>> expect that this will be presented to the broader community in the > >>> near future. > >> > >> and > >> > >> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > >> > >>> Why not to start with 12 people in a working group to draft a > >>> strategy to find out what to do and how to intervene? > >> > >> Do you both mean, say, something like this: > >> > >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal > >> (motion sent to ALAC mailing list on Nov 1st, and - as far as I've > >> understood - prepared by Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc-France)) ? > >> > >> excerpts: > >> ""ICANN Ensemble" A global summit of the ICANN At-Large community" > >> - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) > >> > >> i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per > >> diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only > >> drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) > >> > >> - Vision > >> "The Summit's intent to > >> 3.1.Help the At-Large structures to better understand At-Large > >> mandates, structures, processes. > >> 3.2.Provide the tools needed by At-Large leadership to involve and > >> engage their members. > >> 3.3.Drive the development of timely policy study and recommendations > >> reflecting the At-Large point of view on both global and regional > >> levels. > >> 3.4.Encourage the exchange of ideas, experiences and energy within > >> ICANN's At-Large community." > >> > >> - 4.Objectives > >> > >> "4.1.An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact > >> with other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and > >> advisory committees. > >> 4.2.An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the > >> issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities > >> therein. > >> 4.3.Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. > >> 4.4.An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, > >> rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. > >> 4.5.A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the > >> timing and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN" > >> > >> - 5.Deliverables > >> > >> "5.1.Resolutions based on policy development. Any resolutions which > >> are not agreed to at the Final Plenary or require more regional > >> consultation should be accompanied by hard deadlines for passage. > >> 5.2.Establishment of working groups related to specific policies > with > >> explicit goals and timetables for production of papers or > >> resolutions. > >> 5.3.ALS leadership who are fully aware of ICANN, its workings and > its > >> issues, who are ready and able to bring this information to their > >> members. > >> 5.4.Improved contacts and relationships between ICANN ALSs, within > >> and between regions, and between At-Large and other ICANN > >> constituencies. > >> 5.5.Work on a “Individual Internet Users” declaration." > >> > >> - 9.Notes > >> > >> "[...] > >> •Summit organizers -- with the assistance of ALAC, RALO chairs and > >> ICANN staff -- will distribute in advance to ALSs information > related > >> to ICANN issues requiring attention. Each ALS is expected to discuss > >> the policy issues sufficiently so that its delegates to the Summit > >> can participate and vote on group resolutions. > >> [...] > >> > >> •All points of view will be welcomed; however, it is stressed that > >> the Summit is intended to be a positive, progressive event and > >> delegates are expected to participate in that spirit. Advocacy > >> outside the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or > >> obstructionist will not be welcomed." > >> > >> (end of quotes) > >> > >> In summary: > >> > >> - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, > let's > >> call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" > >> party, rather than "Internet users summit". > >> > >> - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes > >> capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not > >> yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's > at > >> stake??) > >> > >> - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of > >> all "Individual Internet Users" on earth > >> > >> My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: > >> > >> - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be > >> elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the > >> debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want > >> > >> - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside > >> the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist > >> will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this > list, > >> we can imagine what this means. > >> > >> Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an > >> academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an ALS > >> "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an > academic > >> stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per > Suresh's > >> indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS > >> activities.. > >> > >> In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that Paris > >> is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice > >> holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as > >> "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. > >> > >> Have fun. > >> > >> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Dec 13 10:36:43 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:36:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit In-Reply-To: <00a201c83d98$007bdd20$01739760$@com> References: 20071205013749.GB30100@hserus.net <00cb01c83744$f0b078a0$d21169e0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <475CF9B9.4020509@bertola.eu> <530E0971-5B0E-4F88-A2D3-97CD655B69D7@ras.eu.org> <000901c83d23$93783ee0$ba68bca0$@com> <2CE2A1DF-CA65-4B3F-A0C7-5564FC76DAF9@ras.eu.org> <00a201c83d98$007bdd20$01739760$@com> Message-ID: Thanks for these details, Jacqueline. I was aware of the ALAC list archives (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org/), which are indeed public, but there was not much discussion on this issue, and specifically on the 1st draft available at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal. I was rather referring to the list of the working group (http:// atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/summit-wg_atlarge- lists.icann.org), which requires authentification to access the archives restricted to list members. I've also found directions to a google group (http:// groups.google.com/group/icann-summit/web/icann-ensemble), but also restricted to members (any application should first be approved). The description of this google group is: "This group is for anyone interested in helping to stage the ICANN At-Large Summit, tentatively scheduled for the ICANN meeting in June 2008, to bring together all of its At-Large Structures for the purposes of education and policy development. " Probably what should be made clear is that this "Internet users" summit is nothing more than a meeting of At-large structures and their current ALSes. Best, Meryem Le 13 déc. 07 à 15:54, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > Hi > I'm not part of the Working group/committee, the At Large list is > open, and > as far as I know all discussions are open and openly archived. I > redirected > as I am not sure how many of them are actively monitoring this > list. So I > hope that the people on the WG who know how to answer your > questions will > reply to you soon. The leadership of the committee/working group > for the > Summit is also publicly listed, > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? > at_large_officers_and_working_group_lead > ers, so maybe you'd like to personally direct questions and > comments to any > of the leadership. > Jacqueline > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 03:42 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] "Internet users" Summit >> >> Hi Jacqueline, >> >> Actually, I tried to find on various ALAC lists any substantive >> discussions that this proposal (which, as I mentioned, was sent to >> ALAC structures on November 1st) would have created, and found >> nothing of this sort. I would have expected that the proposal >> (vision, objectives, deliverables, restricting conditions on >> attendance, frame, and tonality of expected discussions -- as well as >> the legitimacy and relevance of the very existence of such >> conditions) of an "Internet user Summit" would be at least discussed >> on a mailing list which archives are public (if the list itself is >> not open). If it's about an at-large structures/ALSes meeting, then >> fine; but if this thing claims to be an "Internet users" summit, then >> this is not understandable. >> >> How could I send comments to a committee which discussions are closed >> (thus, I don't even know on which current version of the proposal I >> should comment), and which existence is not even clearly announced >> and known? >> >> Also, I don't see why you've decided, without informing me first, to >> copy your answer (including my comments, thus actually copying my >> comments) to another, closed, list? As you should be well aware, one >> does formulate comments depending on which group of people they are >> addressed, and depending on a whole context (the "Internet users" >> summit was discussed on this governance list). A more respectful >> attitude would have been to provide the information that a committee >> was working on this, to provide the last version of the proposal, and >> then to encourage providing comments to this committee. >> >> In any case, your answer confirms my initial comments on this >> "Internet users" summit. In addition, I would appreciate your own >> comments on this, like, say, what is not anymore relevant as it has >> been modified or suppressed by the committee, since you seem to be >> part of it. Other members of this "committee" who are subscribers to >> this IGC list are also welcome to provide information and answers to >> questions. >> Here are again my initial comments: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit >>>> [...] >>>> - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) >>>> >>>> i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per >>>> diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only >>>> drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) >>>> [...] >>>> In summary: >>>> >>>> - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, >> let's >>>> call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" >>>> party, rather than "Internet users summit". >>>> >>>> - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes >>>> capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not >>>> yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's >> at >>>> stake??) >>>> >>>> - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of >>>> all "Individual Internet Users" on earth >>>> >>>> My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: >>>> >>>> - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be >>>> elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the >>>> debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want >>>> >>>> - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside >>>> the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist >>>> will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this >> list, >>>> we can imagine what this means. >>>> >>>> Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an >>>> academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an >>>> ALS >>>> "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an >> academic >>>> stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per >> Suresh's >>>> indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS >>>> activities.. >>>> >>>> In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that >>>> Paris >>>> is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice >>>> holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as >>>> "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. >> >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> >> Le 13 déc. 07 à 02:00, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >> >>> This was a first draft at the proposal - there are loads of people >>> working >>> in a committee to develop this proposal further, so your comments >>> should be >>> sent to them, so that they can be taken into consideration. To that >>> end I've >>> copied the ALAC list on this email. >>> >>> Jacqueline >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:32, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : >>>> >>>>> However, since the idea of a summit came out months ago, I have >>>>> been repeating that the ICANN Board will never put money on >>>>> this if >>>>> a clear explanation of "how will this event make a difference" >>>>> isn't provided. So (AFAIK, as I'm not inside the process any more) >>>>> the organizers are now working on providing exactly that. In >>>>> general, I think that the event could be very useful or very >>>>> useless depending on how its agenda and purposes are set up. I >>>>> expect that this will be presented to the broader community in the >>>>> near future. >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Why not to start with 12 people in a working group to draft a >>>>> strategy to find out what to do and how to intervene? >>>> >>>> Do you both mean, say, something like this: >>>> >>>> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal >>>> (motion sent to ALAC mailing list on Nov 1st, and - as far as I've >>>> understood - prepared by Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc-France)) ? >>>> >>>> excerpts: >>>> ""ICANN Ensemble" A global summit of the ICANN At-Large community" >>>> - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) >>>> >>>> i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per >>>> diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only >>>> drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) >>>> >>>> - Vision >>>> "The Summit's intent to >>>> 3.1.Help the At-Large structures to better understand At-Large >>>> mandates, structures, processes. >>>> 3.2.Provide the tools needed by At-Large leadership to involve and >>>> engage their members. >>>> 3.3.Drive the development of timely policy study and >>>> recommendations >>>> reflecting the At-Large point of view on both global and regional >>>> levels. >>>> 3.4.Encourage the exchange of ideas, experiences and energy within >>>> ICANN's At-Large community." >>>> >>>> - 4.Objectives >>>> >>>> "4.1.An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact >>>> with other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and >>>> advisory committees. >>>> 4.2.An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the >>>> issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities >>>> therein. >>>> 4.3.Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. >>>> 4.4.An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, >>>> rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. >>>> 4.5.A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the >>>> timing and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN" >>>> >>>> - 5.Deliverables >>>> >>>> "5.1.Resolutions based on policy development. Any resolutions which >>>> are not agreed to at the Final Plenary or require more regional >>>> consultation should be accompanied by hard deadlines for passage. >>>> 5.2.Establishment of working groups related to specific policies >> with >>>> explicit goals and timetables for production of papers or >>>> resolutions. >>>> 5.3.ALS leadership who are fully aware of ICANN, its workings and >> its >>>> issues, who are ready and able to bring this information to their >>>> members. >>>> 5.4.Improved contacts and relationships between ICANN ALSs, within >>>> and between regions, and between At-Large and other ICANN >>>> constituencies. >>>> 5.5.Work on a “Individual Internet Users” declaration." >>>> >>>> - 9.Notes >>>> >>>> "[...] >>>> •Summit organizers -- with the assistance of ALAC, RALO chairs and >>>> ICANN staff -- will distribute in advance to ALSs information >> related >>>> to ICANN issues requiring attention. Each ALS is expected to >>>> discuss >>>> the policy issues sufficiently so that its delegates to the Summit >>>> can participate and vote on group resolutions. >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> •All points of view will be welcomed; however, it is stressed that >>>> the Summit is intended to be a positive, progressive event and >>>> delegates are expected to participate in that spirit. Advocacy >>>> outside the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or >>>> obstructionist will not be welcomed." >>>> >>>> (end of quotes) >>>> >>>> In summary: >>>> >>>> - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, >> let's >>>> call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" >>>> party, rather than "Internet users summit". >>>> >>>> - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes >>>> capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not >>>> yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's >> at >>>> stake??) >>>> >>>> - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of >>>> all "Individual Internet Users" on earth >>>> >>>> My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: >>>> >>>> - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be >>>> elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the >>>> debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want >>>> >>>> - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside >>>> the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist >>>> will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this >> list, >>>> we can imagine what this means. >>>> >>>> Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an >>>> academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an >>>> ALS >>>> "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an >> academic >>>> stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per >> Suresh's >>>> indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS >>>> activities.. >>>> >>>> In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that >>>> Paris >>>> is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice >>>> holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as >>>> "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. >>>> >>>> Have fun. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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_hov2007 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 13 15:09:23 2007 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina Hov) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:09:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summitsummit of the ICANN At-Large community from 22 to 27 June 2008 in Paris In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <73401.62725.qm@web45214.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Quick jump: What's new - Weblogs Comment Print Tools Email To This Workspace Email To This Page Export as HTML Export to PDF Export to Word V 6 Tags {for t in tags}
  • ${t.name} {if Socialtext.perms.edit} [x] {/if}
  • {/for} {var lastIndex = matches.length-1} {for t in matches} ${t.name}{if t_index != lastIndex}, {/if} {/for} {"maxCount":45,"tags":[]} {"maxCount":45,"tags":[{"page_count":"45","count":null,"name":"Email"},{"page_count":"18","count":null,"name":"Welcome"},{"page_count":"7","count":null,"name":"alac"},{"page_count":"5","count":null,"name":"Lisboa"},{"page_count":"5","count":null,"name":"sanjuan"},{"page_count":"4","count":null,"name":"San Juan"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"NCUC"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"registry"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"1S"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"hostname"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"IDNA"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"unicode"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"fun stuff"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"ldh"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"great"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"punycode"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"U-label"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"character"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"UTC"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"domain names"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"A-label"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"internationalized"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"idn"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"important"},{"page_count":"2","count":null,"name":"ascii"},{"page_count":"1","count":null,"name":"Help"},{"page_count":"1","count":null,"name":"11 September 2007"},{"page_count":"1","count":null,"name":"ICANN meeting"},{"page_count":"1","count":null,"name":"resolution"}]} There are no tags for this page. Incoming Links 1 November 2007 Attachments BudgetV1_SBT.xls At Large Advisory Committee motion on the Summit Proposal BudgetV1_SBT.xls Motion to 1) Agree to all look at the Summit proposal by 2 weeks from today - November 14th 2) Make any changes online 3) Put it up for approval at the December teleconference Dec 11th The following texte was send to the Alac mailing liste the 1st of November 2007. "ICANN Ensemble" A global summit of the ICANN At-Large community 1.Venue It is currently proposed to run “ICANN Ensemble” as part of the ICANN general meeting, scheduled from 22 to 27 June 2008 in Paris. The event may be started one day early, on June 21 2008. 2.The rationalNow that the interim work by ALAC and ALSsto create formal RALOs is complete, the next step is to ensure that ICANN's At-Large community has the knowledge and tools necessary to perform its role of providing advice on policy and other matters. While each RALO is progressing at its own pace and has its own unique issues and viewpoints, there is much to be gained by their sharing of experience and expertise. Because ultimately At-Large has a single co-ordination and aggregation of outcomes mechanism, the ICANN Board Advisory body (ALAC) and a single representative to the ICANN Board, it must be seen as one single constituency. A Summit will help the organisation of education, circulation of good practices, exchange of experience and discussion on policy matters. The proposed At-Large Summit will help to give the community a more-global perspective on ICANN issues. The first opportunity is during the next European meeting in June 2008. If successful, useful and productive, Summit organizers will advance a plan and timetable to hold the Summit as a regular, (with a repeat rate to be determined e.g. biennial or triennial event. 3.Vision The Summit's intent to 3.1.Help the At-Large structures to better understand At-Large mandates, structures, processes. 3.2.Provide the tools needed by At-Large leadership to involve and engage their members. 3.3.Drive the development of timely policy study and recommendations reflecting the At-Large point of view on both global and regional levels. 3.4.Encourage the exchange of ideas, experiences and energy within ICANN's At-Large community. 4.Objectives 4.1.An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact with other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and advisory committees. 4.2.An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities therein. 4.3.Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. 4.4.An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. 4.5.A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the timing and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN 5.Deliverables 5.1.Resolutions based on policy development. Any resolutions which are not agreed to at the Final Plenary or require more regional consultation should be accompanied by hard deadlines for passage. 5.2.Establishment of working groups related to specific policies with explicit goals and timetables for production of papers or resolutions. 5.3.ALS leadership who are fully aware of ICANN, its workings and its issues, who are ready and able to bring this information to their members. 5.4.Improved contacts and relationships between ICANN ALSs, within and between regions, and between At-Large and other ICANN constituencies. 5.5.Work on a “Individual Internet Users” declaration. 6.Tentative agenda of the Summit 6.1.1st day (21st of June 2008) morning Educate ALSs about ICANN and ICANN group functions, methods and culture 6.2.1st day (21st of June 2008) afternoon 5 RALOs General Assembly in parallel (internal matters) 6.3.2nd day (22nd of June 2008) morning Workshops on policies topics (new gTLDs – Whois – IDNs - ) 6.4.2nd day (22nd of June 2008) afternoon Parallel meetings of Alac working groups with the participation of all interested ALSs 6.5.3rd day (23rd of June 2008) morning At-Large General assembly with feedback of 1st day afternoon sessions and 2nd day morning sessions 7.Outline The Summit will include a number of components 7.1.Orientation events to welcome delegates with a multi-faceted understanding of ICANN's history, processes, constituencies and mandate. Special attention will outline the role and rights of the At-Large community, and how it can best advance its positions. 7.2.Seminars and panel sessions providing background on the issues facing ICANN, specifically from the point of view of consumers, clients and end-users of Internet-based information and services. 7.3.Regional "breakout" round-table meetings, at which each region's delegates debate issues in the contexts of their local environment, as well as address other issues which may benefit from in-person discussions. 7.4.Interactive policy workshops help delegates’ best express the public interest within the ICANN processes. Delegates will analyze issues and develop policy in a manner designed to engage their RALOs and constituencies.(It is understood that most policy initiatives will result in initiatives that will require delegates to consult with their constituencies.) 7.5.Resources and events designed to encourage social interaction between regions, ALSs and ALAC. 7.6.A final plenary that will explicitly outline milestones accomplished and outstanding deliverables, while soliciting comments and recommendations on how At-Large can better fulfil its mandate. 8.Budget Implications During the budget year 2006/2007 ICANN organized 3 meetings: Sao Paulo – LACRalo meeting Lisbon – AfRalo and EuRalo meetings San Juan – LACRalo and NARalo meetings During the budget year 2007/2008 ICANN will organize 3 meetings: Los Angeles – No Ralo meeting Asia Pacific – APRalo meeting Europe – AfRalo, APRalo, EuRalo, LACRalo, and NARalo meetings We would like to have one person from each ALSs coming to the Summit and taking care by ICANN. We will establish participation criteria to ensure that the Summit participants will be engaged and committed to Summit goals. Beyond travel we will require appropriate room rentals and the capacity to hold one evening social event. Proposed Summit Budget estimates:- Need some estimates here. 9.Notes •Sessions will be held concurrently with the regular ICANN meetings, and will be designed to not conflict with scheduled ICANN slots intended for attendance by all constituencies. •Summit organizers -- with the assistance of ALAC, RALO chairs and ICANN staff -- will distribute in advance to ALSs information related to ICANN issues requiring attention. Each ALS is expected to discuss the policy issues sufficiently so that its delegates to the Summit can participate and vote on group resolutions. •Emphasis will be on the development of deep policy-analysis as well as expedient Summit-derived resolutions. •Meetings will be designed to allow for maximum interactive participation; when possible a "round table" meeting room layout will be preferred over the traditional "classroom" layout. •A "Summit Secretariat", comprising people selected from within the various RALO secretariats, will help record the proceedings. •Summit will be chair by the ALAC chairperson and session chairs will be rotated amongst ALAC members and RALO chairs. •Delegates are expected to be full participants and not just attendees. Those who are absent from more than 50% of meetings will not be subsidized for future ICANN events. •All points of view will be welcomed; however, it is stressed that the Summit is intended to be a positive, progressive event and delegates are expected to participate in that spirit. Advocacy outside the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist will not be welcomed. --------------------------------- VS - considering the amount of resources needed ( translations, rooms etc are as big as transportation in an event) and no planning was made to include this in our current budget, we may consider to include the summit in our plan starting year jul08 and organize it to the annual meeting - in Africa. I will talk with finance area at ICANN and try to get some feedback for our december call. any news I will post here. contributed by Guest User on Nov 19 7:59am --------------------------------- SBT - I am not sure that it is beter to organize a meeting in Africa. If we have the budget to organize a summit , as paris is just at the end of the fiscall year, I ma sure Icann can manage this and it will much less expensive in particular for travels. Concerning the meeting rooms I think it can be handel in Paris. contributed by sebastien.bachollet on Nov 20 4:27am Created by Jacqueline Morris on Nov 1 1:13pm. Updated by sebastien.bachollet on Nov 20 4:27am. comment - 77 views - 6 revisions Settings - Login - Register - Help Home [input] [input] Search Save Preview Cancel Simple Advanced Edit Tips Editing: motion on the Summit Proposal Insert...Inter-workspace linkLink to a SectionAttached ImageAttachment LinkTable of ContentsPage IncludeSection MarkerWhat's NewTag LinkTag ListWeblog LinkWeblog ListInline RSSInline AtomSearch ResultsGoogle SearchTechnorati SearchAIM LinkYahoo! IM LinkSkype LinkUser NameDate in Local TimeUnformattedConvoq LinkNew Form Page Upload files Add tags [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] Upload Files Click "Browse" to find the file you want to upload. When you click "Upload file" your file will be uploaded and added to the list of attachments for this page. Maximum file size: 50MB [input] [input] [input] Add a link to the attachment at the top of the page? Images will appear in the page. [input] [input] Expand zip archive and attach individual files to the page Done [input] [input] File Name Author Date Uploaded Size Close Delete Selected Files Save Page As Enter a meaningful and distinctive title for your page. Page Title: [input] Tip: You'll be able to find this page later by using the title you choose. Cancel Save Page Already Exists There is already a page named XXX. Would you like to: [input] Save with a different name: [input] [input] Save the page with the name "XXX" [input] Append your text to the bottom of the existing page named: "XXX" Cancel Ok Upload Files Click "Browse" to find the file you want to upload. When you click "Add file," this file will be added to the list of attachments for this page, and uploaded when you save the page. [input] [input] [input] Add a link to this attachment at the top of the page? Images will appear in the page. [input] [input] Expand zip archive and attach individual files to the page? Done Add file ${ loc('Files To upload:') } {var lastIndex = queue.length-1} {for file in queue} ${file} [x] {if file_index != lastIndex}, {/if} {/for} Add Tags Enter a tag and click "Add tag". The tag will be saved when you save the page. Tag: [input] Suggestions: Done Add tag Tags to apply: {var lastIndex = queue.length-1} {for tag in queue} ${tag} [x]{if tag_index != lastIndex}, {/if} {/for} {var lastIndex = matches.length-1} {for t in matches} ${t.name}{if t_index != lastIndex}, {/if} {/for} Meryem Marzouki wrote: Thanks for these details, Jacqueline. I was aware of the ALAC list archives (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org/), which are indeed public, but there was not much discussion on this issue, and specifically on the 1st draft available at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal. I was rather referring to the list of the working group (http:// atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/summit-wg_atlarge- lists.icann.org), which requires authentification to access the archives restricted to list members. I've also found directions to a google group (http:// groups.google.com/group/icann-summit/web/icann-ensemble), but also restricted to members (any application should first be approved). The description of this google group is: "This group is for anyone interested in helping to stage the ICANN At-Large Summit, tentatively scheduled for the ICANN meeting in June 2008, to bring together all of its At-Large Structures for the purposes of education and policy development. " Probably what should be made clear is that this "Internet users" summit is nothing more than a meeting of At-large structures and their current ALSes. Best, Meryem Le 13 déc. 07 à 15:54, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > Hi > I'm not part of the Working group/committee, the At Large list is > open, and > as far as I know all discussions are open and openly archived. I > redirected > as I am not sure how many of them are actively monitoring this > list. So I > hope that the people on the WG who know how to answer your > questions will > reply to you soon. The leadership of the committee/working group > for the > Summit is also publicly listed, > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? > at_large_officers_and_working_group_lead > ers, so maybe you'd like to personally direct questions and > comments to any > of the leadership. > Jacqueline > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 03:42 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] "Internet users" Summit >> >> Hi Jacqueline, >> >> Actually, I tried to find on various ALAC lists any substantive >> discussions that this proposal (which, as I mentioned, was sent to >> ALAC structures on November 1st) would have created, and found >> nothing of this sort. I would have expected that the proposal >> (vision, objectives, deliverables, restricting conditions on >> attendance, frame, and tonality of expected discussions -- as well as >> the legitimacy and relevance of the very existence of such >> conditions) of an "Internet user Summit" would be at least discussed >> on a mailing list which archives are public (if the list itself is >> not open). If it's about an at-large structures/ALSes meeting, then >> fine; but if this thing claims to be an "Internet users" summit, then >> this is not understandable. >> >> How could I send comments to a committee which discussions are closed >> (thus, I don't even know on which current version of the proposal I >> should comment), and which existence is not even clearly announced >> and known? >> >> Also, I don't see why you've decided, without informing me first, to >> copy your answer (including my comments, thus actually copying my >> comments) to another, closed, list? As you should be well aware, one >> does formulate comments depending on which group of people they are >> addressed, and depending on a whole context (the "Internet users" >> summit was discussed on this governance list). A more respectful >> attitude would have been to provide the information that a committee >> was working on this, to provide the last version of the proposal, and >> then to encourage providing comments to this committee. >> >> In any case, your answer confirms my initial comments on this >> "Internet users" summit. In addition, I would appreciate your own >> comments on this, like, say, what is not anymore relevant as it has >> been modified or suppressed by the committee, since you seem to be >> part of it. Other members of this "committee" who are subscribers to >> this IGC list are also welcome to provide information and answers to >> questions. >> Here are again my initial comments: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit >>>> [...] >>>> - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) >>>> >>>> i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per >>>> diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only >>>> drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) >>>> [...] >>>> In summary: >>>> >>>> - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, >> let's >>>> call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" >>>> party, rather than "Internet users summit". >>>> >>>> - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes >>>> capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not >>>> yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's >> at >>>> stake??) >>>> >>>> - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of >>>> all "Individual Internet Users" on earth >>>> >>>> My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: >>>> >>>> - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be >>>> elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the >>>> debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want >>>> >>>> - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside >>>> the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist >>>> will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this >> list, >>>> we can imagine what this means. >>>> >>>> Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an >>>> academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an >>>> ALS >>>> "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an >> academic >>>> stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per >> Suresh's >>>> indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS >>>> activities.. >>>> >>>> In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that >>>> Paris >>>> is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice >>>> holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as >>>> "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. >> >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> >> Le 13 déc. 07 à 02:00, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >> >>> This was a first draft at the proposal - there are loads of people >>> working >>> in a committee to develop this proposal further, so your comments >>> should be >>> sent to them, so that they can be taken into consideration. To that >>> end I've >>> copied the ALAC list on this email. >>> >>> Jacqueline >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 19:20 >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] "Internet users" Summit >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:32, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : >>>> >>>>> However, since the idea of a summit came out months ago, I have >>>>> been repeating that the ICANN Board will never put money on >>>>> this if >>>>> a clear explanation of "how will this event make a difference" >>>>> isn't provided. So (AFAIK, as I'm not inside the process any more) >>>>> the organizers are now working on providing exactly that. In >>>>> general, I think that the event could be very useful or very >>>>> useless depending on how its agenda and purposes are set up. I >>>>> expect that this will be presented to the broader community in the >>>>> near future. >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> Le 10 déc. 07 à 09:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Why not to start with 12 people in a working group to draft a >>>>> strategy to find out what to do and how to intervene? >>>> >>>> Do you both mean, say, something like this: >>>> >>>> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?motion_on_the_summit_proposal >>>> (motion sent to ALAC mailing list on Nov 1st, and - as far as I've >>>> understood - prepared by Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc-France)) ? >>>> >>>> excerpts: >>>> ""ICANN Ensemble" A global summit of the ICANN At-Large community" >>>> - Estimated budget: 500,000 USD (350,000 euros) >>>> >>>> i.e. 310 USD (200 euros) per hotel night and 112 USD (75 euros) per >>>> diem. Which is quite good in Paris (unless, of course, if you only >>>> drink champaign -- a lot of champaign, I mean) >>>> >>>> - Vision >>>> "The Summit's intent to >>>> 3.1.Help the At-Large structures to better understand At-Large >>>> mandates, structures, processes. >>>> 3.2.Provide the tools needed by At-Large leadership to involve and >>>> engage their members. >>>> 3.3.Drive the development of timely policy study and >>>> recommendations >>>> reflecting the At-Large point of view on both global and regional >>>> levels. >>>> 3.4.Encourage the exchange of ideas, experiences and energy within >>>> ICANN's At-Large community." >>>> >>>> - 4.Objectives >>>> >>>> "4.1.An informed At-Large community that is better able to interact >>>> with other ICANN constituencies, supporting organisations and >>>> advisory committees. >>>> 4.2.An informed At-Large community that clearly understands the >>>> issues confronting ICANN and ICANN's roles and responsibilities >>>> therein. >>>> 4.3.Increased involvement by At-Large in ICANN policy debate. >>>> 4.4.An At-Large community that more clearly understands the global, >>>> rather than merely regional, point of view on ICANN-related issues. >>>> 4.5.A more engaged At-Large community that clearly understands the >>>> timing and framework of various issues currently confronting ICANN" >>>> >>>> - 5.Deliverables >>>> >>>> "5.1.Resolutions based on policy development. Any resolutions which >>>> are not agreed to at the Final Plenary or require more regional >>>> consultation should be accompanied by hard deadlines for passage. >>>> 5.2.Establishment of working groups related to specific policies >> with >>>> explicit goals and timetables for production of papers or >>>> resolutions. >>>> 5.3.ALS leadership who are fully aware of ICANN, its workings and >> its >>>> issues, who are ready and able to bring this information to their >>>> members. >>>> 5.4.Improved contacts and relationships between ICANN ALSs, within >>>> and between regions, and between At-Large and other ICANN >>>> constituencies. >>>> 5.5.Work on a “Individual Internet Users” declaration." >>>> >>>> - 9.Notes >>>> >>>> "[...] >>>> •Summit organizers -- with the assistance of ALAC, RALO chairs and >>>> ICANN staff -- will distribute in advance to ALSs information >> related >>>> to ICANN issues requiring attention. Each ALS is expected to >>>> discuss >>>> the policy issues sufficiently so that its delegates to the Summit >>>> can participate and vote on group resolutions. >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> •All points of view will be welcomed; however, it is stressed that >>>> the Summit is intended to be a positive, progressive event and >>>> delegates are expected to participate in that spirit. Advocacy >>>> outside the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or >>>> obstructionist will not be welcomed." >>>> >>>> (end of quotes) >>>> >>>> In summary: >>>> >>>> - "Internet users" == (current) "ICANN At-Large community". So, >> let's >>>> call this event by its name, i.e. the big "at-large structures" >>>> party, rather than "Internet users summit". >>>> >>>> - This "summit" is intended for current At-large structures/ALSes >>>> capacity building (what the hell are they doing in the RALOs if not >>>> yet aware of ICANN's - and specially at-large - arcanes and what's >> at >>>> stake??) >>>> >>>> - Whatever "declaration" will be written, it will be in the name of >>>> all "Individual Internet Users" on earth >>>> >>>> My favorites are the "Notes". The two ones reproduced above mean: >>>> >>>> - "Information related to ICANN issues requiring attention" will be >>>> elaborated and distributed by the "Summit" organizers: frame the >>>> debate as you want, and you'll get the outcome you want >>>> >>>> - "All points of view will be welcomed"... But..."Advocacy outside >>>> the scope of ICANN or intended as simply negative or obstructionist >>>> will not be welcomed." :)))) From only some discussions on this >> list, >>>> we can imagine what this means. >>>> >>>> Last but not least, given the budget per person, if you're an >>>> academic, I indeed recommend that you attend this "summit" as an >>>> ALS >>>> "leader" rather than visiting some colleagues in Paris in an >> academic >>>> stay framework or rather than coming as a UN consultant (per >> Suresh's >>>> indications).. Not to mention comparisons with usual low budget CS >>>> activities.. >>>> >>>> In any case, being myself based in Paris, I can guarantee that >>>> Paris >>>> is really great in June, and that these people will spend nice >>>> holidays here, in addition to reinforcing their positions as >>>> "leadership", "representing" Internet users, a.k.a citizens. >>>> >>>> Have fun. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Dec 13 19:13:16 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:13:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...) In-Reply-To: <3CC1589B-DE73-46DA-8A9B-AB55DCD51AE2@psg.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <3CC1589B-DE73-46DA-8A9B-AB55DCD51AE2@psg.com> Message-ID: At 12:38 AM -0500 12/13/07, Avri Doria wrote: >BTW: I though I was discussing not arguing. I do not believe that >the age of >the decentralised Internet is going away, though there will be many >areas of the >Internet that have some degree of local control. And there will >always be some >services that for some period of time are at the core and which seem >susceptible >to centralised take over. Personally I still believe it can't happen. > >But more importantly, I think we should assume that it shouldn't >happen and should >participate everywhere possible to make sure it doesn't, just in case >i am wrong >about that. I'm glad to see your hedge here, because I don't quite understand why you believe that centralized takeover "can't happen." I see threats on the horizon in all directions. (Jon Zittrain's current work in fact addresses some of the ones currently peeking over the horizon, and I look forward to his new book next spring after seeing him speak about it live.) The fundamental reason for my alarm is the knowledge that, while technology development in principle should be independent of political dynamics, in practice it is quite possible for politics to decide to impose itself on technology development just as much as it can impose itself on any other societal endeavor. The USG created the Internet development project in a positive sense, and it can impose national regulations in a negative sense. International political venues can do it on a global scale. _____ As a bit of personal history about where I'm coming from here, I took an interesting course in college about "scientific worldview in antiquity and the middle ages" from a scholar whose primary focus was analyzing the role of institutions in the practice of science from the inception of recorded history (this course took us up through the beginning of the enlightenment). The key take-away from that course was an understanding of how profound the effects of religion and other cultural power dynamics were able to constrain the practice of science. In short: context governs content, or in other words, science is ultimately subservient to institutional constraints, including political dynamics of the levers of institutions of power. In the last few centuries, science (and its progeny, technology) has had a privileged position in the hierarchy of knowledge in western culture, but in the last few decades in the US, and especially since the millennium, there has been a coordinated and strategic attack on the position of science as "the best way to discover truth" in our civilization. The most prominent example of this is the systematic opposition of science with regard to climate change, followed by the completely unnecessary debate about "intelligent design" in evolution. In this framework of cultural attack, technology is not treated as a "free marketplace of innovation" but rather as a resource for political and economic control (and these two forms of control are increasingly losing their distinction over time -- the public sector and the for-profit sector continue to build their bonds, in a political environment that allows them to do so without significant limit or oversight). _____ The Internet in particular arose in a context of independent development, partly because the cultural change sought by the plutocracy had not settled in as far as today, and partly because the unintended consequences (which were accelerated in the 90s by a more populist USG administration) were yet unrecognized, so USG did not impose significant political oversight on the project. My belief is that this "free pass" was a temporary state of political affairs that inhered at the outset, but given that the profound societally disruptive potentials of an open network are now quite clearly seen at all levels of society (especially now at the highest levels of political power), this free pass has been irrevocably revoked, it seems to me. Once political power sets its sights on a tool for control, it is unlikely to be distracted from a mission to constrain it to its own ends. The trends toward political control over information are crystal clear in the US, at this point, and I believe they are quite well established in many other countries as well, particularly the developed countries. The history of the IP lobby's maximalist agenda over the last 20-30 years is also well established in international venues. Coincidence? You decide, but don't take too long. _____ Bottom line, while I do not claim that "centralized takeover" is inevitable, I do think that avoiding it will take every possible effort (most prominently by some sub-sectors of civil society, particularly the ICT and media public interest advocacy organizations) to resist it. And, it may be that those who do not believe in that possibility present the greatest threat to its resistance because the natural tendency in that mindset is to ignore warnings until it is far too late to do anything effective about them. And, it is clear that the forces of (political, information) control "invest in a diverse regulatory portfolio" by being present and pushing their agenda at any and all political venues possible (and because they have considerable resources they are in a lot of venues), and ideally CS should be present at all of them to push back everywhere possible. So to that extent I would certainly approve of CS presence at ITU, and can understand Bill and Avri's position. However, CS has somewhat more constrained resources overall than the plutocrats, and thus CS may have to focus a lot more attention on picking the most effective battles possible. So in this sense I have a great deal of sympathy for Milton's position. CS as a whole doesn't seem to have the luxury of battling everywhere all at once. We simply don't have the resources available to do that. And in cases where we do decide to participate, we should most certainly be as careful as possible to ensure that we participate effectively so that the net gain outweighs any potential for loss. Bottom bottom line: If you're going to do it, then make sure you do it right, and don't run a significant risk of making things worse by doing things only part-way. So, make sure you are certain of *what it will require* to "do it right" because an abortive or ineffective attempt at participation may leave us worse off than doing nothing. The real issue here is clearly evaluating the risk of net loss, rather than assuming that there can only be zero to net positive gain, and this is what I see as Milton's ultimate point. On this point, rational minds may disagree, because it requires an accurate assessment of what the risks are, and that may not be completely obvious. Clearly Milton sees some substantial risks. I hope that anyone who decides to participate addresses those worries systematically and incorporates them into their strategy with a clear eye. CS can't afford a whole lot of unintended consequences. Due diligence is in order, here. Dan PS -- Case in point about limited resources: I won't be here in the IG community indefinitely unless I can find a paid job addressing these matters. I'm living on borrowed time, and if the job I find (as opposed to the job I prefer) does not address IG as a priority, my participation here will be as an occasional passive observer at best. If anyone here has leads on paid ICT policy advocacy, analyst, and/or researcher roles I could perform from the San Francisco Bay Area, I'd appreciate knowing about them. Sorry for the abject self-promotional appeal, but my clock is running down and I need to try all avenues. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Thu Dec 13 22:53:11 2007 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:53:11 EST Subject: [governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...) Message-ID: Dear All -- I find this pessimistic account of the end of freedom pf scientific inquiry and on the I'net to be shortsightedly deterministic. Most likely there will be a basic change in American administrations after the next election, and the rejection of the Enlightenment and the desire to institute central political controls will fade away, along with the good folks who gave us the Iraq fiasco. Rony Koven ************************************** See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Dec 14 00:02:07 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:02:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:53 PM -0500 12/13/07, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: >Dear All -- > >I find this pessimistic account of the end of freedom pf scientific >inquiry and on the I'net to be shortsightedly deterministic. Most likely >there will be a basic change in American administrations after the next >election, and the rejection of the Enlightenment and the desire to >institute central political controls will fade away, along with the good >folks who gave us the Iraq fiasco. > >Rony Koven I would love to be more optimistic, and I do believe a change in USG administrations will be incrementally for the better (hard to see how it could be much worse, even if another Republican is elected). However, even among Democrats (though it would be foolish to count their chickens just yet, even with a clear popular sentiment in that direction at the moment), various lobbies hold much influence, and will continue to hold much influence. The Dems, remember, gave us the 1996 Telecom Act, which had a lot of nasty stuff in it for the public and a lot of nice stuff for the IP biz and some nice deregulation for the cable and telecom and broadcast industries. And we got the DMCA in 1998, with anti-circumvention laws, a flawed compulsory license for music webcasting, etc. The pressure on legislators to adhere to industry lobbies will not go away, the revolving door will not go away, and for all the Dems' talk of cleaning up the ethics of Congress, such measures will be, well, measured. Just think of Rep. Howard Berman of CA (Hollywood constituency) as a long-standing warning sign that even Dems can be captured by special industry interests. If a Dem gets elected, all this stuff doesn't just go away, even though it would be likely to become somewhat less acute. There is really no reason to be sanguine about this, even in the best of circumstances. The IP lobby has a long-standing global strategy, and one individual national government, even one as powerful as the USG, will not change that agenda or the resources marshalled on its behalf. The telecom and cable and broadcaster lobbies will remain powerful and influential, and they will continue to put as much pressure on government in their narrow interests as they can, because they believe it is their duty under the fiduciary obligations of limited liability corporations to do anything that is legal to serve those narrow interests. The fiction of "corporate social responsibility" is an illusion of corporate response to explicit regulation and changing market demand (i.e., the customer preference for "green" goods, for example, was created by long term efforts of the environmental faction of CS, as was much of the regulatory regime that is being rolled back in recent years). In the absence of regulation (and in the presence of substantial market power, such as last-mile broadband connectivity services), industry leaders will try to consolidate as much power as they can, because they feel it is their moral duty to do so. Bottom line: In the US, we will have to keep a sharp eye on the USG even (and especially) if a Dem president is elected and majorities in House and Senate are maintained. The influence of wealth on politics is somewhat more subtle for the Dems than the Reps, but it by no means absent. And there is still no guarantee that we will succeed in electing a Dem, in which case that influence will continue to be rather more explicit. Remember also that "it took Nixon to go to China" -- in policy terms, only a leader who had credentials opposing "caving in" to the Communist regime had the political cover to negotiate detente with The Enemy. With Dems in control, they would have some political cover to negotiate continued or further erosions of civil liberties. There is no scenario that I can see in which "all of our problems just go away." Such a vision is only viewable through rose-colored glasses, and in my view *that* is what is "shortsighted" in this discussion, if we are going to throw around epithets. As a politico in the techie/politico conversation (thought not exactly a "diplomat" -- I'm of course an advocate), I must insist on realism when evaluating political dynamics. While I am optimistic that with sufficient attention we can push back effectively at "the wrong thing" it would be dangerous to think that "the right thing" will emerge of its own accord without the application of explicit political force (mostly by CS). We must keep our eyes on the prize, or else someone else will surely take it from us while we're not looking. The "consensus in the middle" is becoming extremely scarce in political venues, and I don't really see that changing dramatically in the foreseeable future. Even in the best case, it will take us some time to work our way out of the current Gilded Age of plutocracy. We have a long climb still ahead, and any change in USG administration is just the beginning, not the end of it. There will continue to be many people in positions of influence (both public and private) who wish to "institute central political controls" and they will not fade away quickly, if at all. Whatever they can't get in the light of day they will try to get under the table and in the back room, and they will do their utmost to distract "the masses" to look elsewhere. It would be a mistake to underestimate their power, resources, or determination to get their way in whatever manner they can, even if it requires "weapons of mass distraction." 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Dec 14 00:41:08 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:41:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Summit WG Message-ID: <00b501c83e13$eed0ef30$cc72cd90$@com> Hi Meryem Here's the answer from the Chair of ALAC: Please tell anyone who asks or is interested in contributing to this important activity the following information: 1. To subscribe to the Summit WG list (all lists are at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo ) just select the hyperlink taking them to http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/summit-wg_atlarge-lists.ican n.org and follow the standard subscription prompts... 2. The BRAND NEW At-Large Summit WG wiki has just been put up at https://st.icann.org/Summit-wg/index.cgi?at_large_summit_working_group and all work including the Agenda and notes for our FIRST meeting on December 17th at 2200 UTC will be put up there soon (i.e. the space is so new we have not even done a first edit from the basic template yet but we will be doing so before the aforementioned meeting... All List subscribers are invited to subscribe as contributors to the wiki space and it is viewable by anyone, anywhere, any time . Also note this space will be (if it s not already) linked to from the ALAC Wiki home page... 3. We also use ( for any one on Skype) a bookmarked chat called At-Large/Summmit Conversation (yes there are 3 m's -> go figure) and anyone with a Skype address can be invited to join that as well but we will be posting transcriptions from this list to the Wiki space any way.... I suggest they either join the WG and lists or watch the WG Wiki space, so when we make a statement , plan or decision they will know about it. At this stage as pointed out we have yet to have the preliminary meeting, and the Summit Skype Chat (mentioned in 3. ) has certainly come to no date for a proposal yet let alone the a public comment proposal itself... Regarding time course and planning of / or publication of a proposal - this will be on the Agenda for the 17th So the Wiki will show all that transpires there... Hope this helps re the information on the Summit. Jacqueline -------------- 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 Dec 14 03:51:25 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:51:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...) In-Reply-To: (message from Dan Krimm on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:02:07 -0800) References: Message-ID: <20071214085125.61E1D220285@quill.bollow.ch> Dan Krimm wrote: > As a politico in the techie/politico conversation (thought not exactly a > "diplomat" -- I'm of course an advocate), I must insist on realism when > evaluating political dynamics. While I am optimistic that with sufficient > attention we can push back effectively at "the wrong thing" it would be > dangerous to think that "the right thing" will emerge of its own accord > without the application of explicit political force (mostly by CS). We > must keep our eyes on the prize, or else someone else will surely take it > from us while we're not looking. Yes, indeed. And we must not overlook the reality that the "IP" lobby and other industry lobbies that we're up against are very savvy with regard to tactics like forum-shopping. I'm getting more and more convinced that in addition to pushing back in whatever fora the industry lobby driven action moves to, we need to work independently of all that on establishing a credible genuinely democratic forum in the form of an international internet users parliament, even if that will initially have no authority besides the moral authority of making statements which are genuinely democratically legitimized. The main problem with this idea is funding. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.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 iza at anr.org Fri Dec 14 10:01:30 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:01:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? In-Reply-To: <003401c83ba6$dd6b3620$9841a260$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C8B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <009c01c83b30$3804d950$a80e8bf0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2B5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <003401c83ba6$dd6b3620$9841a260$@com> Message-ID: As I have been on the road and the connectivity in Washington DC in my limited time of sittng in front of a PC, I cannot read these interesting postings on this thread. I just scanned them, not read fully, but I was quite confused, not, the discussion was quite confusing Bringing dot US issue to NARALO's attnention is fine, and I agree it is an important issue, but then making the overall denial of ALAC because NARALO could not react to Danny's proposal is too much exageration to non NR members of ALAC. Similarly, bringing the 700 MHz US domestinc issue into the debate was not helpful at all. It is not our (direct) business, sorry. Further, bringing the AtLarge Summit to compare also seems not adoquate. I would like to see the debate stick to the dot US issue and bring it forward by concerned people in bottom up and also effective manner. We have limited bandwidth in our brains, just bringing too many different issues into one bascket is messy and frankly I have little time to follow all from Asia pacific where we have our own headaches. thanks, izumi 2007/12/11, Jacqueline A. Morris : > I don't know why they decided to focus on one and not the other - the > reasons for the Summit should be in the proposal to the ICANN Board, so we > should know then. > > I'm confused by the difference you make here between freedom of association > and democracy - if we have an organization in which the decisions are made > by majority vote of the members, how is that not a democratic organization, > or at least an organization that is run on democratic principles? To me, > freedom of association is the ability to associate with anyone that you want > - as opposed to apartheid, for example, where one was prohibited from > associating with people of one's choice based on race. But as one can decide > to join an association where decisions are not made by the membership, they > aren't similar, hence my confusion. Seems to me that you define both terms > differently? > > Also - the At Large has power over ALAC's work schedule and budget > proposals, and the resources assigned to ALAC as the RALOs appoint 10 of the > 15, and those reps are there to implement the wishes of the RALO. > > "ALAC is there to give ICANN user perspectives on actual policy choices that > ICANN has to make, and if ALAC consistently does not do that, what are we to > conclude?" > > Maybe that the users are not interested or not informed enough? If the > latter, then there are things that ALAC can and should do to inform and > educate (and several are underway). If the former, then the ALSes that have > joined and find that they are not interested enough in the policy issues, > should be de-accredited, leaving ALSes that are truly interested in the > issues. > > Jacqueline > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 13:21 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO? > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > >From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > > > > > >That Milton, is one of the things that we have to accept in a bottom- > > up > > >process that gives the users the power. They may decide to do things > > that > > >you, me, others don't agree with. But if a lot more of them vote to > > spend > > >energy and resources for the Summit and none for the .us contract, > > than > > the > > >ones who vote the other way, that's the democratic process. > > > > No, Jacky, that's not "democracy" that's "freedom of association," > > which > > is something I strongly favor but has little relevance to the issue of > > how users are represented in global governance of ICANN issues. This > > freedom of assocation doesn't give "users the power" over anything > > except what to do with their own time and resources -- a freedom they > > already have anyway. They don't need ALAC for that. > > > > The issue you are studiously ignoring is this: if ALAC is there to give > > ICANN user perspectives on actual policy choices that ICANN has to > > make, > > and if ALAC consistently does not do that, what are we to conclude? > > > > A number of conclusions are possible. One is that the people who are > > attracted to ALAC are not all that interested in the day to day issues > > of ICANN policy making but in other things... Another is that the > > structure of ALAC tends to encourage its members to do other things > > than > > pay attention to detailed policy issues, because the rewards for those > > other activities are perceived to be higher. Another is that ALAC-ers > > don't feel that they can really influence the specific policy issues on > > which comment is possible, so they choose not to do so and concentrate > > their time on things they feel they can control. > > > > I don't know which of these is right, if any, but would be interested > > in > > your perspective. > > > > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << 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 iza at anr.org Fri Dec 14 10:34:30 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:34:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <-3631109050768444285@unknownmsgid> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC2F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <3CC1589B-DE73-46DA-8A9B-AB55DCD51AE2@psg.com> <-3631109050768444285@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: I also agree with the observation of Avri and Bills call for attention, (though I have not read all the lines on this trhead) . I have made a "study" on NGN standardization process around security, visited ITU folks, spoke with people in Japan involved directly in drafting the standard (vendors and telcos), and some in US, including people from VeriSign and DoD. It was a "private" project and report was written in Japanese thus cannot share per se. BUT, the subject include lawful interception, emergency communication and Identity Management standardization for NGN "may" have great impact to the future users of NGN. It is not clear at this stage if NGN services really fly, how they interconnect with Internet, or are the going to replace or coexist with Internet. Yet in my opinion it is worth to at least watch, and since ITU has been rather closed in disseminating the ongoing works, it is much better to have more CS access to the process, instead of arguing if it is worth or not, or how much should we spend our limited resources in hypothetical manner. Just do it if we can - like people in Geneva can act as excellent focal point on behalf of us. I appreciate that very much, and may participate more. Identity management may become quite serious - for privacy, human right free speech, etc. who knows? Thanks, izumi 2007/12/13, Carlton Samuels : > Having first-hand knowledge on this specific issue, I can and do endorse > this analysis as well as the prescription offered. > > Carlton Samuels > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:39 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > > Hi, > > I think a lot of the analysis below holds. but it isn't the Telcos > that are > making the decisions in the ITU SGs, but the sector members, i.e. the > vendors that make the stuff. So it is a variant on the old model. > the sector members agree and then the governments rubber stamp. > Of course the govt's, some more then others, discuss all of the details > with the sector members along the way. You find that in some countries, > the sector members drive the national delegations on such things > (e.g. who > tells who what: Finland or Nokia, Sweden or Ericsson, ...), while in > others there is a different mix (In S. Korea it is a genuine govt- > Industry > collaborative effort as far as I can tell). > > As for the NGN replacing the unruly Internet, that is much a fantasy > as IPv6 > replacing IPv4. Nothing goes away in the network, new things just > learn to > coexist with the old and vice versa. > > And the NGN is always just 10 years away in horizon time. > > BTW: I though I was discussing not arguing. I do not believe that > the age of > the decentralised Internet is going away, though there will be many > areas of the > Internet that have some degree of local control. And there will > always be some > services that for some period of time are at the core and which seem > susceptible > to centralised take over. Personally I still believe it can't happen. > > But more importantly, I think we should assume that it shouldn't > happen and should > participate everywhere possible to make sure it doesn't, just in case > i am wrong > about that. > > a. > > > > > On 12 dec 2007, at 18.25, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> [South Korea] making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence > >> architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research > >> institute to reassign everyone to IT[U] work and to lay off > >> contractors (that's me) who were working on any other standards > >> activity. > > > > Avri, > > your anecdote is interesting and highly relevant. But I see something > > perhaps a bit different in it than you do. To me, this is an > > example of > > what I meant by the top-down paradigm. Yes, standardization > > activity in > > ITU is "bottom up" in the sense that it is driven by consensus-based > > committees that are dominated by (a sector of) industry. > > > > However, many people in the ITU, including the So. Koreans, still seem > > to believe that we are in a pre-1997 world in which standards agreed > > upon by the telcos in intergovernmental fora really do define the > > direction of global digital media. I don't think that will be the case > > anymore. Standards dominance is very, very difficult to achieve these > > days, and when it does happen (Microsoft) it usually occurs through de > > facto market dominance, not through interogovernmental bodies. > > There are > > a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions. The telcos > > would really, really like for a carefully defined "NGN convergence > > architecture" to supersede the unruly Internet. Maybe they will > > succeed > > in that goal. But there are a lot of other powerful players, including > > consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet companies, technology > > companies. > > > > Let's not argue any more about this: You and Bill are certainly right > > that such activities should not be ignored. Maybe the age of > > decentralized internet is ending and this is the beginning of the end. > > Maybe not. As I said before, anyone who wants to get involved, feel > > free, I am not arguing against it. But before you do, do ask > > intelligent > > questions about what is the best way to spend your time. And do ask > > whether your participation helps to legitimate activities that might > > best be criticized from the outside. > > > >> This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the > >> way various technological choices could facilitate the ability to > >> set policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate > >> system entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of > >> the traffi passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow > >> down, record ... > > > > But this is a danger regardless of what the ITU does. Deep packet > > inspection technologies, national laws such as the French one > > requiring > > monitoring, U.S.-based alliances between IPR interests and cable > > infrastructure providers, broadcast flag in the digital transition, > > all > > represent similar, and much more immediate threats. Are you sure, > > do you > > feel really confident, that ITU is the best place to confront these > > issues? > > > >> I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically > >> picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant > >> force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, > >> will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. > > > > I would argue that ITU has been seeking some kind of niche, some > > kind of > > toehold for gaining relevance and control over the internet, since > > 1995/6. The latest two are NGN and security. Most of the earlier > > attempts were failures. How much impact the decisions made there will > > have on the Internet remains to be seen, it is debatable. > > > > But it's good that someone (Bill) is monitoring these things at ITU. > > > >> So the more that people who care can participate in all phases of > >> heir > > > >> activities, the better. > > > > Who can argue with this? My main points, which people keep not > > addressing, is: when the doors open, who walks in? It is not > > difficult > > to imagine scenarios in which you make things worse. Suppose the doors > > open and no one shows up, or no one is really equipped to navigate the > > negotiations in an effective way. Some very bad outcomes could be > > excused or legitimized. "Hey, don't complain that we are now > > inspecting > > all of your packets and have implemented a digital identity system > > that > > permits complete surveillance, working group SC-17(b)iii made this > > decision last month, and the civil society representative at the > > meeting > > raised no objections." Who was this "civil society representative"? > > Was > > s/he just asleep, overworked, bought off? Or simply didn't understand > > what was going on? Or outnumbered and ignored? > > > >> I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS > >> to get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get > >> expressed and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect > >> the trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision > >> by decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be > >> stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. > > > > See above. Whether CS is unified or not is a secondary issue, imho. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Dec 14 14:05:15 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:05:15 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Izumi, Agree with your comments both on the substantive (the rather uncertain character and prospects of NGNs) and procedural (semi-closed process worth tracking etc) sides. Perhaps of interest in this context is the workshop held last year on NGN policy aspects www.itu.int/osg/spu/ngn/agenda.html. I gave a presentation noting that there were creatures outside the magic kingdom that might have concerns about the public interest implications of NGN and suggesting that ITU ought to proceed in a more transparent and inclusive manner. As you might guess, these thoughts were greeted as if from another planet. Which to me is all the more reason for people to be there advancing them, which costs CS nothing and has no catastrophic consequences. Cheers, Bill On 12/14/07 4:34 PM, "Izumi AIZU" wrote: > I also agree with the observation of Avri and Bills call for > attention, (though I have not read all the lines on this trhead) . > > I have made a "study" on NGN standardization process around security, > visited ITU folks, spoke with people in Japan involved directly in drafting > the standard (vendors and telcos), and some in US, including people > from VeriSign and DoD. It was a "private" project and report was written > in Japanese thus cannot share per se. > > BUT, the subject include lawful interception, emergency communication > and Identity Management standardization for NGN "may" have great > impact to the future users of NGN. It is not clear at this stage if > NGN services really fly, how they interconnect with Internet, or > are the going to replace or coexist with Internet. Yet in my opinion > it is worth to at least watch, and since ITU has been rather closed > in disseminating the ongoing works, it is much better to have more > CS access to the process, instead of arguing if it is worth or not, > or how much should we spend our limited resources in hypothetical > manner. Just do it if we can - like people in Geneva can act as excellent > focal point on behalf of us. I appreciate that very much, and may participate > more. > > Identity management may become quite serious - for privacy, human > right free speech, etc. who knows? > > Thanks, > > izumi > > > 2007/12/13, Carlton Samuels : >> Having first-hand knowledge on this specific issue, I can and do endorse >> this analysis as well as the prescription offered. >> >> Carlton Samuels >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:39 AM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] >> >> Hi, >> >> I think a lot of the analysis below holds. but it isn't the Telcos >> that are >> making the decisions in the ITU SGs, but the sector members, i.e. the >> vendors that make the stuff. So it is a variant on the old model. >> the sector members agree and then the governments rubber stamp. >> Of course the govt's, some more then others, discuss all of the details >> with the sector members along the way. You find that in some countries, >> the sector members drive the national delegations on such things >> (e.g. who >> tells who what: Finland or Nokia, Sweden or Ericsson, ...), while in >> others there is a different mix (In S. Korea it is a genuine govt- >> Industry >> collaborative effort as far as I can tell). >> >> As for the NGN replacing the unruly Internet, that is much a fantasy >> as IPv6 >> replacing IPv4. Nothing goes away in the network, new things just >> learn to >> coexist with the old and vice versa. >> >> And the NGN is always just 10 years away in horizon time. >> >> BTW: I though I was discussing not arguing. I do not believe that >> the age of >> the decentralised Internet is going away, though there will be many >> areas of the >> Internet that have some degree of local control. And there will >> always be some >> services that for some period of time are at the core and which seem >> susceptible >> to centralised take over. Personally I still believe it can't happen. >> >> But more importantly, I think we should assume that it shouldn't >> happen and should >> participate everywhere possible to make sure it doesn't, just in case >> i am wrong >> about that. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> >> On 12 dec 2007, at 18.25, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>> [South Korea] making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence >>>> architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research >>>> institute to reassign everyone to IT[U] work and to lay off >>>> contractors (that's me) who were working on any other standards >>>> activity. >>> >>> Avri, >>> your anecdote is interesting and highly relevant. But I see something >>> perhaps a bit different in it than you do. To me, this is an >>> example of >>> what I meant by the top-down paradigm. Yes, standardization >>> activity in >>> ITU is "bottom up" in the sense that it is driven by consensus-based >>> committees that are dominated by (a sector of) industry. >>> >>> However, many people in the ITU, including the So. Koreans, still seem >>> to believe that we are in a pre-1997 world in which standards agreed >>> upon by the telcos in intergovernmental fora really do define the >>> direction of global digital media. I don't think that will be the case >>> anymore. Standards dominance is very, very difficult to achieve these >>> days, and when it does happen (Microsoft) it usually occurs through de >>> facto market dominance, not through interogovernmental bodies. >>> There are >>> a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions. The telcos >>> would really, really like for a carefully defined "NGN convergence >>> architecture" to supersede the unruly Internet. Maybe they will >>> succeed >>> in that goal. But there are a lot of other powerful players, including >>> consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet companies, technology >>> companies. >>> >>> Let's not argue any more about this: You and Bill are certainly right >>> that such activities should not be ignored. Maybe the age of >>> decentralized internet is ending and this is the beginning of the end. >>> Maybe not. As I said before, anyone who wants to get involved, feel >>> free, I am not arguing against it. But before you do, do ask >>> intelligent >>> questions about what is the best way to spend your time. And do ask >>> whether your participation helps to legitimate activities that might >>> best be criticized from the outside. >>> >>>> This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the >>>> way various technological choices could facilitate the ability to >>>> set policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate >>>> system entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of >>>> the traffi passing through a network. Actions such as; drop, slow >>>> down, record ... >>> >>> But this is a danger regardless of what the ITU does. Deep packet >>> inspection technologies, national laws such as the French one >>> requiring >>> monitoring, U.S.-based alliances between IPR interests and cable >>> infrastructure providers, broadcast flag in the digital transition, >>> all >>> represent similar, and much more immediate threats. Are you sure, >>> do you >>> feel really confident, that ITU is the best place to confront these >>> issues? >>> >>>> I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically >>>> picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant >>>> force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, >>>> will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future. >>> >>> I would argue that ITU has been seeking some kind of niche, some >>> kind of >>> toehold for gaining relevance and control over the internet, since >>> 1995/6. The latest two are NGN and security. Most of the earlier >>> attempts were failures. How much impact the decisions made there will >>> have on the Internet remains to be seen, it is debatable. >>> >>> But it's good that someone (Bill) is monitoring these things at ITU. >>> >>>> So the more that people who care can participate in all phases of >>>> heir >>> >>>> activities, the better. >>> >>> Who can argue with this? My main points, which people keep not >>> addressing, is: when the doors open, who walks in? It is not >>> difficult >>> to imagine scenarios in which you make things worse. Suppose the doors >>> open and no one shows up, or no one is really equipped to navigate the >>> negotiations in an effective way. Some very bad outcomes could be >>> excused or legitimized. "Hey, don't complain that we are now >>> inspecting >>> all of your packets and have implemented a digital identity system >>> that >>> permits complete surveillance, working group SC-17(b)iii made this >>> decision last month, and the civil society representative at the >>> meeting >>> raised no objections." Who was this "civil society representative"? >>> Was >>> s/he just asleep, overworked, bought off? Or simply didn't understand >>> what was going on? Or outnumbered and ignored? >>> >>>> I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS >>>> to get involved. It is enough the multivariate views of CS get >>>> expressed and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect >>>> the trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision >>>> by decision basis. Sure if there is a unified position CS an be >>>> stronger, but we don't need to wait for that golden day. >>> >>> See above. Whether CS is unified or not is a secondary issue, imho. >>> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 14 14:50:59 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:50:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: a5509d940712140701s56e71790kb6d7b51187cfda8d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Izumi, Please allow me to put these together for you and others. >From my perspective and looking down the road a-ways in terms of technological evolution. The subject elements of this explanation are: Nuestar, Enum, DNS (.US etc. ...), and Technology in regards to Personal Devices (PD: Cell Phones, PDAs, PSP, PVP, iPOD, Generic... anything identified with an assigned names and number) In order for you to understand the relationship between DNS and ENUM, and the consequential relationship of .US-Nuestar and ENUM-Nuestar as the Purveyor of the ENUM DNS please read: 1. This is a simple explanation of the relationship in layman terms: "The ENUM system effectively enables individuals, businesses and other organizations to maximize the use of both the public Internet and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) by associating telephone numbers with Internet domain names. " http://enumllc.com/aboutus.html 2. This explains and illustrates ENUMs Global deployment & expanse via ccTDL. http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/index.html 3. An ANNOUNCEMENT RFP questions for clarification now due to ENUMLLC by January 15, 2008 RFP Bidders Conference, Richardson, TX on January 23, 2008 http://enumllc.com/ - So looking down road, You will have an ENUMber. It won't be a "Telephone Number" or a "Web Address" but an ENUMber. And any personal-device Portable or Stationary, Mobile or Base, will have YOUR ENUMber associated with it. You�re Play-Station, your Cell Phone, your Desk Phone, your Car, your Refrigerator, maybe even the family Dog will have your ENUMber address attached to it. Your ENUMber will replace your email address. ALL your communications can be connected through it. Someday your ENUMber may look like this: Tokyo: http://81.3.5555.1212.JP New York: http://1.212.5555.1212.US San Fran: http://1.415.555.1212.US >Similarly, bringing the 700 MHz US domestic issue into the debate >was not helpful at all. It is not our (direct) business, sorry. I beg to differ, I see the US 700 MHz �issue� as the model platform for the Global expansion of this technology. The 700 MHz (analog) spectrum allowed the US to have a television in every Home, some even two. Eventually every Nation in the World adopted Television as a technological medium. The New 700 MHz (digital) spectrum will allow the US to have not only Television but any number Personal Devices connect too today�s technological medium, the Internet. That �medium� is an issue of �Assigned Names and Numbers� (icANN). - Now, if I'm out-here on the "Bottom" of the ALAC and not even close to the inner-circle(s) of the Icann Committees, and I see something coming towards us, something the Quality-Circles didn't notice, something they didn't comprehend. Q. Am I to stifle myself and sit quite? Q. Am I to bring it up through ranks of Icann-Q-Circles? Q. Am I supposed to raise hell about it to get noticed? Q. Am I to Jump Ship - Can't beat them, then join Them... You see � Nuestar is coming, and it�s going to be a Behemoth. Bret saw it, if you wanted to buy Xerox or Microsoft at their start, Neustar was the Ship to set sail on. Yes the ALAC had plenty to explore on this issue, as Danny so rightfully pointed out. But because the ALAC allowed this to side by with a rubber stamp, Now we don't have a stake in it. Which means, that when we do have an issue at a later date, it will be even harder to cover and make Stakeholder-Footing. This is very much a Big Issue to come, For the ALAC, For Icann, For the ITU. Get on the Boat, or your going to miss 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Dec 14 15:00:33 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:00:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] Hyperlink Updates In-Reply-To: sympa.1197661369.1125.416@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Hyperlink update: 1.: http://www.enumllc.com/aboutus.html . This is a simple explanation of the relationship in layman terms: "The ENUM system effectively enables individuals, businesses and other organizations to maximize the use of both the public Internet and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) by associating telephone numbers with Internet domain names. " 2.: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/index.html This explains and illustrates ENUMs Global deployment & expanse via ccTDL. 3.: http://www.enumllc.com/ An ANNOUNCEMENT RFP questions for clarification now due to ENUMLLC by January 15, 2008 RFP Bidders Conference, Richardson, TX on January 23, 2008 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 14 15:21:28 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:21:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] Hyperlink Update In-Reply-To: sympa.1197661369.1125.416@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Hyperlink update: (Sorry I'm having trouble with posting link addresses, you may have to play with them) 1.: http://www.enumllc.com/aboutus.html This is a simple explanation of the relationship in layman terms: "The ENUM system effectively enables individuals, businesses and other organizations to maximize the use of both the public Internet and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) by associating telephone numbers with Internet domain names. " 2.: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/index.html This explains and illustrates ENUMs Global deployment & expanse via ccTDL. 3.: http://enumllc.com or http://www.enumllc.com An ANNOUNCEMENT RFP questions for clarification now due to ENUMLLC by January 15, 2008 RFP Bidders Conference, Richardson, TX on January 23, 2008 - TOP TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNET COMPANIES FORM COUNTRY CODE 1 ENUM LLC TO FOSTER NEW INTERNET TELECOM TECHNOLOGY Today, several leading telecommunications and Internet companies have announced the formation of a new organization, the Country Code 1 ENUM Limited Liability Company (CC1 ENUM LLC), to build the public infrastructure that will promote the development of ENUM technology in a single, carrier-class manner within the countries of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The countries of the NANP include the United States, Canada and the Caribbean nations. The goal of the Country Code 1 ENUM Limited Liability Company is to build the public infrastructure that will promote the development of ENUM technology in a single, carrier-class manner within the countries of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The countries of the NANP include the United States, Canada and some Caribbean nations. ENUM is a technology that allows users to combine the resources of the Internet with traditional telephony, uniting these two diverse worlds of communications and enabling a whole new range of communication applications. The ENUM system effectively enables individuals, businesses and other organizations to maximize the use of both the public Internet and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) by associating telephone numbers with Internet domain names. As a result, phone numbers can be used to send traditional telephony services like voice calls or faxes which can be converted to digital packets for delivery to a variety of devices. A common ENUM system becomes increasingly essential as applications like voice over IP (VoIP) become more widely adopted. The ENUM system bridges the technology gap between the public Internet and the Public Switched Telephone Network so that VoIP users of different service providers can communicate more simply with each other. Through the launch of this new organization, the founding companies are seeking to build a commercial implementation consistent with the relevant open standards of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) upon which ENUM is based. The new company will help to implement a single, public ENUM system for those nations within the NANP that choose to participate. It is intended that the North American implementation of ENUM will adhere to national and industry privacy requirements. The LLC�s first task will involve selection of a vendor to take the initial steps towards creation of an infrastructure that would enable the countries within the NANP to establish their own national ENUM implementations. The limited liability company will also be responsible for selecting a vendor to develop the national infrastructure for the United States. Country Code 1 ENUM LLC will manage the public infrastructure that translates traditional telephone numbers into Internet domain names, combining the reach and capabilities of the Internet with the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) to enable new communications capabilities. CC1 ENUM LLC members include AT&T, GoDaddy.com, MCI, SBC Laboratories, Sprint, and Verizon. -- ITU Approved List: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/index.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 dan at musicunbound.com Fri Dec 14 17:12:00 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:12:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...) In-Reply-To: <20071214085125.61E1D220285@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20071214085125.61E1D220285@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: At 9:51 AM +0100 12/14/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Dan Krimm wrote: > >> As a politico in the techie/politico conversation (thought not exactly a >> "diplomat" -- I'm of course an advocate), I must insist on realism when >> evaluating political dynamics. While I am optimistic that with sufficient >> attention we can push back effectively at "the wrong thing" it would be >> dangerous to think that "the right thing" will emerge of its own accord >> without the application of explicit political force (mostly by CS). We >> must keep our eyes on the prize, or else someone else will surely take it >> from us while we're not looking. > >Yes, indeed. > >And we must not overlook the reality that the "IP" lobby and other >industry lobbies that we're up against are very savvy with regard >to tactics like forum-shopping. > >I'm getting more and more convinced that in addition to pushing >back in whatever fora the industry lobby driven action moves to, we >need to work independently of all that on establishing a credible >genuinely democratic forum in the form of an international internet >users parliament, even if that will initially have no authority >besides the moral authority of making statements which are genuinely >democratically legitimized. The main problem with this idea is >funding. The main problem with *all* of CS is funding! :-) Dan PS -- Not only to be glib: Civil society deals with "collective interests" which are diffuse in terms of individual interests, while our opponents tend to be driven by very concentrated interests that apply to concentrated wealth. This is the central conundrum of money and power. Funding collective interests ultimately has to be addressed in a collective manner. One way is taxation by a government with some accountability to public interests. Another is the vast-membership donation model (ala Moveon.org). An additional component could be philanthropic angels like George Soros, but at the end of the day the angels do not have the resources to stand up to the narrow interests on their own, and the mix of philanthropists at any point in time in unreliable to sustain an ongoing political system. This is precisely why democracy is not a spectator sport, and why it requires constant participation and contribution of resources in order to succeed (and thus why it requires a solid middle class, in order to provide "disposable resources" to contribute to such participation). The past century of passive (broadcast) media has trained us in developed countries to be couch potatoes rather than citizens. (This is one reason why public participation is not habitual in politics, though among Netgen it seems to be growing somewhat, if still a bit fickle and "crisis-driven" like the hits/star market for popular music.) This is my hope: that interactive/participatory communications platforms will allow citizens with disposable income and leisure time to engage in democratic politics as a form of avocation (substituting in some respects for other forms of "entertainment" or "hobbies"). We have only taken baby steps in this direction so far, and cultural norms take time to evolve, especially when the middle class is under systematic political attack as it has been recently. Bottom line: Even with institutional funding for a "users parliament" there is a further resource issue regarding the participation of users themselves, which is prerequisite to the legitimacy of any such institution. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 14 17:27:36 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:27:36 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: (yehudakatz@mailinator.com) References: Message-ID: <20071214222736.84B92220285@quill.bollow.ch> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > 3. An ANNOUNCEMENT > RFP questions for clarification now due to ENUMLLC by January 15, 2008 > RFP Bidders Conference, Richardson, TX on January 23, 2008 > http://enumllc.com/ > - > So looking down road, You will have an ENUMber. It won't be a "Telephone > Number" or a "Web Address" but an ENUMber. And any personal-device Portable or > Stationary, Mobile or Base, will have YOUR ENUMber associated with it. > You’re Play-Station, your Cell Phone, your Desk Phone, your Car, your > Refrigerator, maybe even the family Dog will have your ENUMber address attached > to it. Your ENUMber will replace your email address. ALL your communications > can be connected through it. Doesn't this vision raise severe privacy concerns? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Dec 14 17:34:38 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:34:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...) In-Reply-To: References: <20071214085125.61E1D220285@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <07A2A318-E4BD-4CF5-A761-1FA971388622@psg.com> On 14 dec 2007, at 17.12, Dan Krimm wrote: > The main problem with *all* of CS is funding! > yes, but ... we do it out of love even without the funding. seriously, for many people CS activism is the second or even third job. so not to slight the importance of getting more funding (as important as any of the other issues) but it is not a cause of most activities, and i think the lack of funding, while making it harder, won't stop the most dedicated. 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 Dec 14 17:45:49 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:45:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the kind explanation, Yehudakatz, but still I am wondering how 700 mHZ thing is the "model to follow for the rest of the world" It might be, but may not be. And if that is SO important I would first ask our North American colleagues to react than the rest of the world. And I still see it is not quite related directly to the ICANN's scope for AtLarge at least in immediate sense. They/we also have local priorities. In other words, please do the home work first before trying to urge others. I am not saying it is not important at all, but I would like things to be sorted out in a clear and structured manner. Otherwise it is confusing and not productive - and (mis) shooting the friends rather than the enemy. AND, please make some more effort to write short sentence and paras for non-English speaking members. If it is more than 5 paras of details on this list, I usually am discouraged to read and respond. It will lead the discussion to only English speakers which, I understand, is not your intention, right? Thanks for your understanding izumi 2007/12/15, yehudakatz at mailinator.com : > Izumi, > Please allow me to put these together for you and others. > >From my perspective and looking down the road a-ways in > terms of technological evolution. > > The subject elements of this explanation are: > Nuestar, Enum, DNS (.US etc. ...), and Technology in regards to Personal > Devices > (PD: Cell Phones, PDAs, PSP, PVP, iPOD, Generic... anything identified > with an assigned names and number) > > In order for you to understand the relationship between DNS and ENUM, and the > consequential relationship of .US-Nuestar and ENUM-Nuestar as the Purveyor of > the ENUM DNS please read: > > 1. This is a simple explanation of the relationship in layman terms: > "The ENUM system effectively enables individuals, businesses and other > organizations to maximize the use of both the public Internet and the Public > Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) by associating telephone numbers with > Internet domain names. " > http://enumllc.com/aboutus.html > > 2. This explains and illustrates ENUMs Global deployment & expanse via ccTDL. > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/index.html > > 3. An ANNOUNCEMENT > RFP questions for clarification now due to ENUMLLC by January 15, 2008 > RFP Bidders Conference, Richardson, TX on January 23, 2008 > http://enumllc.com/ > - > So looking down road, You will have an ENUMber. It won't be a "Telephone > Number" or a "Web Address" but an ENUMber. And any personal-device Portable or > Stationary, Mobile or Base, will have YOUR ENUMber associated with it. > You're Play-Station, your Cell Phone, your Desk Phone, your Car, your > Refrigerator, maybe even the family Dog will have your ENUMber address attached > to it. Your ENUMber will replace your email address. ALL your communications > can be connected through it. > > Someday your ENUMber may look like this: > Tokyo: http://81.3.5555.1212.JP > New York: http://1.212.5555.1212.US > San Fran: http://1.415.555.1212.US > > >Similarly, bringing the 700 MHz US domestic issue into the debate > >was not helpful at all. It is not our (direct) business, sorry. > > I beg to differ, I see the US 700 MHz 'issue' as the model platform for the > Global > expansion of this technology. The 700 MHz (analog) spectrum allowed the US to > have a television in every Home, some even two. Eventually every Nation in the > World adopted Television as a technological medium. > > The New 700 MHz (digital) spectrum will allow the US to have not only > Television > but any number Personal Devices connect too today's technological medium, the > Internet. > > That 'medium' is an issue of "Assigned Names and Numbers" (icANN). > - > Now, if I'm out-here on the "Bottom" of the ALAC and not even close to the > inner-circle(s) of the Icann Committees, and I see something coming towards us, > > something the Quality-Circles didn't notice, something they didn't comprehend. > > Q. Am I to stifle myself and sit quite? > Q. Am I to bring it up through ranks of Icann-Q-Circles? > Q. Am I supposed to raise hell about it to get noticed? > Q. Am I to Jump Ship - Can't beat them, then join Them... > > You see … Nuestar is coming, and it's going to be a Behemoth. > Bret saw it, if you wanted to buy Xerox or Microsoft at their start, > Neustar was the Ship to set sail on. > > Yes the ALAC had plenty to explore on this issue, as Danny so rightfully > pointed out. > > But because the ALAC allowed this to side by with a rubber stamp, Now we don't > have a stake in it. Which means, that when we do have an issue at a later date, > it will be even harder to cover and make Stakeholder-Footing. > > This is very much a Big Issue to come, For the ALAC, For Icann, For the ITU. > Get on the Boat, or your going to miss 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Fri Dec 14 18:02:49 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (=?utf-8?B?SnVkaXRoIE9wcGVuaGVpbWVy?=) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:02:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: <20071214222736.84B92220285@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20071214222736.84B92220285@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <605262867-1197673183-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-259618039-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> I'm long overdue a look through the revised documents. As originally approved, U.S. ENUM was to be opt-in by telephone number subscribers. As things progressed there seemed to be a consensus that there was no consumer market for ENUM, so they decided to go with "infrastructure" ENUM or something to that effect, that would also compromise, I believe, opt-in. This is probably an over simplification and I'm not current on all the details. However, I've always believed there was cause for concern on a number of levels. That and $2 will get you on the bus. Judith Oppenheimer Disclaimer: I'm a founding member of U.S. ENUM Forum.. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:27:36 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > 3. An ANNOUNCEMENT > RFP questions for clarification now due to ENUMLLC by January 15, 2008 > RFP Bidders Conference, Richardson, TX on January 23, 2008 > http://enumllc.com/ > - > So looking down road, You will have an ENUMber. It won't be a "Telephone > Number" or a "Web Address" but an ENUMber. And any personal-device Portable or > Stationary, Mobile or Base, will have YOUR ENUMber associated with it. > You’re Play-Station, your Cell Phone, your Desk Phone, your Car, your > Refrigerator, maybe even the family Dog will have your ENUMber address attached > to it. Your ENUMber will replace your email address. ALL your communications > can be connected through it. Doesn't this vision raise severe privacy concerns? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.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 dan at musicunbound.com Fri Dec 14 18:41:26 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:41:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...) In-Reply-To: <07A2A318-E4BD-4CF5-A761-1FA971388622@psg.com> References: <20071214085125.61E1D220285@quill.bollow.ch> <07A2A318-E4BD-4CF5-A761-1FA971388622@psg.com> Message-ID: At 5:34 PM -0500 12/14/07, Avri Doria wrote: >On 14 dec 2007, at 17.12, Dan Krimm wrote: > >> The main problem with *all* of CS is funding! >> > >yes, but ... > >we do it out of love even without the funding. > >seriously, for many people CS activism is the second or even third job. > >so not to slight the importance of getting more funding (as important >as any of the other issues) but it is not a cause of most >activities, and i think the lack of funding, while making it harder, >won't stop the most dedicated. Yes, but... It's the subtle balances of who is available to participate that most often make a difference in political dynamics and results. You can easily stop some of "the most dedicated" by filling up their time with something else necessary to pay the bills and/or feed the family. The point is that "the most dedicated" are not enough to do the job, in the full political marketplace. We also need "the next most dedicated" and "the third most dedicated" et cetera to participate, to beef up the numbers against the numbers the opposition is putting up. Your vision seems to operationally define "dedication" tautologically as "whoever shows up" but this misses the role of not only *desire* but *resources* in governing who shows up, and unnecessarily demeans those who would give an arm and a leg to show up but haven't got spares to pay the piper. Defining "dedication" as being measured simply by who shows up completely misses large segments of the population that don't have the disposable resources to allow it. Funding is not the root cause of any activities, but it is an *enabler* of such activities, and lack of funding can suppress those activities in spite of great "causation" trying to move them forward in any individual instance. "Holier than thou" is not a productive way to evaluate CS participation, at the end of the day. It divides us (by creating a sort of elite hierarchy of class) rather than bringing us together in our common (classless) objectives. Political participation is not free (in the "unpaid" sense -- even if it is sometimes free in the "politically unfettered" sense). Individual transaction costs, learning curve investments (and other barriers to entry), and "opportunity costs" (potential gains given up in choosing a low-return activity over a different higher-return activity) are an important component of any economic analysis and must also be taken into account if we expect to make a rational analysis of collective political dynamics. In short, such costs become practical economic fetters in lieu of explicitly political fetters, and those fetters are no less effective than the political variety. This is at the root of the influence of money on politics. It's not just abject corruption of political accountability, but rather, basic access to the game in whatever form it is offered. Simply put, the game is not free. Treating it as if it were free just plays into the hands of those with the money to play consistently. 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 14 19:26:35 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:26:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071215002635.GC29231@hserus.net> Izumi AIZU [15/12/07 07:45 +0900]: >AND, please make some more effort to write short sentence and paras for >non-English speaking members. If it is more than 5 paras of details >on this list, I usually am discouraged to read and respond. It will lead >the discussion to only English speakers which, I understand, is not >your intention, right? Izumi san, I'm far more fluent in English (and can hardly read or speak what's supposed to be my mother tongue - Tamil - thanks to being brought up mostly outside my home state, one of the few places other than malaysia / singapore / sri lanka where they speak it). I still can't make too much sense of Yehuda Katz's email. Even after taking the time to read through it, it still doesnt make sense, somehow. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 14 20:17:37 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:17:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47632B31.6060205@cavebear.com> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > "The ENUM system effectively enables ... I take a rather different view of ENUM. I see it as a niche technology that will allow internet based devices to reach and be reached by what will be a decreasing number of devices that can only be natively addressed via telephone numeric looking addresses. Nearly everyone I know who uses VoIP and who is allowed to pick their own phone "number" picks something that looks a lot like an email address. For example, my SIP phone "number" contains not a single numeric digit. (And when you call it it rings on a phone at home, a phone at the office, and on my laptop - the call binds to the first one that is answered. No ENUM is involved.) Enum translates what looks like a phone number, for example 1 831 123-456 into a domain name (6.5.4.3.2.1.1.3.1.1.) and returns not an IPv4 or IPv6 address record but rather a pattern that has to be processed against the original phone number with the end result being a URI - which itself contains yet another domain name that has to be re-submitted into DNS for yet another round of resolution. (And let's not forget Christian Huitma's observation that a significant component of user perception of net responsivity is based on the cumulation of DNS lookup delays.) The idea with the expressions used in ENUM is that with the same "number" fax machines could reach fax machines, people could reach people, etc. Nice idea. But not a necessary idea: Why not cut through the noise and have your fax machine named "fax-machine.mydomain.mytld"? And your phone could be "yehudakatz at yourphonecompany.tld" And with lightweight directories - think things as simple as speed dial buttons - and more ubiquitous net connectivity - shorthand mechanisms will hide from the user even those URI or domain based full names. Personally I don't see much future in the national ENUM hierarchies - except as a recourse of last resort when a calling device searches for a target device. Rather, I see ENUM having more viability institutional settings where there is a desire to optimize outgoing call routing. The main gravity that holds ENUM in place is the 12 key keypad - it's a nice convenient keypad that fits nicely on handheld devices. But even on such devices, how many people do you know who, when given the option, choose purely numeric text messaging names? So, all in all, I perceive ENUM a lot like a catalog for parts for air cooled Volkswagen motors - there is a large legacy base, but eventually it will shrink. I also have another concern about ENUM - regular expressions. Regular expressions are amazingly tricky things. I really doubt that many users of ENUM are really going to have a mastery of regular expressions. And errors in those expressions are going to be rather difficult to diagnose. I'm in the business of testing network protocols. It is amazing how people get even simple protocols wrong (For example you can count on the fingers of one hand, with fingers to spare, how many IP stacks do a perfect job of IPv4 packet reassembly. And the domain name "maps-to-nonascii.cavebear.com" causes most gethostbyname() implementations to fail.) Regular expression processing code is not trivial - and how well will someone's Brand-X implementation work in an world where the character "*" is common and where IDN's are increasing prevalent? As they say in Minnesota - it will be "different" - which is a euphemism for "it may prove be prone to failures when run outside of its normal environment". --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 Fri Dec 14 21:51:54 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:51:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...) In-Reply-To: References: <20071214085125.61E1D220285@quill.bollow.ch> <07A2A318-E4BD-4CF5-A761-1FA971388622@psg.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050712141851red931fdm7c83498f4f6e8967@mail.gmail.com> Resonatings.... emboldened for visibility reasons - A terrific discussion is being rolled out which among other virtues is exposing the desirable partnership of *meanings and means.* In periods of great innovations, one can see systems of *patronage* in the best senses, where those with means who have appreciation for meanings others express well support those meanings with the means to accomplish them - As with pairings of facilitating- providers and great painters, philosophers, poets, thinkers, and of course yes Civil Society Advocates and Movers. Thoughts from here are that our closest political or social neighbors who can provide means to move out meanings are those in the Private Sector. Business. The Professions.* Those with means whose end-goals may merge with CS. Those who might see the lights of funding patronage roles to provide for CS participation shine over horizons of mutual benefit. (... Marginalia, one cannot resist inscribing the in annals of this mighty developing dialogue). *Which is not to say governments should bow out of support roles. Representative, as they are usually meant to be. With seasonal greetings, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. MisekFalkoff. *Respectful Interfaces* For I.D.: A programme of The Comunications coordination Committee For the U.N. [NGO] On 12/14/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > > At 5:34 PM -0500 12/14/07, Avri Doria wrote: > >On 14 dec 2007, at 17.12, Dan Krimm wrote: > > > >> The main problem with *all* of CS is funding! > >> > > > >yes, but ... > > > >we do it out of love even without the funding. > > > >seriously, for many people CS activism is the second or even third job. > > > >so not to slight the importance of getting more funding (as important > >as any of the other issues) but it is not a cause of most > >activities, and i think the lack of funding, while making it harder, > >won't stop the most dedicated. > > > Yes, but... > > It's the subtle balances of who is available to participate that most > often > make a difference in political dynamics and results. > > You can easily stop some of "the most dedicated" by filling up their time > with something else necessary to pay the bills and/or feed the > family. The > point is that "the most dedicated" are not enough to do the job, in the > full political marketplace. We also need "the next most dedicated" and > "the third most dedicated" et cetera to participate, to beef up the > numbers > against the numbers the opposition is putting up. > > Your vision seems to operationally define "dedication" tautologically as > "whoever shows up" but this misses the role of not only *desire* but > *resources* in governing who shows up, and unnecessarily demeans those who > would give an arm and a leg to show up but haven't got spares to pay the > piper. Defining "dedication" as being measured simply by who shows up > completely misses large segments of the population that don't have the > disposable resources to allow it. > > Funding is not the root cause of any activities, but it is an *enabler* of > such activities, and lack of funding can suppress those activities in > spite > of great "causation" trying to move them forward in any individual > instance. > > "Holier than thou" is not a productive way to evaluate CS participation, > at > the end of the day. It divides us (by creating a sort of elite hierarchy > of class) rather than bringing us together in our common (classless) > objectives. > > Political participation is not free (in the "unpaid" sense -- even if it > is > sometimes free in the "politically unfettered" sense). Individual > transaction costs, learning curve investments (and other barriers to > entry), and "opportunity costs" (potential gains given up in choosing a > low-return activity over a different higher-return activity) are an > important component of any economic analysis and must also be taken into > account if we expect to make a rational analysis of collective political > dynamics. In short, such costs become practical economic fetters in lieu > of explicitly political fetters, and those fetters are no less effective > than the political variety. > > This is at the root of the influence of money on politics. It's not just > abject corruption of political accountability, but rather, basic access to > the game in whatever form it is offered. Simply put, the game is not > free. > Treating it as if it were free just plays into the hands of those with the > money to play consistently. > > 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 > -------------- 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 Dec 14 23:30:23 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:30:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: a5509d940712141445p3cf2eb69wbcd1d97efeb7489f@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: >Thanks for the kind explanation, Yehuda, but still I am wondering >how 700 MHz thing is the "model to follow for the rest of the world" >It might be, but may not be. (Izumi, Suresh, this may only make sense to the American market) Well � I think it will follow the path of Television, if not only for the ancestral connection of Television to the 700-MHz spectrum. The ability of broadcasting (Push) digital content over the 700-MHz spectrum will enable connectivity to Internet, even if only in transmission mode. Think of it as Land-based digital radio/television, but you can select a wide variety of channels and interact (respond). Transceiver mode may be difficult outside certain zones, where a device signal cannot be picked locally and sent back (respond), so it maybe that places way out in the field it is possible to receive digital signal, but not to send. A 700 MHz Hot Spot (or National spectrum equivalent) in places like Townships and Urban Slum area, will be a great way to connect Pople Here�s an example of a problem area: http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue2/0206p32.htm Take a look at the photo, These Slums and Villages can only be reached economically with a system like 700-MHz system, basically a Wireless distribution. I bet you if there is electricity and a signal, someone has a TV there. (look for the Antennas) And if someone has a TV there, then with a X00-MHz digital distribution system the Internet can reach Someone with a Hand-held-device, or a Solar-charged-Device. So I see it as a "model to follow for the rest of the world". Yes I do. >And if that is SO important I would first ask our North American colleagues >to react than the rest of the world. And I still see it is not quite related >directly to the ICANN's scope for AtLarge at least in immediate sense. It is not I suppose � but trends start here(In the West/US) and eventually catch on Globally. It is the coming reality here in the US, so I think it does apply to �local priorities� of the NARALO. The rest of the RALO's would be wise to take a heads up approch, and be a-tune with the emerging technology. > I am not saying it is not important at all, but I would like things to be sorted out in a clear and structured manner. Otherwise it is confusing and not productive - and (mis) shooting the friends rather than the enemy. I�m not saying that Nuestar or the 700 MHz technology associated with connecting the Internet is a*bad thing*. Rather I�m being precautious, because what ever the future holds, I�d like to see the People in charge. That means to me having the RALOs prepared with an understanding of what the potential of this and future technology can do. So if need be we stand a fighting chance to make reasonable argument. Now�s the time to take a foot-hold. Karl, >Regular expressions are amazingly tricky things. I really doubt that many users >of ENUM are really going to have a mastery of regular expressions. And errors in >those expressions are going to be rather difficult to diagnose. I see it: As Manufactures produce devices, they assign the devices a unique ENUM, the moment you purchase/register that Device the unit is associated to you and your home-enum-address (your account number), So when you switch the unit on anywhere in the �700MHz hot-spot� or land-link, you linkup and access the service the Device is recognized and a service-charge is then sent back to your home-enum address. (Billed to your Primary-Carrier: AT&T, NTT, SBC, Telco) It (the enum) will be invisible to the User, except for when they get the ENUM-Bill. When we get to the future, I wont �call you�, � I�ll �Num ya�. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 15 03:09:21 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:09:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47638BB1.1040400@cavebear.com> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: >> Regular expressions are amazingly tricky things. I really doubt that many > users >of ENUM are really going to have a mastery of regular expressions. And > errors in >those expressions are going to be rather difficult to diagnose. > > I see it: > As Manufactures produce devices, they assign the devices a unique ENUM, That's not the way ENUM works. One can not assign "a unique ENUM" any more than one can build a home firewall/router and assign it a unique IP address or build a mobile phone and at the factory assign it a unique telephone number. ENUM is a mapping system, it translates from one naming space to another. It takes active administration to set up those mappings. For simple voice-to-voice mapping that administrative task can perhaps be assisted with automated tools, but for mappings in which the same target "number" is mapped to different real targets based on the requirements of the initiating device, that gets into a land where "plug and play" is going to be foreign concept. Internet governance requires a firm and clear comprehension of the technology that it is attempting to govern. Absent deep understanding of the technology there is a serious risk in internet governance that we will end up with the internet equivalent of legislation that requires that the value of pi be be 3.0. --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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Dec 15 13:10:03 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:10:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: 47638BB1.1040400@cavebear.com Message-ID: Ok, I understood your point. >One can not assign "a unique ENUM" any more than one can build a home >firewall/router and assign it unique IP address or build a mobile phone and >at the factory assign it a unique telephone number. My view is that Manufactures will purchase �blocks of addresses� from Nuestar, then as Deveices are produced, each one is assigned/registered an address. >but for mappings in which the same target "number" is mapped to different real >targets based on the requirements of the initiating device, that gets into a land >where "plug and play" is going to be foreign concept. Essentially the EMUN replaces the Serial Number of the Device. The Device has its own �emmbeded signature� which is used for cross verification, along with the Factory installed EMUN. This makes it easier to "plug and play" in the Market. Life-in-the-Future Example: Google makes the gPhone, it is manufactured with a �embedded signature � ID�, and near the end of the production-line the ENUM is installed from a list of pre-purchased addresses from Nuestar. It�s packaged and sent off, it eventually ends up in a vending machine at San Francisco International Airport. Soon after a Person see�s it and purchases it. They stick their Credit/Debit card into the Machine and out comes the gPhone. Ok so-far, so-good. Now, at the time of purchase, either the Buyers �registration Information� is taken from their Credit Card or they �register� the device later. The registration requires the Persons�: Home Phone Number (PSTN-Carrier Info), Billing Address, Account#, ... what ever the Purchaser wants to associate that Device with (Business or Home) and get their Bill. The embedded signature ID and factory installed enum are used to verify and authenticate the device with the User. Now we have a Device in the hands of the User, that has its own enum, it is associated to the User�s base information. (Maybe by then your �Phone-Bill� will be consolidated: Home Phone, Business Phone, Cell Phones, ENUM-devices ). And , your Home Phone number will still be: 1.415 555.1212 , along with your .US web enumber: http://1.415 555.1212.US (this is the Alpha Numeric expression, the Domain associated with your EMUN) Your actual Home eNUM may look like this: 6.5.4.3.2.1.1.3.1.1 . So the normal Router assignments (addressing, firewall etc.) can be handled with this. And the User's Enum-Enabled-Devices (i.e.: gPhone etc.) are all associated. In summary: One's PSTN Phone Number & ENUM become the base-referance, to which assignemnts are made. But of course this is handled by Nuestar�s UltraDNS Corporation, that will host, operate and manage the DNS zone server system for all this. All Connected, That's my Nuestar-Enum veiw of the future. __ Nuestar: http://www.circleid.com/members/1582/posts -- P.S.: Judith >Sent via *BlackBerry* by AT&T How is the Billing done at AT&T, is it consolidated (Home Phone, Cell Phones, BlackBerry � Packaged) I wonder how this backend is handled. It's probably something similar to my explanation, only based upon associations with One�s Public Switched Telephone Network Number (PSTN - Phone Number). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Sat Dec 15 15:26:52 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (=?utf-8?B?SnVkaXRoIE9wcGVuaGVpbWVy?=) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:26:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: <47638BB1.1040400@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <606308782-1197750224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-337770499-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> You asked about ATT billing, in our case it is separate; our home phone is part of a cable package with time warner via roadrunner, I think, for phone/broadband/cable. We purchase cell service separately. Neustar is a whole different ball of wax. I do have on ICBtollfree.com an article quoting Neustar, I believe, from a few years back, that pretty much describes what you're talking about below, more or less. I have a lot of articles on ENUM. Judith Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:10:03 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: Re: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] Ok, I understood your point. >One can not assign "a unique ENUM" any more than one can build a home >firewall/router and assign it unique IP address or build a mobile phone and >at the factory assign it a unique telephone number. My view is that Manufactures will purchase “blocks of addresses” from Nuestar, then as Deveices are produced, each one is assigned/registered an address. >but for mappings in which the same target "number" is mapped to different real >targets based on the requirements of the initiating device, that gets into a land >where "plug and play" is going to be foreign concept. Essentially the EMUN replaces the Serial Number of the Device. The Device has its own ‘emmbeded signature’ which is used for cross verification, along with the Factory installed EMUN. This makes it easier to "plug and play" in the Market. Life-in-the-Future Example: Google makes the gPhone, it is manufactured with a ‘embedded signature – ID’, and near the end of the production-line the ENUM is installed from a list of pre-purchased addresses from Nuestar. It’s packaged and sent off, it eventually ends up in a vending machine at San Francisco International Airport. Soon after a Person see’s it and purchases it. They stick their Credit/Debit card into the Machine and out comes the gPhone. Ok so-far, so-good. Now, at the time of purchase, either the Buyers ‘registration Information’ is taken from their Credit Card or they ‘register’ the device later. The registration requires the Persons’: Home Phone Number (PSTN-Carrier Info), Billing Address, Account#, ... what ever the Purchaser wants to associate that Device with (Business or Home) and get their Bill. The embedded signature ID and factory installed enum are used to verify and authenticate the device with the User. Now we have a Device in the hands of the User, that has its own enum, it is associated to the User’s base information. (Maybe by then your ‘Phone-Bill’ will be consolidated: Home Phone, Business Phone, Cell Phones, ENUM-devices ). And , your Home Phone number will still be: 1.415 555.1212 , along with your .US web enumber: http://1.415 555.1212.US (this is the Alpha Numeric expression, the Domain associated with your EMUN) Your actual Home eNUM may look like this: 6.5.4.3.2.1.1.3.1.1 . So the normal Router assignments (addressing, firewall etc.) can be handled with this. And the User's Enum-Enabled-Devices (i.e.: gPhone etc.) are all associated. In summary: One's PSTN Phone Number & ENUM become the base-referance, to which assignemnts are made. But of course this is handled by Nuestar’s UltraDNS Corporation, that will host, operate and manage the DNS zone server system for all this. All Connected, That's my Nuestar-Enum veiw of the future. __ Nuestar: http://www.circleid.com/members/1582/posts -- P.S.: Judith >Sent via *BlackBerry* by AT&T How is the Billing done at AT&T, is it consolidated (Home Phone, Cell Phones, BlackBerry … Packaged) I wonder how this backend is handled. It's probably something similar to my explanation, only based upon associations with One’s Public Switched Telephone Network Number (PSTN - Phone Number). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 15 18:38:59 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:38:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: yehudadewd, Did you not read my previous mail on this? You are conflating ENUM with a ccTLD. They are in different parts of the tree. -- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Dec 15 20:44:05 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:44:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: f65fb55e0712151538n768d711fx190dd62716cd88cb@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: You think so, ITU E.164 Codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_calling_codes NANPA (North American Numbering Plan Area) Support and Transparent Process for ENUM Designated Zone implementations for the USA http://www.enum.org/information/files/enum_verisign_01.pdf - Maybe I should illustrate the alpha numeric expressions this way: http://(ITU-e164 code here).areacode.555.1212.(your telco) As Karl pointed out the 'alpha numeric expressions' only matter to the User in a little anyway. Besides McTim, instead of looking you up in the Phone Book, I'll look you up in the Face Book, and Num ya. -- ITU E.164 Ref.: http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com2/circ/01-04/105.html 3.1 Formal Validity of CC When the TSB receives a request from RIPE NCC, it will first verify that the country code (CC) mentioned in the request meets the formal conditions for delegation for ENUM, namely: 1. That the code is a currently-assigned country code, and 2. For country codes within an integrated numbering plan, the request corresponds to that portion of the code for which the requesting Member State has administrative responsibilities. When a request representing the entire integrated country code area is received, all Member States within the integrated numbering plan must endorse the request. If these conditions are not met, the TSB will notify RIPE NCC that it objects to the delegation. As a consequence, the delegation will not take place. 3.2 National Position Known If the conditions of 3.1 are met, and if the concerned Member State has notified the TSB of its position regarding delegation for ENUM of its CC, then the TSB will immediately make that position known to RIPE NCC. That is, TSB will inform RIPE NCC that the concerned Member State either approves or objects to the delegation. If the Administration objects, the delegation will not take place. Since the request from RIPE NCC will designate a specific ENUM Tier 1 Registry, the TSB will only be able to approve the request if the Member State has notified the TSB that it approves that particular Tier 1 entity. 3.3 National Position Not Known If the conditions of 3.1 are met, but the concerned Member State has not previously notified the TSB of its position regarding delegation for ENUM of its CC, then the TSB will proceed as follows: 1. Within 60 days, notify RIPE NCC that it objects to the delegation, because it has not received approval from the concerned Member State. 2. Within 60 days, notify the concerned Member State of the request and of the TSB objection sent to RIPE NCC, and request the Member State to advise the TSB if the objection should be rescinded and an approval sent to RIPE NCC. 3. If an approval is received from the Member State, notify RIPE NCC of that approval. That is, the delegation will not take place until the concerned Member State has notified the TSB that it approves the delegation. 3.4 Change in National Position If a Member State notifies the TSB of a change in its position, the TSB will communicate that change to RIPE NCC, who will implement the change. The changes can be: 1. A previously granted approval becomes an objection. In this case, the delegation will be removed and ENUM will no longer be available for the concerned CC. 2. A previously stated opposition, or lack of approval, becomes an approval. In this case, the delegation will be granted and ENUM will be available for the concerned CC. 3. There is a change in the party to which the CC is delegated, that is, a change in the ENUM Tier 1 Registry. In this case, the TSB will notify RIPE NCC of that change and the change will be implemented. That is, a Member State may at any time stop, enable, or change ENUM delegations. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 15 20:46:26 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:46:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47648372.9060905@cavebear.com> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > Ok, I understood your point. > >> One can not assign "a unique ENUM" any more than one can build a home >> firewall/router and assign it unique IP address or build a mobile phone and >> at the factory assign it a unique telephone number. > > My view is that Manufactures will purchase “blocks of addresses” from Nuestar, > then as Deveices are produced, each one is assigned/registered an address. Again, that is not the way ENUM works. (I heard a similar claim once in which it was said that one very large printer manufacturer was planning on building-in a unique IPv4 address for every printer it built.) ENUM maps domain names to URI's. Perhaps some companies and companies want to get into the business of providing such mappings. But they certainly won't be selling "blocks" - they will, instead be selling the service of maintaining that mapping. And perhaps some telco's will want to do VoIP to PSTN/Mobile mappings. But they have the resources to do it themselves and hardly need to purchase a block of anything from anybody to do so, nor even to use ENUM to do it. Many, perhaps most VoIP providers today do connection to the PSTN without ENUM at all. Instead they provide a SIP proxy to which the VoIP phone connects and then either do a local mapping of the target SIP URI into a PSTN number or they pick up the called digits from the SIP+RTP/RTCP signalling stream. Then they feed that called PSTN number into their PSTN hookup and voila. On inbound from the PSTN they usually do a 1:1 mapping of called number to SIP URI. ENUM was an idea that was marginally interesting in 2001. And it is still useful as a one tool in a toolkit of call routing and mapping mechanisms. But the idea that there will be national ENUM hierarchies that form critical infrastructure cores is quite obsolete. There is, I suspect, interest in national ENUM mechanisms from some of the agencies that, here in the US, we refer to as "spook agencies" - the folks who are fond of central points of traffic flow so that they can more easily intercept or monitor the calls. ENUM makes a rather nice central place to know who is calling whom and, in addition, coerce calls to flow through recording machines. The world is moving towards "phone names" rather than "phone numbers". VoIP phones natively reach one another using URI's (with embedded domain names) - VoIP phones don't need ENUM. A while back I did a query of folks using Asterisk (a very popular open source phone exchange package) and I couldn't find more than a handful who had even bothered to activate the ENUM mechanisms much less use them on any sort of production basis. Legacy POTS and most existing mobile phones don't know a URI from a chocolate cake. As I mentioned before, there is going to be a great business in mapping between VoIP to POTs and mobile phones. But as I mentioned, ENUM is but one trick in a large bag of tricks that can be used to do that mapping. And it is a business that, like my analogy to motor parts for air cooled VW motors, is today large, but it will diminish with the passage of time. The larger, and far more important issue here, is how do we make the internet as reliable for lifeline grade services as the PSTN? Step #1, it would seem, would be to oversee that the root and TLD layer of DNS servers are operated to very high standards and that there are well conceived and well tested failure recovery plans and resources. Unfortunately that was a job that ICANN was supposed to do but that it has not - leaving the net vulnerable to the whims of those who operate root and TLD services. --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 Dec 15 23:25:05 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:25:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2007 4:44 AM, wrote: > You think so, I know so. A Country Code for dialing is not the same as a ccTLD. The links below say nowt about them being the same (altho the 2001 doc, which is outdated, mentions e164.foo*, and says "* "foo" to be replaced with the designated ENUM Top Level Domain denominated by the USGOV, if any"). > > ITU E.164 Codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_calling_codes > NANPA (North American Numbering Plan Area) > > Support and Transparent Process for ENUM Designated Zone implementations for > the USA > > http://www.enum.org/information/files/enum_verisign_01.pdf > > - > > Maybe I should illustrate the alpha numeric expressions this way: > http://(ITU-e164 code here).areacode.555.1212.(your telco) > Please. Don't. > As Karl pointed out the 'alpha numeric expressions' only matter to the User in > a little anyway. > > Besides McTim, instead of looking you up in the Phone Book, > I'll look you up in the Face Book, and Num ya. > > -- > ITU E.164 Ref.: http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com2/circ/01-04/105.html I am well aware of this procedure, as it is one I had to follow while working at the RIPE NCC. -- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Dec 16 14:50:19 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:50:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: sympa.1197821881.53036.913@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Found an older article that explains Nuestar's stratgies: http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/41063/neustar-ceo-touts-dns-voip-plans.html NeuStar CEO touts DNS, VOIP plans by Carolyn Duffy Marsan Dinsdag 9 mei 2006, 10:33 - NeuStar, the provider of telephone and Internet directory services to the telecom industry, is on a roll. In February, the Sterling, Va., company reported eye-popping financials for 2005, with revenue up 47 percent and net income up 22 percent. In April, NeuStar purchased UltraDNS, which offers managed DNS services to leading Web sites such as Amazon.com and Match.com. Meanwhile, NeuStar is developing a service designed to ease VOIP integration issues for carriers. Network World Senior Editor Carolyn Duffy Marsan recently interviewed Jeff Ganek, chairman and CEO of NeuStar, about these developments. Here are excerpts from their conversation. How does UltraDNS fit in NeuStar's strategy? It turns out that our products are very similar. All networks in North America depend on NeuStar for routing voice calls. Internet and IP networks depend on UltraDNS for routing DNS messages. We do the same things: We are both trusted clearinghouses of directory services for all networks. What are your plans for UltraDNS' technology and staff? All of the senior management are staying. NeuStar's reason for buying UltraDNS is that it is a very strong organization. They have great technology and operations. They run their systems in a highly reliable fashion 24-by-7, and they have a sales organization that's producing great growth. We fully intend to keep all the employees. And we expect to expand the operation. We think they can exceed beyond what they are already achieving. What plans do you have for new services from UltraDNS? UltraDNS expands NeuStar's capabilities in DNS and IP. Together, NeuStar and UltraDNS are the routing directories for more than 25 top-level domains, including .org, .biz,, .us and .mobi. Together, I expect we will be as essential to IP traffic as NeuStar is to all-voice traffic in North America. We already have products that NeuStar has announced that are complemented by UltraDNS offerings. One great example is SIP-IX. NeuStar announced SIP-IX in the fourth quarter of last year. SIP-IX is a standard that has been accepted by all the players in the industry as essentially the signaling and administrative function for VOIP, and we think it is a groundbreaking offering. The existing UltraDNS infrastructure -- their global DNS network -- is a strong platform for the distribution and accessibility of SIP services. What is the status of SIP-IX here in the United States? SIP is going to be to the Internet what Signaling System 7 [SS7] has been to the voice world. We've been the lead proponent of SIP-IX, and we've been participating at the IETF in its definition. We've created a platform that provides a broad range of SIP functions, and we signed exclusive agreements with Internet exchange points around the globe to exclusively put NeuStar's SIP-IX platform in their data centers to make SIP functionality available by the transaction to any and all networks that converge at those network exchange points. Internet exchange points that handle more than 70 percent of the world's Internet traffic have signed on to NeuStar's SIP-IX platform. What will SIP-IX mean to enterprises? Large enterprises have very complex IP links all around the world provided by different ISPs. The SIP-IX platform, because it is positioned in the Internet exchange points, is accessible to all the ISPs. So every enterprise, whether they own their own transport facilities and connect directly to the ISP or whether they use a network provider, can get compatible, worldwide end-to-end SIP functionality across their own transport facilities and across those of all the ISPs within their corporate enterprise networks. When will SIP-IX be commercially available in the United States? It's on a trial basis. It'll be operational before the end of June. What is the status of NeuStar's work in Enum (an emerging standard that translates telephone numbers into corresponding Internet addresses)? NeuStar has an Enum capability up and operating today. It's going to be a feature on the SIP-IX platform, so it's easily accessible to all enterprises, all carriers and all ISPs. Frankly, we're just waiting for the market to catch up with the technology and the product that's available today. How does the UltraDNS acquisition position NeuStar against VeriSign? We rarely compete against VeriSign. VeriSign is a large customer of ours. They bought Illuminet, a large SS7 provider, and NeuStar's local number portability is the killer application of the SS7 network. VeriSign doesn't do any of the telephone number directory work that we do. In the DNS space, they do .com and .net. We do different domains, but we don't compete with each other. We have similar operations, but our DNS directory is four or five times larger than VeriSign's. Does NeuStar have any other acquisitions planned? The market's need for directory services is growing very quickly, and to the extent that market needs require it we intend to expand the clearinghouse services that we provide. Mergers and acquisitions are a great way to do that. NeuStar acquired Foretec in December and took over the secretariat function for the IETF. How is that going? We think it is going very, very well. That's the feedback we get from the IETF. NeuStar is all about open standards. We are all about the work that happens at the IETF to establish the technical foundation that allows for interoperability. The IETF needed help in doing the secretariat work -- the administrative work of the regular IETF meetings and the background paperwork -- and NeuStar is happy to step up and do that, because it's another dimension of how we are dedicated to operating as a neutral third party between rivalrous network providers. Foretec is a small business. It's not an entity that is going to provide material growth or profits. But it is a critical function that the industry needs, and NeuStar is doing it in that light. How do you explain NeuStar's financial success given the overall weakness in the U.S. telecom industry? It turns out that networks are using [our product] for more purposes than any of them had anticipated. Despite the fact that we have lowered our prices several times, volumes of their usage have continued to exceed NeuStar's projections. What was originally a local number portability directory put in place so end users could keep their telephone numbers when they moved is now a dynamic call routing system that network operators use to manage the architectures of their networks. So every time there is a change in the technology of the network -- such as going from the old voice to the new IP technology -- every time there's a larger merger and acquisition among the telcos, every time there's a change in the architecture of the menu of end user services that the carriers are offering, the carriers rely on NeuStar to reconfigure their networks. All of that drives very high volumes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 16 13:52:29 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:52:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: f65fb55e0712152025o6782283dj7d06c4352f4a8e4f@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: McTim > says "* "foo" to be >replaced with the designated ENUM Top Level Domain >denominated by the USGOV, if any. I see the difference: Your talking 'Public User ENUM' (e.g.: public domain: e164.arpa ) and I'm talking 'Private Infrastructure ENUM' So, Nuestar is providing a 'Private Infrastructure ENUM' gateway-services by providing the 'mapping' as Karl put it, between a User's domain name and ENUM Addresses. - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 16 11:21:55 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:21:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: 47648372.9060905@cavebear.com Message-ID: Karl, >Perhaps some companies and companies want to get into the business of >providing such mappings. But they certainly won't be selling "blocks" > - they will, instead be selling the service of maintaining that mapping My error. they are selling 'Mapping Services', not static addresses (blocks of addresses) OK isn't this what 'Nuestar's Managed UltraDNS Service' is? (a mapping service) Overview: http://www.neustarultraservices.biz/solutions/overview.html External mapping Service: http://www.neustarultraservices.biz/solutions/externaldns.html Internal mapping Services: http://www.neustarultraservices.biz/solutions/internaldns.html -- So is it conceivable that Manufactures would contract the 'Mapping Service Provider' to maintain Device connectivity with Primary Carriers (User/Customers)? Is it necessary to use the Middleman? Why wouldn�t the Carriers provide these mapping service? -- >ENUM is but one trick in a large bag of tricks What other commercial alternatives are available to day? -- Thnx 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 ca at rits.org.br Sun Dec 16 09:07:38 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:07:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: <606308782-1197750224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-337770499-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <47638BB1.1040400@cavebear.com> <606308782-1197750224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-337770499-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4765312A.4030907@rits.org.br> Hi Judith, how can we get the articles you mention? fraternal regards --c.a. Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > You asked about ATT billing, in our case it is separate; our home phone is part of a cable package with time warner via roadrunner, I think, for phone/broadband/cable. We purchase cell service separately. > > Neustar is a whole different ball of wax. I do have on ICBtollfree.com an article quoting Neustar, I believe, from a few years back, that pretty much describes what you're talking about below, more or less. > > I have a lot of articles on ENUM. > > Judith > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:10:03 > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] > > > Ok, I understood your point. > >> One can not assign "a unique ENUM" any more than one can build a home >> firewall/router and assign it unique IP address or build a mobile phone and >> at the factory assign it a unique telephone number. > > My view is that Manufactures will purchase “blocks of addresses” from Nuestar, > then as Deveices are produced, each one is assigned/registered an address. > >> but for mappings in which the same target "number" is mapped to different real >> targets based on the requirements of the initiating device, that gets into a > land >where "plug and play" is going to be foreign concept. > > Essentially the EMUN replaces the Serial Number of the Device. > The Device has its own ‘emmbeded signature’ which is used for cross > verification, > along with the Factory installed EMUN. This makes it easier to "plug and play" > in the Market. > > Life-in-the-Future Example: > Google makes the gPhone, it is manufactured with a ‘embedded signature – ID’, > and near the end of the production-line the ENUM is installed from a list of > pre-purchased addresses from Nuestar. > > It’s packaged and sent off, it eventually ends up in a vending machine at San > Francisco International Airport. Soon after a Person see’s it and purchases it. > > They stick their Credit/Debit card into the Machine and out comes the gPhone. > > Ok so-far, so-good. > > Now, at the time of purchase, either the Buyers ‘registration Information’ is > taken from their Credit Card or they ‘register’ the device later. The > registration requires the Persons’: Home Phone Number (PSTN-Carrier Info), > Billing Address, Account#, ... what ever the Purchaser wants to associate that > Device with (Business or Home) and get their Bill. The embedded signature ID > and factory installed enum are used to verify and authenticate the device with > the User. > > Now we have a Device in the hands of the User, that has its own enum, it is > associated to the User’s base information. > (Maybe by then your ‘Phone-Bill’ will be consolidated: Home Phone, Business > Phone, Cell Phones, ENUM-devices ). > > And , your Home Phone number will still be: 1.415 555.1212 , > along with your .US web enumber: http://1.415 555.1212.US > (this is the Alpha Numeric expression, the Domain associated with your EMUN) > Your actual Home eNUM may look like this: 6.5.4.3.2.1.1.3.1.1 . base> > So the normal Router assignments (addressing, firewall etc.) can be handled > with this. > And the User's Enum-Enabled-Devices (i.e.: gPhone etc.) are all associated. > In summary: One's PSTN Phone Number & ENUM become the base-referance, > to which assignemnts are made. > > But of course this is handled by Nuestar’s UltraDNS Corporation, that will > host, operate and manage the DNS zone server system for all this. > > All Connected, That's my Nuestar-Enum veiw of the future. > __ > > Nuestar: http://www.circleid.com/members/1582/posts > > -- > P.S.: Judith >> Sent via *BlackBerry* by AT&T > > How is the Billing done at AT&T, is it consolidated > (Home Phone, Cell Phones, BlackBerry … Packaged) > > I wonder how this backend is handled. It's probably something similar to my > explanation, only based upon associations with One’s Public Switched Telephone > Network Number (PSTN - Phone Number). > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Sun Dec 16 17:03:29 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (=?utf-8?B?SnVkaXRoIE9wcGVuaGVpbWVy?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:03:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: <4765312A.4030907@rits.org.br> References: <47638BB1.1040400@cavebear.com><606308782-1197750224-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-337770499-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry><4765312A.4030907@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <487607797-1197842419-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-464569225-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Here's one of them: ENUM - It's All in the Consent. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:07:38 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org, Judith Oppenheimer Cc:yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: Re: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] Hi Judith, how can we get the articles you mention? fraternal regards --c.a. Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > You asked about ATT billing, in our case it is separate; our home phone is part of a cable package with time warner via roadrunner, I think, for phone/broadband/cable. We purchase cell service separately. > > Neustar is a whole different ball of wax. I do have on ICBtollfree.com an article quoting Neustar, I believe, from a few years back, that pretty much describes what you're talking about below, more or less. > > I have a lot of articles on ENUM. > > Judith > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:10:03 > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] > > > Ok, I understood your point. > >> One can not assign "a unique ENUM" any more than one can build a home >> firewall/router and assign it unique IP address or build a mobile phone and >> at the factory assign it a unique telephone number. > > My view is that Manufactures will purchase “blocks of addresses” from Nuestar, > then as Deveices are produced, each one is assigned/registered an address. > >> but for mappings in which the same target "number" is mapped to different real >> targets based on the requirements of the initiating device, that gets into a > land >where "plug and play" is going to be foreign concept. > > Essentially the EMUN replaces the Serial Number of the Device. > The Device has its own ‘emmbeded signature’ which is used for cross > verification, > along with the Factory installed EMUN. This makes it easier to "plug and play" > in the Market. > > Life-in-the-Future Example: > Google makes the gPhone, it is manufactured with a ‘embedded signature – ID’, > and near the end of the production-line the ENUM is installed from a list of > pre-purchased addresses from Nuestar. > > It’s packaged and sent off, it eventually ends up in a vending machine at San > Francisco International Airport. Soon after a Person see’s it and purchases it. > > They stick their Credit/Debit card into the Machine and out comes the gPhone. > > Ok so-far, so-good. > > Now, at the time of purchase, either the Buyers ‘registration Information’ is > taken from their Credit Card or they ‘register’ the device later. The > registration requires the Persons’: Home Phone Number (PSTN-Carrier Info), > Billing Address, Account#, ... what ever the Purchaser wants to associate that > Device with (Business or Home) and get their Bill. The embedded signature ID > and factory installed enum are used to verify and authenticate the device with > the User. > > Now we have a Device in the hands of the User, that has its own enum, it is > associated to the User’s base information. > (Maybe by then your ‘Phone-Bill’ will be consolidated: Home Phone, Business > Phone, Cell Phones, ENUM-devices ). > > And , your Home Phone number will still be: 1.415 555.1212 , > along with your .US web enumber: http://1.415 555.1212.US > (this is the Alpha Numeric expression, the Domain associated with your EMUN) > Your actual Home eNUM may look like this: 6.5.4.3.2.1.1.3.1.1 . base> > So the normal Router assignments (addressing, firewall etc.) can be handled > with this. > And the User's Enum-Enabled-Devices (i.e.: gPhone etc.) are all associated. > In summary: One's PSTN Phone Number & ENUM become the base-referance, > to which assignemnts are made. > > But of course this is handled by Nuestar’s UltraDNS Corporation, that will > host, operate and manage the DNS zone server system for all this. > > All Connected, That's my Nuestar-Enum veiw of the future. >__ > > Nuestar: http://www.circleid.com/members/1582/posts > > -- > P.S.: Judith >> Sent via *BlackBerry* by AT&T > > How is the Billing done at AT&T, is it consolidated > (Home Phone, Cell Phones, BlackBerry … Packaged) > > I wonder how this backend is handled. It's probably something similar to my > explanation, only based upon associations with One’s Public Switched Telephone > Network Number (PSTN - Phone Number). >____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 16 21:53:04 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:53:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4765E490.2010301@cavebear.com> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > Found an older article that explains Nuestar's stratgies: > http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/41063/neustar-ceo-touts-dns-voip-plans.html > > NeuStar CEO touts DNS, VOIP plans > What is the status of SIP-IX here in the United States? > SIP is going to be to the Internet what Signaling System 7 [SS7] has been to > the voice world. Take care when reading the hype about SIP. SIP may well become one of the failures in the world of internet protocols. SIP, which was intended to be a reaction to the complexity of H.323, has become hyper-complex mish-mosh of good ideas, middling ideas, and downright dumb ideas. It uses just about every encoding system under the sun except EBCDIC - it uses a large dollop of SMTP blended with a ladle of HTTP with a touch of SDP and a recent addition of XML. It's the internet protocol equivalent of a camel - a racehorse designed by a committee. In SIP there are often several ways of expressing the same thing, and when I say "several ways" the combinatorics are such that the same call setup could be expressed in literally millions of different ways. SIP is being used not as a foundation for phone calls, rather there are two or three internet drafts a week extending SIP into things that have only the most tenuous relationship with phone calls - like calendaring or sharing text. SIP calls to mind the the Vasa - the museum is worth a visit if you are ever in Stockholm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship) - the Vasa was a ship that was extended so far beyond its original design constraints and ended up sinking, in year 1628, in a mild breeze on its maiden voyage across the harbour in Stockholm. Knocking SIP implementations off the air is trivially simple. I remember at one SIP interoperability even when someone said "My SIP stack is implemented in Python, it's impregnable". So I just sent it a call request with a length field with a leading zero. Python interpreted it as an octal number, and his stack ended up emitting a Python stack traceback. Many SIP implementations died a horrible death when I sent 'em calls containing URI's with trailing dots at the end of the domain name part of the called URI - perfectly legal according to the SIP specifications. Last spring at the Interop Labs in Las Vegas I did a demo in which I injected a third party voice into an existing call. And I wasn't even in a "man in the middle position" where I could have potentially done really nasty things like deleting every instance of the word "no" (a difficult recognition task, but not impossible, especially if the caller's voice has been heard and previously analyzed and characterized.) SIP is not well constrained and implementations may tend to crumble when most needed. SIP is such that devices that work today may readily, and from my experience are likely to, fail when called or when calling future SIP implementations. There's a lot of cool and useful stuff out there with SIP. I have a pile of SIP phones at home and at work, I run several interconnected Asterisk servers, and I'm connected to the PSTN via a couple of SIP<->PSTN providers. But SIP is something that is to be taken with a large grain of salt (an English idiom meaning that the thing should be viewed with skepticism and used with care and with the expectation that it won't work correctly.) --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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Dec 17 04:19:05 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:19:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: What Will Happen [@ NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071217091905.GA4734@nic.fr> > In April, NeuStar purchased UltraDNS, which offers managed DNS > services to leading Web sites such as Amazon.com and Match.com. That's the problem with old PR :-) match.com uses Akamai :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From riazt at iafrica.com Mon Dec 17 06:09:16 2007 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:09:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Wider Spying Fuels Aid Plan for Telecom Industry Message-ID: <476658DC.9070507@iafrica.com> December 16, 2007 Wider Spying Fuels Aid Plan for Telecom Industry By ERIC LICHTBLAU, JAMES RISEN and SCOTT SHANE WASHINGTON — For months, the Bush administration has waged a high-profile campaign, including personal lobbying by President Bush and closed-door briefings by top officials, to persuade Congress to pass legislation protecting companies from lawsuits for aiding the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program. But the battle is really about something much bigger. At stake is the federal government’s extensive but uneasy partnership with industry to conduct a wide range of secret surveillance operations in fighting terrorism and crime. The N.S.A.’s reliance on telecommunications companies is broader and deeper than ever before, according to government and industry officials, yet that alliance is strained by legal worries and the fear of public exposure. To detect narcotics trafficking, for example, the government has been collecting the phone records of thousands of Americans and others inside the United States who call people in Latin America, according to several government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. But in 2004, one major phone carrier balked at turning over its customers’ records. Worried about possible privacy violations or public relations problems, company executives declined to help the operation, which has not been previously disclosed. In a separate N.S.A. project, executives at a Denver phone carrier, Qwest, refused in early 2001 to give the agency access to their most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls, according to people aware of the request, which has not been previously reported. They say the arrangement could have permitted neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveillance of phone traffic without a court order, which alarmed them. The federal government’s reliance on private industry has been driven by changes in technology. Two decades ago, telephone calls and other communications traveled mostly through the air, relayed along microwave towers or bounced off satellites. The N.S.A. could vacuum up phone, fax and data traffic merely by erecting its own satellite dishes. But the fiber optics revolution has sent more and more international communications by land and undersea cable, forcing the agency to seek company cooperation to get access. After the disclosure two years ago that the N.S.A. was eavesdropping on the international communications of terrorism suspects inside the United States without warrants, more than 40 lawsuits were filed against the government and phone carriers. As a result, skittish companies and their lawyers have been demanding stricter safeguards before they provide access to the government and, in some cases, are refusing outright to cooperate, officials said. “It’s a very frayed and strained relationship right now, and that’s not a good thing for the country in terms of keeping all of us safe,” said an industry official who believes that immunity is critical for the phone carriers. “This episode has caused companies to change their conduct in a variety of ways.” With a vote in the Senate on the issue expected as early as Monday, the Bush administration has intensified its efforts to win retroactive immunity for companies cooperating with counterterrorism operations. “The intelligence community cannot go it alone,” Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed article Monday urging Congress to pass the immunity provision. “Those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits.” Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey echoed that theme in an op-ed article of his own in The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, saying private companies would be reluctant to provide their “full-hearted help” if they were not given legal protections. The government’s dependence on the phone industry, driven by the changes in technology and the Bush administration’s desire to expand surveillance capabilities inside the United States, has grown significantly since the Sept. 11 attacks. The N.S.A., though, wanted to extend its reach even earlier. In December 2000, agency officials wrote a transition report to the incoming Bush administration, saying the agency must become a “powerful, permanent presence” on the commercial communications network, a goal that they acknowledged would raise legal and privacy issues. While the N.S.A. operates under restrictions on domestic spying, the companies have broader concerns — customers’ demands for privacy and shareholders’ worries about bad publicity. In the drug-trafficking operation, the N.S.A. has been helping the Drug Enforcement Administration in collecting the phone records showing patterns of calls between the United States, Latin America and other drug-producing regions. The program dates to the 1990s, according to several government officials, but it appears to have expanded in recent years. Officials say the government has not listened to the communications, but has instead used phone numbers and e-mail addresses to analyze links between people in the United States and overseas. Senior Justice Department officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations signed off on the operation, which uses broad administrative subpoenas but does not require court approval to demand the records. At least one major phone carrier — whose identity could not be confirmed — refused to cooperate, citing concerns in 2004 that the subpoenas were overly broad, government and industry officials said. The executives also worried that if the program were exposed, the company would face a public-relations backlash. The D.E.A. declined to comment on the call-tracing program, except to say that it “exercises its legal authority” to issue administrative subpoenas. The N.S.A. also declined to comment on it. In a separate program, N.S.A. officials met with the Qwest executives in February 2001 and asked for more access to their phone system for surveillance operations, according to people familiar with the episode. The company declined, expressing concerns that the request was illegal without a court order. While Qwest’s refusal was disclosed two months ago in court papers, the details of the N.S.A.’s request were not. The agency, those knowledgeable about the incident said, wanted to install monitoring equipment on Qwest’s “Class 5” switching facilities, which transmit the most localized calls. Limited international traffic also passes through the switches. A government official said the N.S.A. intended to single out only foreigners on Qwest’s network, and added that the agency believed Joseph Nacchio, then the chief executive of Qwest, and other company officials misunderstood the agency’s proposal. Bob Toevs, a Qwest spokesman, said the company did not comment on matters of national security. Other N.S.A. initiatives have stirred concerns among phone company workers. A lawsuit was filed in federal court in New Jersey challenging the agency’s wiretapping operations. It claims that in February 2001, just days before agency officials met with Qwest officials, the N.S.A. met with AT&T officials to discuss replicating a network center in Bedminster, N.J., to give the agency access to all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through it. The accusations rely in large part on the assertions of a former engineer on the project. The engineer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said in an interview that he participated in numerous discussions with N.S.A. officials about the proposal. The officials, he said, discussed ways to duplicate the Bedminster system in Maryland so the agency “could listen in” with unfettered access to communications that it believed had intelligence value and store them for later review. There was no discussion of limiting the monitoring to international communications, he said. “At some point,” he said, “I started feeling something isn’t right.” Two other AT&T employees who worked on the proposal discounted his claims, saying in interviews that the project had simply sought to improve the N.S.A.’s internal communications systems and was never designed to allow the agency access to outside communications. Michael Coe, a company spokesman, said: “AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers’ privacy. We do not comment on matters of national security.” But lawyers for the plaintiffs say that if the suit were allowed to proceed, internal AT&T documents would verify the engineer’s account. “What he saw,” said Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing the plaintiffs along with Carl Mayer, “was decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.” The same lawsuit accuses Verizon of setting up a dedicated fiber optic line from New Jersey to Quantico, Va., home to a large military base, allowing government officials to gain access to all communications flowing through the carrier’s operations center. In an interview, a former consultant who worked on internal security said he had tried numerous times to install safeguards on the line to prevent hacking on the system, as he was doing for other lines at the operations center, but his ideas were rejected by a senior security official. The facts behind a class-action lawsuit in San Francisco are also shrouded in government secrecy. The case relies on disclosures by a former AT&T employee, Mark Klein, who says he stumbled upon a secret room at an company facility in San Francisco that was reserved for the N.S.A. Company documents he obtained and other former AT&T employees have lent some support to his claim that the facility gave the agency access to a range of domestic and international Internet traffic. The telecommunications companies that gave the government access are pushing hard for legal protection from Congress. As part of a broader plan to restructure the N.S.A.’s wiretapping authority, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to give immunity to the telecommunications companies, but the Judiciary Committee refused to do so. The White House has threatened to veto any plan that left out immunity, as the House bill does. “Congress shouldn’t grant amnesty to companies that broke the law by conspiring to illegally spy on Americans” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington. But Bobby R. Inman, a retired admiral and former N.S.A. director who has publicly criticized the agency’s domestic eavesdropping program, says he still supports immunity for the companies that cooperated. “The responsibility ought to be on the government, not on the companies that are trying to help with national security requirements,” Admiral Inman said. If the companies decided to stop cooperating, he added, “it would have a huge impact on both the timeliness and availability of critical intelligence.” Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 23 12:39:31 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:39:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] GeoTLD Message-ID: <2037715431@web.de> Milton, Thanks for your message from December 11th. I could easily turn your question around and ask: Where are the titles of those who want to utilize a famous state or city name (and here I'm not talking about placeholder concepts like .cat, .nyc or .baires) with a technology-based monopoly? Different cultures have developed different approaches regarding the balance between individual freedom and collective rights. I fully respect the position of colleagues around the world, but at the same time I strongly believe that decisions with regional impact should be made based on regional norms and values. Again: The Internet is a global network, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all decisions have to be made at a global level. Though the German legal system is not as much case based as the US one, it’s helpful to not only check the wording of the relevant law (especially the German Civil Code), but also look at relevant court decisions. Obviously, we don't have a decision on a Geo-gTLD yet, but a number of interesting high-level decions regarding the use of city names at the second level, e. g. the solingen-info.de and solingen.info cases from September last year. Contrary to some others I do not expect that in a decision on a CityTLD the right of the city and state of Berlin in the name "Berlin" which is protected under German law would be watered down. But the question is, what should ICANN do in the meanwhile? Introduce a CityTLD knowing that there is a serious conflict within the local community? Imagine a situation in which a negative court ruling would come after the market introduction of the new TLD. Who would be held liable? Should the relevant authorities be allowed to not only not support but also stop a Geo-gTLD proposal that uses (only) the full string of the relevant political-administrative entity? Of course they should! Public policy includes economic policy, and economic policy includes competition policy. Due to the current structure of the DNS, a full CityTLD necessarily establishes a technology-based monopoly, or at least a superior market position. Even dotBerlin admits that a TLD solution is more attractive than using "Berlin" at the second level, including the fact that in Google searches domain names using the CityTLD would get a higher ranking (see www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/advantages-of-the-nyc-tld). The introduction of a .berlin would primarily not effect the domain name market in Brasilia, Canberra or Washington D.C., but the one in Berlin. So it's a decision to be made in Berlin. As long as hundreds of alternatives are already available or could easily be established (using existing TLD; introducing new TLD like .city or .metropole; introducing placeholder CityTLD like .ber, .bln, combined strings like .berlinfriends etc.), I do not see why any authority should allow somebody to gain a superior market position. The introduction of a CityTLD using only the name string does not strengthen competition, but is the end of fair competition. The legal and economic assessment has to be made at the local level, not in Marina del Rey. The core function of ICANN is that of a technical co-ordination body, and wherever possible, it should stick to that role. ICANN should especially not try to become a global regulator, watching local and regional Domain Name markets, finally judging “oh, in city X a Geo-gTLD may enrich the market, but in city Y it already looks like cut-throat competition...”. Quite similiar to the ccTLD re-delegation process (actually, compared to the use of strange two-letter ISO codes the use of a full geo-string is even more sensitive to the local community), ICANN should follow exernal decisions and restrict itself to a verification of the technical expertise of the future registry. If you put into question the competence or legitimacy of elected officials and the public authorities regarding the GeoTLD issue - where do you see the role of citizens? Should they have a say regarding the use of the name of the city they live in? As of today, the number of people from Berlin openly supporting the .berlin proposal via the dotBerlin website is somewhat around 330, which equals roughly 0.01% of the Berlin population. Is this an adequate number of supportes? And how many citizens are needed to veto a CityTLD proposal, e. g. by sending emails to ICANN? Number of supporters plus one? 10%, 25% or 50% of the population? The question of "who speaks for Berlin" is especially important if you follow the concept of GeoTLD being a sponsored TLD. sTLD require not only a sponsored community, but also a sponsoring organization. Actually, it is expected to provide evidence of support from the sponsoring organization. So, in the case of a CityTLD, who is the sponsoring organization? dotBerlin claims that it "represents all Berliners in applying for the .berlin TLD ..." (see www.dotberlin.de/en/about; interestingly nobody in my friends and family circle has ever given this mandate to the company), but my understanding of a sTLD is that registry and sponsoring organization should be seperate entities. Business associations etc. only reflect the position of specific parts of the society, not the local community at-large. So, who can represent a city or state, if not those legitimate authorities that do exactly the same in all other areas? (By the way, I don't think that the sTLD concept applies to GeoTLD, because if you allow everybody to register under a certain TLD, there is no precisely defined sponsored community.) >From my point of view, your question regarding a possible re-naming of a city in N.J. does not fit into this discussion. Many cities can carry the name Berlin without seriously effeting each other, so why should there be a problem? This is not the monopoly situation of a CityTLD using the Berlin string. Same goes for using the string in book titles etc. Regarding your remark on ALAC: If you subscribe to my model in which, regarding full Geo-gTLD, the ICANN board simply follows decisions made at the local or regional level, than there is no need to talk about ALAC. But if you see it as an internal ICANN process, than you have to answer the question how to integrate the relevant ICANN constituencies, and this does not only include the GNSO, but also the GAC and, of course, the ALAC. Enjoy the Holiday season, Michael _______________________________________________________________________ Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 30 Tage kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Dec 23 12:48:35 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:48:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] GeoTLD Message-ID: <2037725806@web.de> Dirk, Although you didn't address me directly (!), you were obviously commenting on one of my postings on this list. Well, with your alternative wording you are actually confirming that, for the time being, in Berlin there is neither support from the public administration nor from the political majority for the .berlin proposal. The corresponing headline of the leading German online magazine on IT issues on 29/11/07 was short and clear: "City Domain .berlin does not get official support from Berlin" ("City-Domain .berlin erhält keine offizielle Berliner Unterstützung"). Of course, things can change - but not in just one direction... I don't have the slightest problem with giving our international colleagues more details about which political party said what in which committee. I even think that more backstage information about the dotBerlin initiative might help outsiders to better understand and evaluate this business model. But I would request that you follow the same rules you want to impose on others. May I recall that February this year you wrote a letter to the GAC chairman (see www.citytld.com/other-cities.htm) which included the following sentence: "Please find attached to this letter the original text and a courtesy translation of a resolution of the German parliament (Bundestag) from March 7th, 2007, which supports the introduction of GeoTLDs fpr German Cities and regions". We both know that at this point of time the only decision made was to a debate on GeoTLD based on a joint resolution. It took the relevant committees until September (!) to prepare a report and a recommendation. So, to present a decision of the German parliament to the ICANN community even before the substantial debate has started in the relevant committees is... well, I'll leave it to others to find the adequate words for this. Michael, Berlin _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 23 14:13:33 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:13:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Here we go! Google & Digg add - U.S. Elections '08 sections Message-ID: Here we go! U.S. Election Year 2008 It's officially 'Open-Season' for political Lame-Duck hunting. Will Google, Digg and Social Networking et.al. Sway the US elections? Will Electronic Voting Systems, Sway the US elections? - Google adds -U.S. Elections '08 section - http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&tab=wn&ned=us&topic=el - Elections 2008 from Google Keep up-to-date with latest news, videos and blog posts from the campaign trail -- all from your iGoogle page. Choose the candidates you want to follow, or keep tabs on them all. http://www.google.com/ig/adde?synd=open&source=ggyp&moduleurl=http://www.google .com/ig/modules/mega_gadget.xml -- Digg gets more political http://digg.com/2008_us_elections --- 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Dec 24 08:57:21 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:57:21 -0200 Subject: [governance] 2008 In-Reply-To: <2037715431@web.de> References: <2037715431@web.de> Message-ID: <476FBAC1.3060601@rits.org.br> A wonderful 2008 to you all and your families! fraternal regards --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 direction at communautique.qc.ca Mon Dec 24 09:11:33 2007 From: direction at communautique.qc.ca (Monique Chartrand) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:11:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] 2008 References: <2037715431@web.de> <476FBAC1.3060601@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <000801c84636$e4148ef0$6400a8c0@monique> From: "Carlos Afonso" >A wonderful 2008 to you all and your families! > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. Grand Merci pour ces Voeux! Une Année de gouvernance 2008 remplie de promesses et de réalisations à vous toutes et tous dont nous suivons avec passion les échanges! Du Pôle Nord Québécois, Monique Chartrand Communautique www.communautique.qc.ca ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Dec 24 18:13:01 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:13:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] limits of technical jurisdiction (was: GeoTLD) In-Reply-To: <2037715431@web.de> References: <2037715431@web.de> Message-ID: At 6:39 PM +0100 12/23/07, Michael Leibrandt wrote: > ... The core function of ICANN is that of a technical co-ordination body, >and wherever possible, it should stick to that role. Indeed, this rhetorical statement seems to be universally agreed in principle by all associated with ICANN and IG in general. So, why do we continue to have such persistent disagreements about it? It comes down to the interpretation of *very* vague words such as: "wherever possible" -- the ultimate loophole, because such qualifications have no clear definition anywhere in ICANN's bylaws. In particular: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm Article I, Section 2 has some relevant phrases: 2. "... limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination." But what exactly is "within ICANN's mission" or "requiring or benefiting from global coordination"? How much benefit qualifies for such intervention? How broadly does such benefit have to extend to qualify (i.e., who benefits, and in what way)? Followed by the disclaimer at the end of Section 2: "These core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated; and because they are statements of principle rather than practice, situations will inevitably arise in which perfect fidelity to all eleven core values simultaneously is not possible. Any ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall exercise its judgment to determine which core values are most relevant and how they apply to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to determine, if necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among competing values." So, great: the writers of these bylaws have completely punted here in the sense of utterly refusing to create a "rule of law" to govern these decisions, leaving the decisions to the "rule of man" or more specifically, the rule of those who have the greatest resources to influence the policy-making processes at ICANN -- within an "ICANN body [exercising] its {necessarily subjective} judgment". Make no mistake, this seems to have been *intentional* and not an oversight, because if it was an oversight it was inexcusably egregious. There is no institutional separation of powers, such as creating a truly independent "judiciary" to evaluate the outcomes of PDPs etc. There is no way to contest the "defensibility" and "balance" of their judgments in a formal process of *independent* review. The Board ultimately approves policy, and the Board is also the power to which appeals are directed (see Article IV, the Board establishes the Reconsideration Committee to handle such appeals), which also means that the Board ultimately has the responsibility for determining who has standing to (i.e., what is "materially affected by an action of ICANN" and who decides). If the ultimate authority for redress is the same as the ultimate authority for making the original policy, that is a joke from a procedural standpoint. Where is the "independent supreme court" of ICANN? It does not exist. And I could go on and on about the structural issues inherent here, but I won't repeat myself for the moment. The point here is that if we can't agree on this very basic fundamental starting point (what is or is not within ICANN's legitimate jurisdiction, based on what is or is not a legitimate institutional structure for governance -- and the answer to these two questions is partly interdependent: what is an appropriate institutional structure depends partly on the jurisdiction, for example IETF's governance structure may work acceptably within its relatively narrow technical jurisdiction [and often "noncritical" -- if consensus fails, the community merely agrees to disagree and moves on] but does not scale well to general political governance), none of the important (and thus disputed) details we discuss here will be tractable, because all of those specific details proceed from this structural origin. The devil is in the details, but in this case, the lack of details in what is formally stated in ICANN's "constitution" is what creates the devilish dynamics in dealing with details as they arise. There is simply no hope that RC-squared (rough consensus and running code) as a governance model could ever be successful in fairly addressing the full range of political disagreements (ever heard of "the tyranny of the majority"? -- even if the standing issue can be fairly resolved, which may not be the case if there is any limitation on participation or representation at all), and even the relatively narrow realm of IP/DNS will have increasingly "generally political" ramifications if the boundaries are not strictly delimited. All roads lead to this question, and as long as the IG community as a whole fails to address the institutional structure question head on, it will continue to be embroiled in contentious debates of increasing volatility. You think we've had a rough autumn? Unfortunately I believe this is just the beginning, unless the structural governance issue is put clearly on the table and engaged outright on the merits. Politics have invaded IG (indeed, they likely have been there from the beginning), and there is no escape. Resistance is futile, because politics are not even a codified enemy like the Borg in Star Trek -- they are an inherent characteristic of human communities emerging from our basic nature, and they are as inevitable as breathing. Humans are intrinsically political creatures, similarly human societies are inescapably political, and our governance institutions are as well. Sorry for this depressing message on Xmas eve, but perhaps this is an opportune moment to consider the interests of those who cannot represent themselves, and to be explicit about devising a governance structure that can fill that gap and ultimately do justice to the global commonwealth as a whole. 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 Dec 24 21:28:27 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:28:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] limits of technical jurisdiction In-Reply-To: References: <2037715431@web.de> Message-ID: <47706ACB.2090607@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > At 6:39 PM +0100 12/23/07, Michael Leibrandt wrote: > >> ... The core function of ICANN is that of a technical co-ordination body, >> and wherever possible, it should stick to that role. > > Indeed, this rhetorical statement seems to be universally agreed in > principle by all associated with ICANN and IG in general. So, why do we > continue to have such persistent disagreements about it? Yes, it is Christmas eve. Whether one celebrates this holiday or another, the sentiment - peace and good will - are universal. As the moon rises tonight, slightly past full, my wish is that in 12 months time that we have an internet that reaches and serves every person, whether that person can pay or not, that the net begins to obtain a reality of internet governance in which all feel they have a voice that, if used, will be heard, and that those aspects of the internet that do require governance become, in fact, become well governed. Now, pertaining to that last part of the wish, I reach back to our issue at hand: the issue of fitting bodies of governance to things that do require governance: One way to shape our appreciation of ICANN's (or any other body of internet governance) is to ask the most fundamental question of all: why? For example: ICANN's "UDRP" - ICANN's dispute resolution policy that affords trademarks an elevated position among uses of domain names and creates an accelerated, and from may perspectives, a rather trademark favorable, process outside the legal system to enforce that elevated position. Is the UDRP "technical coordination"? If so, why? Let us look to ICANN's mandate that domain names be rented for periods of 1 to 10 years in 1 year increments: Is that technical coordination, if so why? Or ICANN's mandate that there be registries who only sell via accredited registrars? Is that technical coordination, if so why? The same question can be asked about ICANN's deep and expensive examination of those who wish to operate a TLD, an examination that is almost entirely about business matters. How is that "technical coordination" (and I emphasize the word "technical"), and if so, why? And so forth. Yes, many of these things are "coordination". But where is the "technical" part? I have proposed a relatively bright line standard: A matter is "technical coordination of DNS" if the matter has a direct and compelling effect on the rapid, efficient, and accurate transformation of DNS query packets into DNS response packets at the top two tiers of DNS (root and TLD) without bias for or against any query source or queried name. --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 Thu Dec 27 01:37:59 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:37:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <2037715431@web.de> References: <2037715431@web.de> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Michael, This dialogue began with my rhetorical question: "Does the parliament of the German city of Berlin hold global ownership rights over the character string "berlin?" If so, let me see the title deed." You replied: > I could easily turn your question around and ask: Where are the titles of > those who want to utilize a famous state or city name Ah, but that question gets you into trouble. First, because my whole point is that no titles are needed; second, because by resorting to that response you tacitly concede that the Parliament of Berlin has no such title. The DNS is a global namespace. TLDs are global in effect. It is not a local namespace. If a legitimate business wants to appropriate a string within that global space to run a nonfraudulent, nondeceptive business and there are no conflicts with globally recognized property rights in the string I don't see that the Parliament of Berlin has any legitimate reason to block it. It might be different if the government of Berlin had developed a proposal for a TLD. But it didn't. And as far as I can tell it doesn't have any plans to develop the resource. It just wants to prevent someone else from using it, in order to assert some kind of power over it. It is not willing to let the people of Berlin decide for themselves by patronizing - or not - the service offering. Frankly, I find this attitude petty. Such developments contribute nothing to the value of the Internet. They just bog it down in an endless series of prior reviews and constraints and regulations. > ...I strongly believe that decisions with regional impact > should be made based on regional norms and values. Again: The Internet is > a global network, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all decisions > have to be made at a global level. All decisions about what TLDs exist _do_ have to be made at the global level. If I thought the effect of this particular instance of pettiness would be confined to Berlin or even to Germany, I would gladly leave the controversy to you and Dirk. But the effect of conceding the authority of a municipality over the global namespace is not confined to Berlin. It means that more control over the DNS namespace is ceded to tens of thousands of other petty authorities, who think that millions of other words in English or a thousand other languages can't be used without their permission. > But the question is, what should ICANN do in the meanwhile? Introduce a > CityTLD knowing that there is a serious conflict within the local > community? Imagine a situation in which a negative court ruling would come > after the market introduction of the new TLD. Who would be held liable? Applicants for TLDs would have to take such risks into consideration. ICANN should be completely unconcerned about them. It should have a neutral process for assigning names. > Public > policy includes economic policy, and economic policy includes competition > policy. Due to the current structure of the DNS, a full CityTLD > necessarily establishes a technology-based monopoly, or at least a I find the economic reasoning you attempt to use here to be a poorly developed afterthought. Full of too many holes to enumerate and explain here. But let me indicate all too briefly a few of the problems. If a new TLD assignment confers a monopoly, (a premise that can and will be challenged) then why does a local government have a right to such a monopoly? Is this anything more than a battle over who gets to exploit a monopoly? If so, why not go with the entrepreneur who actually developed a proposal and business plan instead of a second-guessing political authority with no such plans and no energy? But in fact, a new TLD assignment confers no monopoly. It confers exclusive control over an _empty_ namespace at the hierarchical levels below the TLD. No one has to register in the domain, so there is no market yet that is monopolized. Google searches will not elevate it unless people link to the domains that use .berlin, and you don't get such links unless people find value in the domains. The German market is very well developed and unless the new registry can add value it's by no means obvious where it is going to get lots of new registrations. There are numerous close substitutes. Indeed, you trip all over yourself here, trying to argue simultaneously that a TLD assignment of .berlin is a hugely threatening grant of monopoly power while at the same time claiming that "hundreds of alternatives are already available or could easily be established using existing TLDs." > The legal and economic assessment has to be made at the local level, not > in Marina del Rey. The core function of ICANN is that of a technical co- ICANN decisions are supposed to be made by a globally representative policy development procees, not in Marina del Rey. > ICANN should especially not try to become a global regulator, watching But your approach puts ICANN in precisely that position. You simply ask it to delegate regulatory authority to tens of thousands of local governments. Since ICANN by definition already holds (via the DNS root) final authority over what TLDs exist, you now ask it to decide which local authority to listen to, on what issues. And this means, in practice, that GAC becomes the global regulator. You also assume that there will be no conflicting claims among local authorities. A pipe dream! No, your road leads to detailed, petty regulation of every name assignment decision made at virtually every level of DNS. > If you put into question the competence or legitimacy of elected officials > and the public authorities regarding the GeoTLD issue - where do you see > the role of citizens? Should they have a say regarding the use of the name > of the city they live in? Let's frame this question more precisely. Should citizens of Berlin have a say over how their own city managers use the city's name? Yes. Should they be able to prevent counterfeit or fraudulent uses of the name which mislead people into thinking they are dealing with the Berlin city government? Yes. But should they be able to decide that it is an unacceptable use if I choose to name an ugly little dog "Berlin"? No. Should they be able to censor Internet videos if they make the ugly little dog famous in Berlin, Germany? No. Should they be able to prevent me from naming a restaurant serving German food "Berlin?" No. Should they be able to prevent me from naming a book Berlin? No. You get the picture. A domain name registry is not the incarnation of the spirit and people of Berlin. It's an operation that points packets to particular nameservers, usually to identify or locate web sites. It's perfectly possible that specialization and expertise in what makes geoTLDs successful would be transferable such that a multinational corp. specializing in geoTLDs develops. Or not. Let the people decide, via their choices. I live in the city of Syracuse. Syracuse.com was registered by the local newspaper. It didn't need to get the permission of the city. No one cares about that here. Whatever value is associated with that domain Syracuse.com was created by the newspaper company, not by the city government. Syracuse.org was taken by a domainer. It seems to be a link farm for making a few bucks on pay per click. It is a minor speck in the universe as far as Syracusans are concerned. Few are even aware of it. If the city thinks it can do something better with it, it can buy the virtual space from its current assignee. You may say, "we could and should have prevented that." I'd say in all sincerity that the mechanisms required to do that -- government approval and oversight of all domain name registrations -- is a cure far worse than the disease. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.8/1196 - Release Date: 12/25/2007 12:18 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 27 01:48:06 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:18:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <002c01c84854$71613d70$5423b850$@net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > It might be different if the government of Berlin had developed a > proposal for a TLD. But it didn't. And as far as I can tell it doesn't > have any plans to develop the resource. It just wants to prevent > someone else from using it, in order to assert some kind of power over > it. It is not willing to let the people of Berlin decide for themselves > by patronizing - or not - the service offering. Frankly, I find this Well, that opens up the question of how deep down you want to dig before you assert a mandate. Like a swiss canton where you can poll the entire population to decide where to locate a public toilet or bus station? Or like a city government elected by the people of berlin, to decide at least some things on their behalf? If it claims to represent Berlin the city, instead of say the string Berlin as in "Irving Berlin" or "Berliner" for a jelly donut as in JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" .. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 27 02:19:42 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> Milton L Mueller wrote: > All decisions about what TLDs exist _do_ have to be made at the > global level. Not really. (By-the-way, it may be a bit ironic to consider the relative sizes and recognition between the city in which you live, Syracuse, New York, as compared to its classic namesake - between the two, which might have a better claim to TLD status?) But back to why we do not need a singular global body to make choices about TLDs: If we accept the proposition that there can be multiple root systems, each with its suite of TLD offerings, then the choice becomes one made by the users of the internet rather than by some singular overlord of names. As I have described previously, there is nothing in internet technology that prevents multiple roots. In fact the end-to-end principle requires that the possibility exist. Any root that offers a suite of TLDs would be crazy to offer a suite that does not include the familiar core TLDs - the ones we now get from NTIA/ICANN. Any root that offers something inconsistent with that will shortly find its way into the trash heap of internet failures. In that way, the folks proposing .berlin could go to various root zone composers and say "Please put us into your root zone", just as they are now asking ICANN to put .berlin into the ICANN/NTIA root zone. Perhaps they will do it way that ICANN likes - mountains of paper about business plans and payment of big evaluation fees. Perhaps some root zone compositors will be more forthright and simply say "just pay us a percentage of your revenue", other might simply say "we like you, so OK". That then allows internet users to make the choice whether .berlin floats or sinks - by choosing those root zone providers that offer .berlin, and, of course, buying names in .berlin. In most of the world a new brand of laundry detergent does not apply to the Worldwide Ministry of Soap for approval. That kind of idea was tried in numerous 5-year plans in the old USSR and nobody has ever said that that was a system that was responsive to user needs. Rather, a new brand of laundry detergent must fight to build its brand (name recognition) and obtain space on the shelves of stores. There is no reason why TLD creation must occur using the model of a top-down planned economy (the ICANN method) rather than a competitive economy in which user choice ultimately determines success and failure. (On the original issue - the elevation of geographic places TLD status - perhaps we ought to take the ENUM idea, but use LAT/LONG coordinates instead - so the domain name 50.30.N.13.25.E.geo - would map to a NAPTR record that could produce URI's relating to Berlin. - I believe that was part of the idea of the .iii proposal that ICANN put on hold in year 2000.) Such a geographic coordinate based system - or simply nesting cities within their country codes - would certainly make a lot more sense than elevating city names to TLD's - has anybody counted the number of cities named "Los Angeles" that exist around the world. Even my own city of Santa Cruz finds its name replicated a hundredfold and more in Spanish and French names around the world. --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 krischenowski at dotberlin.de Thu Dec 27 03:25:52 2007 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:25:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <2037715431@web.de> References: <2037715431@web.de> Message-ID: <024501c84862$1bc80f70$b793ba5a@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Michael, thanks for your extensive thread on the .berlin TLD. It gives all of us more insight on how you see the things. Just let me clairfy a single point: the proposed "whatever" rights in the name Berlin. "According to leading telecommunication, trademark and other law experts in Germany (Prof. Koenig, Prof. Holznagel, Prof. Hoeren, Prof. Ingerl etc.) the administration of TLDs like .berlin, .solingen or .bayern (Bavaria) by private sector entities or entities of the local Internet community complies with the national legal requirements. Their opinion regarding the particular aspect of name and trademark rights is: Both, the City and the State Berlin have a right in the name “Berlin” under German laws. These rights can also be enforced as regards the choice of Second-Level-Domains according to former court rulings (e.g. Heidelberg.de). Contrarily, the use of names as TLDs cannot be prevented on the basis of rights to a name, if the TLD is used as a label of geographic origin and provided that the respective local and national governments are offered the opportunity to reserve or block Second-Level-Domains within the TLD-Zone prior to their public allocation (e.g. Senate.berlin, Bundestag.berlin). A name is only unlawfully arrogated when the interests of its holder are violated. The addressed part of the public therefore would have to assume that there is a direct or indirect connection between the TLD and a certain governmental authority. In contrast, section 12 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) does not protect the holder of a name against other uses of this name which do not lead to a confusion of correlation. TLDs do not indicate the service or web site of an individual. They rather identify respectively constitute name spaces. The relevant part of the public does not expect a governmental administration of TLDs (see .de). As a consequence, a local TLD like .berlin will not lead to a confusion of correlation with regard to the federal capital of Berlin. The federal capital does not enjoy a legal protection against a dilution of its name that goes beyond the danger of confusion. The German Trade Mark Act (Markengesetz) accepts third partys' – fair – use of city names." All of you, have a smooth move to 2008 Dirk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Dezember 2007 18:40 An: mueller at syr.edu Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] GeoTLD Milton, Thanks for your message from December 11th. I could easily turn your question around and ask: Where are the titles of those who want to utilize a famous state or city name (and here I'm not talking about placeholder concepts like .cat, .nyc or .baires) with a technology-based monopoly? Different cultures have developed different approaches regarding the balance between individual freedom and collective rights. I fully respect the position of colleagues around the world, but at the same time I strongly believe that decisions with regional impact should be made based on regional norms and values. Again: The Internet is a global network, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all decisions have to be made at a global level. Though the German legal system is not as much case based as the US one, it’s helpful to not only check the wording of the relevant law (especially the German Civil Code), but also look at relevant court decisions. Obviously, we don't have a decision on a Geo-gTLD yet, but a number of interesting high-level decions regarding the use of city names at the second level, e. g. the solingen-info.de and solingen.info cases from September last year. Contrary to some others I do not expect that in a decision on a CityTLD the right of the city and state of Berlin in the name "Berlin" which is protected under German law would be watered down. But the question is, what should ICANN do in the meanwhile? Introduce a CityTLD knowing that there is a serious conflict within the local community? Imagine a situation in which a negative court ruling would come after the market introduction of the new TLD. Who would be held liable? Should the relevant authorities be allowed to not only not support but also stop a Geo-gTLD proposal that uses (only) the full string of the relevant political-administrative entity? Of course they should! Public policy includes economic policy, and economic policy includes competition policy. Due to the current structure of the DNS, a full CityTLD necessarily establishes a technology-based monopoly, or at least a superior market position. Even dotBerlin admits that a TLD solution is more attractive than using "Berlin" at the second level, including the fact that in Google searches domain names using the CityTLD would get a higher ranking (see www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/advantages-of-the-nyc-tld). The introduction of a .berlin would primarily not effect the domain name market in Brasilia, Canberra or Washington D.C., but the one in Berlin. So it's a decision to be made in Berlin. As long as hundreds of alternatives are already available or could easily be established (using existing TLD; introducing new TLD like .city or .metropole; introducing placeholder CityTLD like .ber, .bln, combined strings like .berlinfriends etc.), I do not see why any authority should allow somebody to gain a superior market position. The introduction of a CityTLD using only the name string does not strengthen competition, but is the end of fair competition. The legal and economic assessment has to be made at the local level, not in Marina del Rey. The core function of ICANN is that of a technical co-ordination body, and wherever possible, it should stick to that role. ICANN should especially not try to become a global regulator, watching local and regional Domain Name markets, finally judging “oh, in city X a Geo-gTLD may enrich the market, but in city Y it already looks like cut-throat competition...”. Quite similiar to the ccTLD re-delegation process (actually, compared to the use of strange two-letter ISO codes the use of a full geo-string is even more sensitive to the local community), ICANN should follow exernal decisions and restrict itself to a verification of the technical expertise of the future registry. If you put into question the competence or legitimacy of elected officials and the public authorities regarding the GeoTLD issue - where do you see the role of citizens? Should they have a say regarding the use of the name of the city they live in? As of today, the number of people from Berlin openly supporting the .berlin proposal via the dotBerlin website is somewhat around 330, which equals roughly 0.01% of the Berlin population. Is this an adequate number of supportes? And how many citizens are needed to veto a CityTLD proposal, e. g. by sending emails to ICANN? Number of supporters plus one? 10%, 25% or 50% of the population? The question of "who speaks for Berlin" is especially important if you follow the concept of GeoTLD being a sponsored TLD. sTLD require not only a sponsored community, but also a sponsoring organization. Actually, it is expected to provide evidence of support from the sponsoring organization. So, in the case of a CityTLD, who is the sponsoring organization? dotBerlin claims that it "represents all Berliners in applying for the .berlin TLD ..." (see www.dotberlin.de/en/about; interestingly nobody in my friends and family circle has ever given this mandate to the company), but my understanding of a sTLD is that registry and sponsoring organization should be seperate entities. Business associations etc. only reflect the position of specific parts of the society, not the local community at-large. So, who can represent a city or state, if not those legitimate authorities that do exactly the same in all other areas? (By the way, I don't think that the sTLD concept applies to GeoTLD, because if you allow everybody to register under a certain TLD, there is no precisely defined sponsored community.) >From my point of view, your question regarding a possible re-naming of a city in N.J. does not fit into this discussion. Many cities can carry the name Berlin without seriously effeting each other, so why should there be a problem? This is not the monopoly situation of a CityTLD using the Berlin string. Same goes for using the string in book titles etc. Regarding your remark on ALAC: If you subscribe to my model in which, regarding full Geo-gTLD, the ICANN board simply follows decisions made at the local or regional level, than there is no need to talk about ALAC. But if you see it as an internal ICANN process, than you have to answer the question how to integrate the relevant ICANN constituencies, and this does not only include the GNSO, but also the GAC and, of course, the ALAC. Enjoy the Holiday season, Michael _______________________________________________________________________ Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 30 Tage kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 27 03:55:31 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:25:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> > If we accept the proposition that there can be multiple root systems, > each with its suite of TLD offerings, then the choice becomes one made > by the users of the internet rather than by some singular overlord of > names. Big "if" there, unfortunately. And one that doesn't really exist with wide acceptance except in a few alternative views of reality. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 27 14:16:41 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:16:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <07CCD1F2-CF33-4B60-A0D2-CEFF902E5065@psg.com> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> <47737756.8040604@cavebear.com> <07CCD1F2-CF33-4B60-A0D2-CEFF902E5065@psg.com> Message-ID: <4773FA19.4060404@cavebear.com> Avri Doria wrote: > With the authority St Aquinas brought in as a bolstering argument. I've always found it amusing to cite a Saint,an authority, as an authority to make an argument, based on an assertion of authority, why arguments that are assertions of authority are weak arguments. > Note: even the use of 'consistent root' as opposed to' single root'... are logically the same thing. Not exactly. The idea is that multiple providers of the same thing is rather different than exactly one provider of that thing. The reason that that difference is important is that it distributes the way in which decisions are made - each provider makes its own choices regarding which inventory it will carry. It is indeed the kind of difference between a planned central economy - the ICANN method - and a free market. The difference is choice made in one place versus a choice made by each person. The difference is that between "Top down" - the ICANN way - and true "bottom up" choices made through the aggregated individual choice of each user of the net. The reason that I use the word "consistency" is that it reflects the core need: that users don't want to be surprised. Even singular DNS is not perfectly consistent - apart from its built-in inconsistency that occurs as a side effect of its built-in asynchronous update of information, DNS names are not consistent even over short periods of time - we are all familiar with names going away and changing. But the larger question is the this: Does consistency require a Procrustean exact identity so that every root server group offers precisely the same suite of TLDs or can there be some variation around the edges? There are some who believe in the former, the "mirror" form of consistency. Of course, internet technology and the end-to-end principle make it impossible to require and enforce that there be exactly and precisely one provider of name mapping services. I have been arguing for the less strict form of consistency - in which experimentation and growth can occur in at the edges and, if such experimentation proves popular, it can spread to the core. By this I mean that different root providers would offer new TLDs, in conjunction with the core TLDs offered by everybody. That's why I call these new, experimental things "boutique" TLDs - because they are not found everywhere and those who use them know (or should know) that they are not using mainstream products. As for the word "propaganda": your word, not mine. If I am somehow guilt of using strongly colored words and analogies I am not alone. (When I read your note I imagined you grinning when you used that word - and knowing you as a person with a constructive intent, I know that it was used with an intent to tickle our discussion in a positive, even amusing, way.) Analogies are powerful analytical tools. Should we avoid them? If so, given that humans tend to think via analogies, how could we do so? And ICANN has made itself an easy subject for such tools: ICANN has taken number of its structural cues from the old Soviet Union - everything from the ALAC having a structure that bears a surprising resemblance to the faux-democratic system of village soviets (ALSO's), regional soviets (RALO's), and a supreme soviet (Nomcom) - to ICANN's TLD process looking rather like the central planned economy of the 5 year plans with both having either non-responsiveness or glacial-responsiveness to consumer needs. ICANN could also be compared to the old Standard Oil Trust, the grand daddy of all monopolies - a collection of actors, mainly incumbents that stand to gain through the preservation of the status quo and suppression of competition, who act together to control prices, define products, set the terms of sale, and decide who may and who may not join the club and enter the marketplace. It would be the height of "propaganda" an organization to claim that that kind of restraint of trade constitutes "competition", indeed it would go beyond "propaganda" and become Orwellian "NewSpeak". --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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Dec 27 15:26:16 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:26:16 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: GeoTLD References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> <47737756.8040604@cavebear.com> <07CCD1F2-CF33-4B60-A0D2-CEFF902E5065@psg.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DE85@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I enjoy very much the debate on GEO-TLDs and I hope that a lot of ICANN folks are following the exchange of arguments. It is enlightening. If I remember correctly one argument in the debate was that a new GEO-TLD would constitute a "monopoly" and that a city name is a public good which should not fall in the hands of a "private monopoly". I am fully in favour of the concept of the "public ressource" and I am totally against private monopolies. But with regard to the case of ".berlin" this argument is totally misleading. There was a debate in the local Berlin parliament on the issue in the end of November 2007. The Lord Mayor of Berlin argued that the city council of Berlin will not support ".berlin" because they have to protect their monopoly under "berlin.de". The city council has registered "berlin.de" but has outsorced the management of "berlin.de" in form of a private-public partnership to a private company, a publishing house "Berliner Verlag" which is owned by a British Hedgefonds. The mayor´s argument in the debate was that the Berlin city council would risk a breach of the contract with the Berliner Verlag (which guarantees the "monopoly" to the private publisher) when they would support ".berlin". As a result, the city council could risk to pay a punishment fee of several hundreds of thousands of Euros. The Lord Mayor did not refer to the Berlin Internet community or the Internet users. His main fear was that if the city council does not protect the monopoly position of a private company for "berlin.de" the Berlin Senate risks to loose money. In my view this is bizarre. We had several Internet workshops in Berlin in 2007 where the .berlin project was discussed among the community, including German ICANN directors and council members, Denic and the local Internet economy and NGOs and civil society. There was even an evening discussions in the Parliamentary Assembly of the German Bundestag where we had several members of the parliament and also a member of the European Parliament which showed an interest in the exchange of arguments. But no representative of the Berlin Senate came to this meetings. There was just ignorance of all the local discussion. In an Hearing in the Berlin Senate, which was organized by the opposition party, nearly all invited experts argued in favour. But the governing coalition said no. The only thing they did - as far as I know - was to initiate a working group in the "Deutsche Städte- und Gemeindetag" (the German assocation of city councils). The working group is working on a report which - as far as I have heard - will take a negative approach to GEO-TLDs. When I prepared the Rio IGF-workshop on new GEO-TLDs, I discussed the issue with the Städte- und Gemeindetag. I invited them to present their arguments at the IGF-Workshop. The answer was that they do not have travel funds to go to Brazil. I proposed them to put their arguments on paper and I guaranteed them to bring the arguments to the Rio panel. They promised to consider this proposal but nothing happened. I asked three days before the Rio workshop for a short piece of paper with the main counter arguments (in Rio I had about 10 GEO-TLD projects in the panel). But they did not reply to the e-Mail. A representative of the German Internet economy association "eco" participated in the Rio discussion and supported the idea of GEO-TLDs. We had voices from the Internet users and from other affected and concerned constituencies. The German GAC member was sitting in the room, but he was silent. And the local government - which claims to have the only authority to make relevant decisions - was absent. Ignorance? Arrogance? Provincialism? A good case to compare two different governnace models: top down, centralistic and deal making behind closed doors vs. bottom up, decentraliced and open and transparent. Who will win? Let´s wait and see and remember the history and arguments of this debate if me move towards decisions. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Dec 27 15:56:14 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:56:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] limits of technical jurisdiction In-Reply-To: 47706ACB.2090607@cavebear.com Message-ID: Karl Auerbach wrote: Re: [governance] limits of technical jurisdiction [ http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-12/msg00238.html ] -snip- ... Or ICANN's mandate that there be registries who only sell via accredited registrars? Is that technical coordination, if so why? ... -snip- - RegisterFly provides us with an interesting contest to examine. If you go to the RegisterFly web site you find the following *NOTICE TO CONSUMERS*, proceeded by *RegisterFly's-Notice* definition of "What does that notice below mean?: Ref.: http://www.RegisterFly.com/ - Notice [Proceeding Notice of Notice - ref.: http://www.registerfly.com/notice.php ] RegisterFly.com was for 6 years a reseller of domain names for multiple different domain registrars. In those 6 years we registered in excess of 2 million names, in fact in 2006 alone we added almost 1 million names. We used the backend and systems of our registrar partners to register and manage domain names through those six years. In January of 2006 we become operational as a registrar and registered names directly under our own accreditation. In February of 2007 we ended our relationship with one of the vendors due to the relationship becoming more of a competitor vs a vendor. In May of 2007, we reached an agreement with another registrar to assume the management of some names in our portfolio that were under our own accreditation. There was an order granted to ICANN that requires we show this statement on our homepage, is misleading to consumers for several reasons We did a bulk transfer of names that were under our accreditation to another registrar, hence we do not function as an ICANN accredited registrar. After the conclusion of the bulk transfer there was no need for us to remain an accredited registrar since the benefits did not merit the cost and effort required We are an authorized reseller of domain names, the same as we have been for 6 years prior, this has not changed. We are NOT OUT OF BUSINESS as the message may imply to some You can still purchase new domain names or transfer names from us. You can purchase, manage hosting and other services as well We have grown rapidly throughout the years, we are now taking more of a customer centric, more responsive company focused on you Many of our valued customers have been with us for the past several years and remain very loyal to RegisterFly.com. We sincerely appreciate your loyalty and rest assured we are working hard on enhancing our interfaces, offering more frequent promotions and bolstering customer service staff. With new management in place, we are eager to earn your business. Sincerely Robert O' Neill Chief Executive Officer - NOTICE TO CONSUMERS. THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS - THE NON FOR PROFIT ENTITY THAT ADMINISTERS THE INTERNET'S DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, HAS ISSUED A NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THIS COMPANY'S ACCREDITATION TO SERVE AS AN INTERNET DOMAIN NAME REGISTRAR. PLEASE SEE WWW.ICANN.ORG FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. -- SO... What validity does Icann have at all, when Registrars can operate un-accredited, even after US Court rulings? Please take a look at their site and follow through links: http://www.RegisterFly.com/ --- 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Dec 27 18:09:44 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:09:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] limits of technical jurisdiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477430B8.1020206@cavebear.com> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: ... > Or ICANN's mandate that there be registries who only sell via accredited > registrars? Is that technical coordination, if so why? .. > RegisterFly provides us with an interesting contest to examine. > SO... What validity does Icann have at all, when Registrars can operate > un-accredited, even after US Court rulings? My series of questions have been based on the idea that any body of internet governance must have a clearly defined job and that it must actually do that job and refrain from doing other jobs. In the language of nations we tend to express that thought by using the modifier "constitutional", as in "constitutional monarchy". Now, looking at the RegisterFly situation: Yes, consumers deserve protection. But is consumer protection ICANN's job or is it the job of somebody/something else? If it is ICANN's job, in other words, if ICANN is in fact a supranational consumer protection agency, then that fact ought to be clearly expressed in its job description. Moreover, if ICANN is in fact a protector of consumers, it really ought to do that job. Now to do that job it would need to do several things: - Allow consumers a real role in the way it makes its policies. This is not today the case. - Actually enforce those policies (for example, ICANN's been postulating data preservation - escrow - ever since its inception. Yet it has never been deployed.) - Provide consumers with third party beneficiary rights under ICANN's contracts with registries and registrars. This would allow consumers of domain names to intercede and redress failures of those contracts in situations, such as RegisterFly, when ICANN turned a blind eye. - Replace its "ombudsman" with something that actually functions. The most appropriate mechanism would be via Directors that are chosen by a direct or indirect electoral process in which consumers get to vote. - Impose operational requirements at the root and TLD levels that assure that domain name query packet are quickly, efficiently, and accurately transformed into domain name response packets without bias for or against any query source or queried name. If measured using the words of baseball - ICANN's been batting 0. We do have to give ICANN a bit of credit, however. If they do try to become a consumer protection body they are greatly understaffed to do so. There are some good people in ICANN - Dan Halloran for example - who work their tails off trying to keep ICANN's registrars walking the straight and narrow. If we do want ICANN to really undertake the role of a consumer protection body we ought to realize that ICANN would need to grow - to grow into a fully flowered regulatory body not unlike the US Fair Trade Commission (FTC.) Now, on the other hand, if we define ICANN using the terms that were used to justify ICANN's creation - "technical stability" then only the last of those points above would be relevant and ICANN could shrink back to be a tightly constrained and focused body. Now, my sense of the bulk of opinion is that ICANN is not felt to be a vehicle for consumer protection, but is more a vehicle for something more of a technical regulatory role. It is indeed sad that the RegisterFly situation occurred. Although it did not affect me, I do have friends who lost non trivial amounts of money and investment in brands built on names registered via registerFly. But perhaps one might step back and ask - are there existing laws about what happened at registerfly? Was there a breech of contract with consumers? Was there fraudulent or misleading activity? Perhaps the remedies sought would be better found by looking to traditional civil and criminal law than to a body of internet 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 avri at psg.com Fri Dec 28 00:15:44 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:15:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <4773FA19.4060404@cavebear.com> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> <47737756.8040604@cavebear.com> <07CCD1F2-CF33-4B60-A0D2-CEFF902E5065@psg.com> <4773FA19.4060404@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <3B12DFED-0CCC-41A5-80A8-3AF066A11F72@psg.com> On 27 Dec 2007, at 14:16, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> With the authority St Aquinas brought in as a bolstering argument. > > I've always found it amusing to cite a Saint,an authority, as an > authority to make an argument, based on an assertion of authority, > why arguments that are assertions of authority are weak arguments. Yeah i thought that was clever especially since, at least periodically, he was one of the foremost authorities for an authoritarian religion. especially since 1914 with the 24 propositions. if i remember correctly they left the on about arguing from authority out of the list. > > >> Note: even the use of 'consistent root' as opposed to' single >> root'... are logically the same thing. > > Not exactly. No, not exactly. but perhaps logically. > > > The idea is that multiple providers of the same thing is rather > different than exactly one provider of that thing. But doesn't each on those multiple providers accept the single reference root voluntarily? At least to the extent that they accept it as the authoritative root. In a sense don't we already have a market of sorts? If the root operators wished to accept other authorities, they could. Couldn't they? I.e as it stands it is a voluntary arrangement where those who could do otherwise, choose not to. In what way is that domination from the center? To me it looks rather like a bottom up clearinghouse model. while i don't argue that ICANN is a rose garden (well maybe it is, but i digress), i don't think that comparing it to the politburo is quite accurate. > > > The reason that that difference is important is that it distributes > the way in which decisions are made - each provider makes its own > choices regarding which inventory it will carry. In this case the individual root operators are making the decisions. Also as far as I understand there are few TLD registries outside of the ICANN approved list that these root operators could support if they wished. Why don't they? Also, who forces the rest of us to accept this particular model. sure it might be challenge to find a new mapping model but nothing makes any of us accept the current model. with IP addresses, sure, we have little choice. but with domain names - where is the outside compulsion? > > > It is indeed the kind of difference between a planned central > economy - the ICANN method - and a free market. The difference is > choice made in one place versus a choice made by each person. The > difference is that between "Top down" - the ICANN way - and true > "bottom up" choices made through the aggregated individual choice of > each user of the net. As I indicated above this looks more like a clearinghouse model to me and not a planned central economic model. We use the ICANN names because they are easy and they suit us. if they didn't we would find something else. > > The reason that I use the word "consistency" is that it reflects the > core need: that users don't want to be surprised. and they don't want to have work too hard. or be different from their neighbors (which i think is a transitive property especially given cultural hegemony, but i digress again) > > > Even singular DNS is not perfectly consistent - apart from its built- > in inconsistency that occurs as a side effect of its built-in > asynchronous update of information, DNS names are not consistent > even over short periods of time - we are all familiar with names > going away and changing. So are you arguing that the need for consistency is not absolute? Probably not. but we only would tolerate so much insecurity before we found a new tool. > > > But the larger question is the this: Does consistency require a > Procrustean exact identity so that every root server group offers > precisely the same suite of TLDs or can there be some variation > around the edges? > > There are some who believe in the former, the "mirror" form of > consistency. > > Of course, internet technology and the end-to-end principle make it > impossible to require and enforce that there be exactly and > precisely one provider of name mapping services. Exactly. and yet, there is still is just one dominant name mapping service, even though there have been various attempts to start others. Is this perhaps a market 'decision'? did we vote with our feet? > > > I have been arguing for the less strict form of consistency - in > which experimentation and growth can occur in at the edges and, if > such experimentation proves popular, it can spread to the core. What stops that from happening now? Just because ICANN/NTIA won' bless it, doesn't mean people could not do it - if they found a way to convince the users it was something they wanted. Now, in a planned economy model, we might be able to force people to try the new stuff, or in the supermarket model we could put the stuff in a prominent rack by the cash registers, but in this model, people have to want it to buy it. and it better be easy to use. (e.g. just i l use almost all of the IM services, if it was easy i would probably use multiple name mapping services. but even though i am mildly willing, i never found it easy enough to register for any of the other name services, so to date, i still use just the ICANN name mapping service.) > > > By this I mean that different root providers would offer new TLDs, > in conjunction with the core TLDs offered by everybody. That's why > I call these new, experimental things "boutique" TLDs - because they > are not found everywhere and those who use them know (or should > know) that they are not using mainstream products. Incidentally I have been using the term boutique TLDs also - but i think in a somewhat different way, I use it to refer to those that would only attract a small group of registrants, even if this was a ICANN blessed registry. i assume your definition precludes the notion of ICANN base boutique registries. > > > As for the word "propaganda": your word, not mine. If I am somehow > guilt of using strongly colored words and analogies I am not alone. yes, but you do it so well. > > > (When I read your note I imagined you grinning when you used that > word - and knowing you as a person with a constructive intent, I > know that it was used with an intent to tickle our discussion in a > positive, even amusing, way.) Well true. As I said i think propaganda is an art form. and I have been known to employ it on occasion, but i don't think i have ever done it as well as you did. and hence my note of praise. > > > Analogies are powerful analytical tools. Should we avoid them? If > so, given that humans tend to think via analogies, how could we do so? no i don't think we should avoid them. but sometimes they might be so strong that they could trip the message on its face in a Godwinesque prat fall. > Procrustean > Soviet Union > Standard Oil Trust > Orwellian "NewSpeak" and of course >> "propaganda" cheers, 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Dec 27 04:58:46 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:58:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> Message-ID: <47737756.8040604@cavebear.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> If we accept the proposition that there can be multiple root systems, >> each with its suite of TLD offerings, then the choice becomes one made >> by the users of the internet rather than by some singular overlord of >> names. > > Big "if" there, unfortunately. And one that doesn't really exist with wide > acceptance except in a few alternative views of reality. The fact that relatively few competing root systems exist today is not, at least not to me, a very strong argument, much less a persuasive or compelling argument. Once upon a time - back in the 1970's - the telcos incessantly whined that the only way to do data networking was through the use of switched circuits, and their "big new thing", ISDN, and that those of us at UCLA, Lincoln Labs, Rand, and SDC ought to forget this new "alternative view of reality" called packet switching. The number of people who used that "alternative view" easily could, and sometimes did, fit into a single university classroom. Yet in the fullness of time that "alternative view of reality" became today's internet. At one time it seemed like an insane idea to intentionally infect people with a mild disease (cowpox) as a means to prevent a much worse disease (smallpox). Yet today, largely based on what was once considered an insane idea, the world is nearly (and perhaps really) relieved of what was once a terrible thing. So the argument that a thing which lacks popularity today will necessarily forever be relegated to only the outer regions and near oblivion is hardly an argument that rings in harmony with our experiences. Sure, most of the competing root systems that have existed have been operated with an embarrassingly low level of skill. But there are also other competing roots - ORSN for example - that operate with a high degree of skill. The argument of the IETF and IAB is almost entirely one based solely on their position as authority rather than sound, testable technical arguments. This brings to mind the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274): Locus ab auctoritate .. est infirmissimus. (The argument from authority is the weakest form of argument.) Competing roots can and do work - the issue is not that there be a singular root, the issue is, rather, that of consistency. Competing roots do offer a way out of the present mess regarding DNS. And moreover, there is no way to prevent them from being deployed or used. And perhaps most importantly, once they are deployed and if they obtain acceptance, then the entire structure of ICANN - most particularly its pyramid of contracts - comes crumbling to the ground because its foundational premise fails - that of a singular root that can be controlled by one entity. So, if we evaluate upside versus downside - we have little to lose by dropping the institutional and automatic rejection of competing roots: If they are as bad as some say they will quickly fail with little harm to the internet community. But if they succeed, we all win in a big way because we solve a Gordian knot of internet 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 karl at cavebear.com Fri Dec 28 03:41:45 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:41:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <3B12DFED-0CCC-41A5-80A8-3AF066A11F72@psg.com> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> <47737756.8040604@cavebear.com> <07CCD1F2-CF33-4B60-A0D2-CEFF902E5065@psg.com> <4773FA19.4060404@cavebear.com> <3B12DFED-0CCC-41A5-80A8-3AF066A11F72@psg.com> Message-ID: <4774B6C9.2030705@cavebear.com> Avri Doria wrote: You ask so many good questions. As regard your question about root operators following some authority for choice of TLDs: Imagine if everybody who operates a root system - which ultimately could be every user[*] - did not look to any authority other than his/her/its own perception of self interest. For the vast majority of providers this means going with the herd - which, as we are learning from swarm behavior theories - means that pretty much every provider will offer the TLDs that we all know and love. Those who chose not to provide these will probably fail or, like some divergent religious groups, be quite happy in their splendid isolation. But, and this is the important part, each provider would be free to add anything else - new and uncommon TLDs - that strikes their fancy. Why might something strike their fancy? Most likely because the new TLD operator is holding out a handful of cash. Where is a new TLD going to obtain that cash? Who knows. Maybe it's from some city, like Berlin, that is willing to buy its way in to enough roots that it becomes something that every root operator feels it must carry. Or perhaps it is a part of revenues derived from registry fees or data mining. Who knows. And who cares? (as long as it is not illegal.) This kind of independent, self interested, decision makings means that we end up with a very nice way for new TLDs to be born, try to grow, and maybe even grow up to be one of the big ones that every root operator feels that it must include in its inventory. The flops will flop and fade, as they should, into obscurity and oblivion. Even in networking protocols we have that kind of thing - once Novell and IAX/Netware and IBM's SNA ruled the networking landscape. But this idea of TCP, particularly with some boosts from UC Berkeley and companies like FTP Software, Proteon, TGV, Intercon, and Sun came out of the back rooms and knocked the socks off the old champions. All I am suggesting is two things: 1) that we stop auto-bespattering those who want to try to do things differently (but still within the scope of internet standards) than has been the routine and 2) that we take care to build institutions of internet governance only when there really and truely is a thing that needs the heavy hand of "governance" rather than the less coercive hands of user and provider choice (something we call "free competition") practiced within the scope of broadly accepted civil and legal rules. You suggested that ICANN might be viewed as a "clearinghouse". I'm having trouble reconciling (pun intended) my sense of that word - a place where transactions are presented and accounts are settled - to the role that ICANN fills: that of making choices among competing allocations. Clearinghouses don't say 'no' to transactions, but ICANN, on the other hand, does seem highly preoccupied with denying people the opportunity to make transactions and investments. So, I don't see the analogy. You asked a good question about why, if there is nothing that stops this from happening, why it has not. That's got several answers. First is that there have been several people and groups who have done such a horribly bad job of it that it has created a broad impression that any and every group that might try it anew will do an equally bad job. (By-the-way, I measure the quality of the job done by looking at the quality with which name query packets are turned into name response packets - to my mind the front-office task of registering and transferring names not where we should be measuring quality, although the practice has been to use that as the sole metric.) And second is that ICANN has engaged in a kind of warfare upon those who suggest the idea of competing root systems. Indeed, some of ICANN's statements over the years, particularly with regard to New.net, could possibly have been construed as business libel. Remember the Hush-A-Phone case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-a-Phone_v._FCC - This was a situation in which some folks invented a plastic hand to focus a speaker's voice into those old carbon microphones found on phones through the 1960's. That hand also helped prevent others from overhearing. Anyway, AT&T, along with the FCC swore up and down on a stack of bibles that this entirely passive device - a plastic hand - would cause operators to go deaf, cause telephone repairman to be electrocuted, and otherwise cause the internet of that era, the telephone system, to collapse into a pile of sparking and smoking wires (like computers do in movies.) That was, of course, patently false - which is what the courts ultimately found (after 26 years). But it does indicate the energy with which entities, including technical ones, like the FCC, will go to protect their status quo. I may not be a conscious thing, but every generation of technical folks are proud of their creations and often lose perspective when evaluating changes to those creations. So it is not surprising that one of the grumbles that comes out of the IETF rather frequently is that newcomers lack "clue". And third, we have the presence of the US Government standing behind all of this. That looming presence suggests to any investor that before they can open their doors for business they may have to go to the mat with the largest, richest, and most powerful government on earth. As a consequence, those who have money to invest have been into a position in which they have to ask whether they want to A) invest into something that will face condemnation, righteous sounding condemnation whether it is right or not, and perhaps the wrath of the US government or B) invest in what they hope will be the next Google. In other words, ICANN has scared away the investors and investment dollars. Just look at what ICANN did to those 40 groups that paid $50,000 each just to apply for a new TLD and have been strong along now for 7 years. And then, those few that did get through the gauntlet had to endure what amounted to an ICANN run colonoscopy of their business and financial matters (but not their ability to run DNS servers.) Consequently, even though it is entirely feasible to establish competing root systems, it is not an attractive investment opportunity. The reason that it is shunned is not that there isn't money to be made - there is, lots of it from data mining for commercial and governmental/intelligence purposes, but because those who propose the idea are painted as pariahs and nutjobs. [*] There was once a system called "Grass Roots" which was a website in which the user could select among the (then) thousands of TLDs, and in cases of conflict, select which among the conflicted offerings. Then a zone file was produced, and a named.conf file, that could be plopped into Bind so that any *nix machine could become a highly personalized root. --karl-- > > On 27 Dec 2007, at 14:16, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> With the authority St Aquinas brought in as a bolstering argument. >> >> I've always found it amusing to cite a Saint,an authority, as an >> authority to make an argument, based on an assertion of authority, why >> arguments that are assertions of authority are weak arguments. > > Yeah i thought that was clever especially since, at least periodically, > he was one of the foremost authorities for an authoritarian religion. > especially since 1914 with the 24 propositions. if i remember correctly > they left the on about arguing from authority out of the list. > >> >> >>> Note: even the use of 'consistent root' as opposed to' single >>> root'... are logically the same thing. >> >> Not exactly. > > No, not exactly. but perhaps logically. > >> >> >> The idea is that multiple providers of the same thing is rather >> different than exactly one provider of that thing. > > But doesn't each on those multiple providers accept the single reference > root voluntarily? At least to the extent that they accept it as the > authoritative root. In a sense don't we already have a market of > sorts? If the root operators wished to accept other authorities, they > could. Couldn't they? I.e as it stands it is a voluntary arrangement > where those who could do otherwise, choose not to. > > In what way is that domination from the center? To me it looks rather > like a bottom up clearinghouse model. while i don't argue that ICANN is > a rose garden (well maybe it is, but i digress), i don't think that > comparing it to the politburo is quite accurate. > >> >> >> The reason that that difference is important is that it distributes >> the way in which decisions are made - each provider makes its own >> choices regarding which inventory it will carry. > > In this case the individual root operators are making the decisions. > Also as far as I understand there are few TLD registries outside of the > ICANN approved list that these root operators could support if they > wished. Why don't they? > > Also, who forces the rest of us to accept this particular model. sure > it might be challenge to find a new mapping model but nothing makes any > of us accept the current model. with IP addresses, sure, we have little > choice. but with domain names - where is the outside compulsion? > >> >> >> It is indeed the kind of difference between a planned central economy >> - the ICANN method - and a free market. The difference is choice made >> in one place versus a choice made by each person. The difference is >> that between "Top down" - the ICANN way - and true "bottom up" choices >> made through the aggregated individual choice of each user of the net. > > As I indicated above this looks more like a clearinghouse model to me > and not a planned central economic model. We use the ICANN names > because they are easy and they suit us. if they didn't we would find > something else. > > >> >> The reason that I use the word "consistency" is that it reflects the >> core need: that users don't want to be surprised. > > and they don't want to have work too hard. or be different from their > neighbors (which i think is a transitive property especially given > cultural hegemony, but i digress again) > >> >> >> Even singular DNS is not perfectly consistent - apart from its >> built-in inconsistency that occurs as a side effect of its built-in >> asynchronous update of information, DNS names are not consistent even >> over short periods of time - we are all familiar with names going away >> and changing. > > So are you arguing that the need for consistency is not absolute? > Probably not. but we only would tolerate so much insecurity before we > found a new tool. > >> >> >> But the larger question is the this: Does consistency require a >> Procrustean exact identity so that every root server group offers >> precisely the same suite of TLDs or can there be some variation around >> the edges? >> >> There are some who believe in the former, the "mirror" form of >> consistency. >> >> Of course, internet technology and the end-to-end principle make it >> impossible to require and enforce that there be exactly and precisely >> one provider of name mapping services. > > Exactly. and yet, there is still is just one dominant name mapping > service, even though there have been various attempts to start others. > Is this perhaps a market 'decision'? did we vote with our feet? > >> >> >> I have been arguing for the less strict form of consistency - in which >> experimentation and growth can occur in at the edges and, if such >> experimentation proves popular, it can spread to the core. > > What stops that from happening now? Just because ICANN/NTIA won' bless > it, doesn't mean people could not do it - if they found a way to > convince the users it was something they wanted. Now, in a planned > economy model, we might be able to force people to try the new stuff, or > in the supermarket model we could put the stuff in a prominent rack by > the cash registers, but in this model, people have to want it to buy > it. and it better be easy to use. > > (e.g. just i l use almost all of the IM services, if it was easy i would > probably use multiple name mapping services. but even though i am > mildly willing, i never found it easy enough to register for any of the > other name services, so to date, i still use just the ICANN name mapping > service.) > >> >> >> By this I mean that different root providers would offer new TLDs, in >> conjunction with the core TLDs offered by everybody. That's why I >> call these new, experimental things "boutique" TLDs - because they are >> not found everywhere and those who use them know (or should know) that >> they are not using mainstream products. > > Incidentally I have been using the term boutique TLDs also - but i think > in a somewhat different way, I use it to refer to those that would only > attract a small group of registrants, even if this was a ICANN blessed > registry. i assume your definition precludes the notion of ICANN base > boutique registries. > >> >> >> As for the word "propaganda": your word, not mine. If I am somehow >> guilt of using strongly colored words and analogies I am not alone. > > yes, but you do it so well. > >> >> >> (When I read your note I imagined you grinning when you used that word >> - and knowing you as a person with a constructive intent, I know that >> it was used with an intent to tickle our discussion in a positive, >> even amusing, way.) > > Well true. As I said i think propaganda is an art form. and I have > been known to employ it on occasion, but i don't think i have ever done > it as well as you did. and hence my note of praise. > >> >> >> Analogies are powerful analytical tools. Should we avoid them? If >> so, given that humans tend to think via analogies, how could we do so? > > no i don't think we should avoid them. but sometimes they might be so > strong that they could trip the message on its face in a Godwinesque > prat fall. > >> Procrustean >> Soviet Union >> Standard Oil Trust >> Orwellian "NewSpeak" > > and of course > >>> "propaganda" > > cheers, > > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Dec 28 04:05:48 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:05:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Taking Stock of Rio - IGC submission? Message-ID: Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on the renewal of the Advisory Group (see http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC (and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate for you to coordinate). All the best. -- 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 Fri Dec 28 06:53:50 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:53:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] limits of technical jurisdiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32c5084f0712280353o7337c077q47b1d6d1b622a584@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 27, 2007 4:56 PM, wrote: > > SO... What validity does Icann have at all, when Registrars can operate > un-accredited, even after US Court rulings? > >From what I read they are not operating as an un--accredited registrar, but rather as a reseller for an accredited registrar (as they originally were for eNom) - and that reseller market seems unregulated 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 01:33:01 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:33:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] limits of technical jurisdiction (was: GeoTLD) In-Reply-To: References: <2037715431@web.de> Message-ID: <45ed74050712242233u186ab1f8p459437d1599711e6@mail.gmail.com> Dear Dan, et al, not really a negative ("depressing") message - raises thoughts about the general absence of judiciary agents, instruments, or acts themselves under any label, in civil society at large. Comes up a lot. So, in tandem, whither appeals? In general that is, since some organizations, even informal (but vigrouous) ones, as here, do provide for same. Again, issue-spotting is a gift to all. Thanks. Best wishes, seasonal and continuing, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* On 12/24/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > > At 6:39 PM +0100 12/23/07, Michael Leibrandt wrote: > > > ... The core function of ICANN is that of a technical co-ordination > body, > >and wherever possible, it should stick to that role. > > Indeed, this rhetorical statement seems to be universally agreed in > principle by all associated with ICANN and IG in general. So, why do we > continue to have such persistent disagreements about it? > > It comes down to the interpretation of *very* vague words such as: > "wherever possible" -- the ultimate loophole, because such qualifications > have no clear definition anywhere in ICANN's bylaws. In particular: > > http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm > > Article I, Section 2 has some relevant phrases: > > 2. "... limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's > mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination." > > But what exactly is "within ICANN's mission" or "requiring or benefiting > from global coordination"? How much benefit qualifies for such > intervention? How broadly does such benefit have to extend to qualify > (i.e., who benefits, and in what way)? > > Followed by the disclaimer at the end of Section 2: > > "These core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms, so > that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest > possible > range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly prescriptive, the > specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each > new situation will necessarily depend on many factors that cannot be fully > anticipated or enumerated; and because they are statements of principle > rather than practice, situations will inevitably arise in which perfect > fidelity to all eleven core values simultaneously is not possible. Any > ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall exercise its judgment > to determine which core values are most relevant and how they apply to the > specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to determine, if > necessary, > an appropriate and defensible balance among competing values." > > > So, great: the writers of these bylaws have completely punted here in the > sense of utterly refusing to create a "rule of law" to govern these > decisions, leaving the decisions to the "rule of man" or more > specifically, > the rule of those who have the greatest resources to influence the > policy-making processes at ICANN -- within an "ICANN body [exercising] its > {necessarily subjective} judgment". > > Make no mistake, this seems to have been *intentional* and not an > oversight, because if it was an oversight it was inexcusably egregious. > > There is no institutional separation of powers, such as creating a truly > independent "judiciary" to evaluate the outcomes of PDPs etc. There is no > way to contest the "defensibility" and "balance" of their judgments in a > formal process of *independent* review. The Board ultimately approves > policy, and the Board is also the power to which appeals are directed (see > Article IV, the Board establishes the Reconsideration Committee to handle > such appeals), which also means that the Board ultimately has the > responsibility for determining who has standing to (i.e., what is > "materially affected by an action of ICANN" and who decides). If the > ultimate authority for redress is the same as the ultimate authority for > making the original policy, that is a joke from a procedural standpoint. > Where is the "independent supreme court" of ICANN? It does not exist. > > And I could go on and on about the structural issues inherent here, but I > won't repeat myself for the moment. The point here is that if we can't > agree on this very basic fundamental starting point (what is or is not > within ICANN's legitimate jurisdiction, based on what is or is not a > legitimate institutional structure for governance -- and the answer to > these two questions is partly interdependent: what is an appropriate > institutional structure depends partly on the jurisdiction, for example > IETF's governance structure may work acceptably within its relatively > narrow technical jurisdiction [and often "noncritical" -- if consensus > fails, the community merely agrees to disagree and moves on] but does not > scale well to general political governance), none of the important (and > thus disputed) details we discuss here will be tractable, because all of > those specific details proceed from this structural origin. > > > The devil is in the details, but in this case, the lack of details in what > is formally stated in ICANN's "constitution" is what creates the devilish > dynamics in dealing with details as they arise. > > There is simply no hope that RC-squared (rough consensus and running code) > as a governance model could ever be successful in fairly addressing the > full range of political disagreements (ever heard of "the tyranny of the > majority"? -- even if the standing issue can be fairly resolved, which may > not be the case if there is any limitation on participation or > representation at all), and even the relatively narrow realm of IP/DNS > will > have increasingly "generally political" ramifications if the boundaries > are > not strictly delimited. > > All roads lead to this question, and as long as the IG community as a > whole > fails to address the institutional structure question head on, it will > continue to be embroiled in contentious debates of increasing volatility. > > You think we've had a rough autumn? Unfortunately I believe this is just > the beginning, unless the structural governance issue is put clearly on > the > table and engaged outright on the merits. > > Politics have invaded IG (indeed, they likely have been there from the > beginning), and there is no escape. Resistance is futile, because > politics > are not even a codified enemy like the Borg in Star Trek -- they are an > inherent characteristic of human communities emerging from our basic > nature, and they are as inevitable as breathing. > > Humans are intrinsically political creatures, similarly human societies > are > inescapably political, and our governance institutions are as well. > > Sorry for this depressing message on Xmas eve, but perhaps this is an > opportune moment to consider the interests of those who cannot represent > themselves, and to be explicit about devising a governance structure that > can fill that gap and ultimately do justice to the global commonwealth as > a > whole. > > 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 > -------------- 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 Sat Dec 29 17:13:51 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:13:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD Message-ID: <2050391162@web.de> Milton, I don‘t expect you to agree with me - so let's continue, in this wonderful non-diplomatic language. Some brief comments on your response (see ***ML): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This dialogue began with my rhetorical question: "Does the parliament of the German city of Berlin hold global ownership rights over the character string "berlin?" If so, let me see the title deed." You replied: > I could easily turn your question around and ask: Where are the titles of > those who want to utilize a famous state or city name Ah, but that question gets you into trouble. First, because my whole point is that no titles are needed; second, because by resorting to that response you tacitly concede that the Parliament of Berlin has no such title. ***ML: I think that the right in the name does provide this title, because there is more about it than just the issue of "confusion". But taking into account the variety of oppinions it doesn't make much sense to speculate who is right and who is wrong; I expect that finally a court decision will bring clarity regarding the "whatever" rights. Wouldn't be a surprise to see this issue in our Constitutional Court, dealing with the question if it is an unacceptable limitation of occupational freedom if someone is not allowed to run a .berlin, but only a .berli (among many other options). *** The DNS is a global namespace. TLDs are global in effect. It is not a local namespace. If a legitimate business wants to appropriate a string within that global space to run a nonfraudulent, nondeceptive business and there are no conflicts with globally recognized property rights in the string I don't see that the Parliament of Berlin has any legitimate reason to block it. It might be different if the government of Berlin had developed a proposal for a TLD. But it didn't. And as far as I can tell it doesn't have any plans to develop the resource. It just wants to prevent someone else from using it, in order to assert some kind of power over it. It is not willing to let the people of Berlin decide for themselves by patronizing - or not - the service offering. Frankly, I find this attitude petty. Such developments contribute nothing to the value of the Internet. They just bog it down in an endless series of prior reviews and constraints and regulations. ***ML: It is not me who claims .berlin to become a Sponsored TLD. sTLD require "evidence of broad-based support from the sponsored community". English is not my native tongue, but the use of the word "support" seems to indicate a need for positive activity. Remaining silent on something is not support, and opposing something is obviously also not support. It's up to the applicant to provide the neccessary evidence. Looking at one of the worlds best known city names, it would be somewhat strange to introduce it as a sTLD if there is no support from the city of Berlin, no support from the state of Berlin, and no support from the Federal Government of Germany. Plus, if Wolfgangs' information is correct, no support from the German Association of Cities. I do not share your view that the citizens of Berlin have to remain silent on this issue until the TLD is introduced and they can only make there decision by registering or not. Actually I think that in an open society citizens should have the right to speak up and make themselfs heard whenever they feel a need for doing so.*** > ...I strongly believe that decisions with regional impact > should be made based on regional norms and values. Again: The Internet is > a global network, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all decisions > have to be made at a global level. All decisions about what TLDs exist _do_ have to be made at the global level. If I thought the effect of this particular instance of pettiness would be confined to Berlin or even to Germany, I would gladly leave the controversy to you and Dirk. But the effect of conceding the authority of a municipality over the global namespace is not confined to Berlin. It means that more control over the DNS namespace is ceded to tens of thousands of other petty authorities, who think that millions of other words in English or a thousand other languages can't be used without their permission. ***ML: The formal decision, yes. But as in the ccTLD field, ICANN can and should restrict itself by following the local voice. The whole ccTLD redelegation process is based on the assumption that the local community has the lead. *** > But the question is, what should ICANN do in the meanwhile? Introduce a > CityTLD knowing that there is a serious conflict within the local > community? Imagine a situation in which a negative court ruling would come > after the market introduction of the new TLD. Who would be held liable? Applicants for TLDs would have to take such risks into consideration. ICANN should be completely unconcerned about them. It should have a neutral process for assigning names. ***ML: There is a much bigger risk for users. And what is "neutral process" in the case of a conflict with diverging positions where you finally find yourself on one side or the other?*** > Public > policy includes economic policy, and economic policy includes competition > policy. Due to the current structure of the DNS, a full CityTLD > necessarily establishes a technology-based monopoly, or at least a I find the economic reasoning you attempt to use here to be a poorly developed afterthought. Full of too many holes to enumerate and explain here. ***ML: Wow. I will considers to return my masters degree ;-) *** But let me indicate all too briefly a few of the problems. If a new TLD assignment confers a monopoly, (a premise that can and will be challenged) then why does a local government have a right to such a monopoly? Is this anything more than a battle over who gets to exploit a monopoly? If so, why not go with the entrepreneur who actually developed a proposal and business plan instead of a second-guessing political authority with no such plans and no energy? But in fact, a new TLD assignment confers no monopoly. It confers exclusive control over an _empty_ namespace at the hierarchical levels below the TLD. No one has to register in the domain, so there is no market yet that is monopolized. ***ML: How often can a specific TLD namespace be delegated? If I would hold .syracuse, could you hold it at the same time? The namespace itself is an asset with economic value.*** Google searches will not elevate it unless people link to the domains that use .berlin, and you don't get such links unless people find value in the domains. The German market is very well developed and unless the new registry can add value it's by no means obvious where it is going to get lots of new registrations. There are numerous close substitutes. Indeed, you trip all over yourself here, trying to argue simultaneously that a TLD assignment of .berlin is a hugely threatening grant of monopoly power while at the same time claiming that "hundreds of alternatives are already available or could easily be established using existing TLDs." ***ML: What I said is that for more consumer choice it is not neccessary to establish such a monoply at the top level, because the second level can offer nearly unlimited choices. Especially in the .berlin discussion it often sounds as if a .berlin would be the only way to fight the (real or perceived) market position of a berlin.de, and this is simply wrong.*** > The legal and economic assessment has to be made at the local level, not > in Marina del Rey. The core function of ICANN is that of a technical co- ICANN decisions are supposed to be made by a globally representative policy development procees, not in Marina del Rey. ***ML: To my knowledge, decisions are finally made by the ICANN Board, prepared by ICANN staff after the globally representative policy development process. Just look at the .xxx case (which I think ended with a wrong decision).*** > ICANN should especially not try to become a global regulator, watching But your approach puts ICANN in precisely that position. You simply ask it to delegate regulatory authority to tens of thousands of local governments. Since ICANN by definition already holds (via the DNS root) final authority over what TLDs exist, you now ask it to decide which local authority to listen to, on what issues. And this means, in practice, that GAC becomes the global regulator. You also assume that there will be no conflicting claims among local authorities. A pipe dream! No, your road leads to detailed, petty regulation of every name assignment decision made at virtually every level of DNS. ***ML: Sorry, but I don't think that ICANN has the competence to delegate regulatory authority. The starting point is the authority already existing at the local and regional level, so the question is if to delegate this authority partly to a global body like ICANN. This is the way it works in international cooperation frameworks. Looking at the history of ccTLD redelegations, the issue of conflicting claims among local authorities is a minor one, usually limited to certain regions of the world. And following local decisions would, e. g. in the case of Berlin, in no way touch the role of the GAC. *** > If you put into question the competence or legitimacy of elected officials > and the public authorities regarding the GeoTLD issue - where do you see > the role of citizens? Should they have a say regarding the use of the name > of the city they live in? Let's frame this question more precisely. Should citizens of Berlin have a say over how their own city managers use the city's name? Yes. Should they be able to prevent counterfeit or fraudulent uses of the name which mislead people into thinking they are dealing with the Berlin city government? Yes. But should they be able to decide that it is an unacceptable use if I choose to name an ugly little dog "Berlin"? No. Should they be able to censor Internet videos if they make the ugly little dog famous in Berlin, Germany? No. Should they be able to prevent me from naming a restaurant serving German food "Berlin?" No. Should they be able to prevent me from naming a book Berlin? No. You get the picture. ***ML: I made it very clear already that I do not see a link between the .berlin discussion and the use of the name string in other areas like book titles or city names, so why do you come up again with these examples? I'm not aware of any action by the Berlin authorities regarding the name of dogs, although they have there own dogs...*** A domain name registry is not the incarnation of the spirit and people of Berlin. It's an operation that points packets to particular nameservers, usually to identify or locate web sites. It's perfectly possible that specialization and expertise in what makes geoTLDs successful would be transferable such that a multinational corp. specializing in geoTLDs develops. Or not. Let the people decide, via their choices. ***ML: Again, regarding this exclusive use of the Berlin name string people should have a say even before it's a "done deal". And in a representative democracy they can do this in a direct or in an indirect way. I strongly believe in the concept of representative democracy, especially when the legal framework also allows a plebiscite to correct a decision made by the political majority. Berliners love plebiscites, as is the case with the shutdown our traditional city airport (something that effects the global aviation community...).*** I live in the city of Syracuse. Syracuse.com was registered by the local newspaper. It didn't need to get the permission of the city. No one cares about that here. Whatever value is associated with that domain Syracuse.com was created by the newspaper company, not by the city government. Syracuse.org was taken by a domainer. It seems to be a link farm for making a few bucks on pay per click. It is a minor speck in the universe as far as Syracusans are concerned. Few are even aware of it. If the city thinks it can do something better with it, it can buy the virtual space from its current assignee. You may say, "we could and should have prevented that." I'd say in all sincerity that the mechanisms required to do that -- government approval and oversight of all domain name registrations -- is a cure far worse than the disease. ***ML: Did I ever say that the use of a geo-string at the second level should be limited to public authorities? No, to the contrary. Over and over again I made it clear that I want hundreds of berlin.tld run by different people; the more, the better. If a Berlin newspaper wants to run berlin.biz - fine with me. And if going for a TLD solution, allow a variety of placeholder strings that can compete at a level playing field. .nyc and .baires are very wise proposals.*** Michael _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Dec 29 17:35:05 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:35:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD Message-ID: <2050424919@web.de> Dear Wolfgang, How can you seriously say that www.berlin.de is a monopoly? You know better than that. At the second level, the number of berlin.TLD using existing and potential new TLD is nearly unlimited. For example, the berlin.biz is obviously for sale (www.berlin.biz); so everyone who wants to compete with berlin.de could do so possibly for a fraction of the costs that come wich the campaign for a new GeoTLD. I would be the first one to openly support proposals like .city, .metropole etc. The challenge is to combine fair competition with more consumer choice, and this can only be done at the second level. Even pro-DotBerlin colleagues admit that once you have introduced one GeoTLD for a specific region, there isn't much room for another GeoTLD for the same region (see e. g. Wolfgang Straub at www.citytld.com/pdf/GeoTLD-300507-comments-werner-staub.pdf; especially footnote no. 6). Over and over again you refer to workshops etc. in the ICANN and IGF framework which are at least partly initiated by the GeoTLD applicants and take place in fancy locations like Puerto Rico and Rio de Janeiro. At the IGF these events might be useful as information tools, but beside this, what is the added value? The ICANN Board is not hostile towards the GeoTLD concept, so you don‘t need to convince them. The general concept of GeoTLD is also not questioned; we already have .cat and .asia. Finally, individual cases can adequately be discussed only "at home", based on local norms and values and including all relevant local stakeholders. Taking such an issue out of the hands of the local people is what I would call a centralistic top-down approach. And I find it a bit arrogant if you expect public authorities (using taxpayers money) and certain associations (living from membership fees that come from taypayers money) to participate in informal events, even if world-famous Prof. Kleinwächter is the moderator. I‘m sure that all parts of the relevant community will make themself heard at the right time, at the right place, and in the right manner. And if you find the way this issue has been dealt with at the national and local level ignorant, provencialistic and behind-closed-doors-dealmaking (what a statement!), than you obviously live in a different Germany than I do. Due to tue fact that you‘re not a Berliner: Have you already initiated a .leipzig? Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________________________________ Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 30 Tage kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Dec 30 13:56:37 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:56:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4777E9E5.6090203@bertola.eu> Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > A domain name registry is not the incarnation of the spirit and > people of Berlin. It's an operation that points packets to particular > nameservers, usually to identify or locate web sites. I'm not qualified to participate in this discussion from a legal standpoint (though I've just discovered that a close friend of mine was a student of one of the German professors that Dirk mentioned in his reply, so it's true that, on the Internet, tout se tient). But while what you say might be true on a theoretical plan, it's really hard to imagine that it can work in practice. Politically speaking, neither the government nor the people of Whatevercity will ever accept the idea that .whatevercity is just a random composition of characters and has no relation to them. At least, not in Europe. For example: > It's perfectly > possible that specialization and expertise in what makes geoTLDs > successful would be transferable such that a multinational corp. > specializing in geoTLDs develops. I can see a significant number of people rallying in protest at the idea that a foreign multinational (= the devil) can exploit their beloved city's name to make money out of it. I would expect that there should be at least some clear connection between the proposed manager and the intended target community (such as the manager being based in the city, like ccTLD managers are to be based in the country), and possibly also some degree of participation or support by recognized local collective institutions (public and/or private - not necessarily the government, but a credible part of the local community). Moreover, the fact that there are more than one Berlin may imply that the applicant could be connected to one Berlin or to another one, but it does not necessarily imply that someone who is not credibly connected to any reasonable Berlin should have a chance to get .berlin. I may agree with you that this is much more complex and weird than pure free market, and that it gives ICANN a lot of maneuvering space (I have purposedly been adding lots of subjective qualifications in this post!), but I suspect that this is also the way that a geoTLD delegation would be expected to work, at least in this part of the world. -- 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 dan at musicunbound.com Sun Dec 30 17:02:30 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:02:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <4777E9E5.6090203@bertola.eu> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4777E9E5.6090203@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 7:56 PM +0100 12/30/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Milton L Mueller ha scritto: >> A domain name registry is not the incarnation of the spirit and >> people of Berlin. It's an operation that points packets to particular >> nameservers, usually to identify or locate web sites. > >I'm not qualified to participate in this discussion from a legal >standpoint (though I've just discovered that a close friend of mine was >a student of one of the German professors that Dirk mentioned in his >reply, so it's true that, on the Internet, tout se tient). But while >what you say might be true on a theoretical plan, it's really hard to >imagine that it can work in practice. Politically speaking, neither the >government nor the people of Whatevercity will ever accept the idea that >.whatevercity is just a random composition of characters and has no >relation to them. At least, not in Europe. I don't understand why "politically speaking" this needs to be an issue, except that whoever governs the operation of registries (i.e., ICANN) allows it to be an issue. If there are multiple cities around the world that might lay claim to using a geoTLD (say, .stratford which has two prominent cities in North America -- in Ontario, Canada and Connecticut, USA -- both of which honor the theatrical tradition of the "original" in UK, and all of which would seem to have a legitimate claim on being able to use such a TLD, but perhaps not on an exclusive basis), then why shouldn't such a registry be *required* to accept all comers who want to set up 2LDs on nondiscriminatory terms? Wouldn't that resolve the conflict, by removing the strictly exclusive dynamics of control over a TLD? As long as ICANN is going to hold (and delegate/subcontract) monopoly authority over gTLDs, it should at least use that clear monopoly power to create circumstances where such conflicts evaporate wherever possible. And peculiarly enough, monopoly power can be used to mandate nondiscriminatory openness in the operation of a communications platform, in a logical dynamic not entirely unlike the GPL for example (i.e., "copyleft"). It's not as if ICANN is overseeing a "free" market. Once ICANN is there to govern the TLD market as a fairly absolute authority, ICANN needs to recognize that the simple fact of its authority trumps the freedom of the market, and everything that follows in the market is a direct result of ICANN policy (including "lack of policy" which is actually an *affirmative* policy in its own right -- "deregulation" is not "nonregulation" and it is important to recognize this distinction very clearly in policy decisions). All markets are creatures of regulatory policy, and the current gTLD market is no exception. This whole geoTLD dispute arises because ICANN specifically and intentionally allows registries to determine their own (potentially discriminatory) policies toward 2LDs, and enforces any abuse of such delegated monopoly power with ICANN's own monopoly power. If ICANN would use its monopoly authority over gTLDs to *require* those registries to be *nondiscriminatory* in their operation, it seems to me there would be no problem here. The geoTLD conflicts (and other "brand-related" conflicts) are a direct result of ICANN allowing a registry to exclude a legitimate 2LD operator in their TLD directory. Note: If, conversely, multiple TLD operators had to compete in a genuinely free market, the ones that had the most nondiscriminatory policies would tend to win out since they could capture all the 2LDs that the restrictive registries would exclude, and thus the nondiscriminatory registries would be the logical choice for root. This is much like the argument that "net neutrality" of information emerges naturally out of a last-mile network market that is shaped by strict regulatory mandates for nondiscriminatory access by third-party devices, applications, services and networks. Such open access regulation is necessary in the case of "natural monopolies" (with high barriers to entry and substantial economies of scale) such as last-mile telecommunications services, because deregulation of last-mile oligopolies tends to yield a highly bottlenecked information market following after the bottlenecks that naturally emerge in the information network platform. In such cases, you cannot have a "free market" in both the info-network market and the information market itself. But where the info-network market has no natural tendencies toward monopoly (which would seem to be the case with TLD registries in the absence of an ICANN), a genuinely free info-network market should yield a free information market. So, as long as ICANN maintains a monopoly authority over the operation of gTLDs and restricts TLD operation to a single monopoly operator per gTLD, then it makes a lot of sense for ICANN to explicitly require nondiscriminatory policy for those registries in the registry agreements, which could go a long way toward removing the political problems that emerge from the establishment by registries of exclusive policies with regard to 2LDs. 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 Thu Dec 27 11:28:58 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:28:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <47737756.8040604@cavebear.com> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> <47737756.8040604@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <07CCD1F2-CF33-4B60-A0D2-CEFF902E5065@psg.com> Wow. I am impressed with the propaganda. Really i am - i think displays of propaganda are an art form - things that should be viewed and studied per se. ICANN -> Stalinist Soviet Union Multiple Roots -> with the vaccination against smallpox or the creation of Internet. With the authority St Aquinas brought in as a bolstering argument. Well done! Note: even the use of 'consistent root' as opposed to' single root' is propaganda speech. They really are logically the same thing. Just one is a way of saying we need a mechanism other then ICANN to keep the root consistent. And in this analysis the free market is named as the better mechanism. I am not sure we all agree that the so called 'free market' is the best way to resolve issues of resource allocation. a. On 27 Dec 2007, at 02:19, Karl Auerbach wrote: > ... > In most of the world a new brand of laundry detergent does not apply > to the Worldwide Ministry of Soap for approval. That kind of idea > was tried in numerous 5-year plans in the old USSR and nobody has > ever said that that was a system that was responsive to user needs. > > Rather, a new brand of laundry detergent must fight to build its > brand (name recognition) and obtain space on the shelves of stores. > > There is no reason why TLD creation must occur using the model of a > top-down planned economy (the ICANN method) rather than a > competitive economy in which user choice ultimately determines > success and failure. > > On 27 Dec 2007, at 04:58, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > The fact that relatively few competing root systems exist today is > not, at least not to me, a very strong argument, much less a > persuasive or compelling argument. > > Once upon a time - back in the 1970's - the telcos incessantly > whined that the only way to do data networking was through the use > of switched circuits, and their "big new thing", ISDN, and that > those of us at UCLA, Lincoln Labs, Rand, and SDC ought to forget > this new "alternative view of reality" called packet switching. > > The number of people who used that "alternative view" easily could, > and sometimes did, fit into a single university classroom. > > Yet in the fullness of time that "alternative view of reality" > became today's internet. > > > At one time it seemed like an insane idea to intentionally infect > people with a mild disease (cowpox) as a means to prevent a much > worse disease (smallpox). Yet today, largely based on what was once > considered an insane idea, the world is nearly (and perhaps really) > relieved of what was once a terrible thing. > .. > > > The argument of the IETF and IAB is almost entirely one based solely > on their position as authority rather than sound, testable technical > arguments. This brings to mind the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas (1225– > 1274): Locus ab auctoritate .. est infirmissimus. (The argument > from authority is the weakest form of argument.) > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Dec 27 11:30:16 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:30:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <024501c84862$1bc80f70$b793ba5a@LENOVOA79D6BA6> References: <2037715431@web.de> <024501c84862$1bc80f70$b793ba5a@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Message-ID: I think it's important to note that this opinion of the German professors (at least as described below) relates to the position under German *domestic* law. It does not, as far as one can tell from the summary, address whether these views and conditions have any applicability outside Germany. The opinion of this (US) law professor is that they do not and could not. There are only two sources of law of which I am aware by which they might: cultural property law, and trademark law. Neither provides such rights at the international level. See http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf for details. Thus, as far as ICANN is concerned, the question of whether and how to allocate a geographically descriptive TLD is a pure policy issue, not a legal one. (For what it's worth, I persist in the view that ICANN would be smartest not to even attempt to make these decisions, but rather to allocate the right to choose names to qualified parties, who would then take on the policy and legal burdens of whatever choice they made.) On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN wrote: > Michael, > > thanks for your extensive thread on the .berlin TLD. It gives all of us more > insight on how you see the things. Just let me clairfy a single point: the > proposed "whatever" rights in the name Berlin. > > "According to leading telecommunication, trademark and other law experts in > Germany (Prof. Koenig, Prof. Holznagel, Prof. Hoeren, Prof. Ingerl etc.) the > administration of TLDs like .berlin, .solingen or .bayern (Bavaria) by > private sector entities or entities of the local Internet community complies > with the national legal requirements. Their opinion regarding the particular > aspect of name and trademark rights is: > > Both, the City and the State Berlin have a right in the name “Berlin” under > German laws. These rights can also be enforced as regards the choice of > Second-Level-Domains according to former court rulings (e.g. Heidelberg.de). > Contrarily, the use of names as TLDs cannot be prevented on the basis of > rights to a name, if the TLD is used as a label of geographic origin and > provided that the respective local and national governments are offered the > opportunity to reserve or block Second-Level-Domains within the TLD-Zone > prior to their public allocation (e.g. Senate.berlin, Bundestag.berlin). > > A name is only unlawfully arrogated when the interests of its holder are > violated. The addressed part of the public therefore would have to assume > that there is a direct or indirect connection between the TLD and a certain > governmental authority. In contrast, section 12 of the German Civil Code > (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) does not protect the holder of a name against > other uses of this name which do not lead to a confusion of correlation. > > TLDs do not indicate the service or web site of an individual. They rather > identify respectively constitute name spaces. The relevant part of the > public does not expect a governmental administration of TLDs (see .de). As a > consequence, a local TLD like .berlin will not lead to a confusion of > correlation with regard to the federal capital of Berlin. > > The federal capital does not enjoy a legal protection against a dilution of > its name that goes beyond the danger of confusion. The German Trade Mark Act > (Markengesetz) accepts third partys' – fair – use of city names." > > All of you, have a smooth move to 2008 > > Dirk > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] > Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Dezember 2007 18:40 > An: mueller at syr.edu > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] GeoTLD > > Milton, > > Thanks for your message from December 11th. > > I could easily turn your question around and ask: Where are the titles of > those who want to utilize a famous state or city name (and here I'm not > talking about placeholder concepts like .cat, .nyc or .baires) with a > technology-based monopoly? Different cultures have developed different > approaches regarding the balance between individual freedom and collective > rights. I fully respect the position of colleagues around the world, but at > the same time I strongly believe that decisions with regional impact should > be made based on regional norms and values. Again: The Internet is a global > network, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all decisions have to be > made at a global level. > > Though the German legal system is not as much case based as the US one, it’s > helpful to not only check the wording of the relevant law (especially the > German Civil Code), but also look at relevant court decisions. Obviously, we > don't have a decision on a Geo-gTLD yet, but a number of interesting > high-level decions regarding the use of city names at the second level, e. > g. the solingen-info.de and solingen.info cases from September last year. > Contrary to some others I do not expect that in a decision on a CityTLD the > right of the city and state of Berlin in the name "Berlin" which is > protected under German law would be watered down. But the question is, what > should ICANN do in the meanwhile? Introduce a CityTLD knowing that there is > a serious conflict within the local community? Imagine a situation in which > a negative court ruling would come after the market introduction of the new > TLD. Who would be held liable? > > Should the relevant authorities be allowed to not only not support but also > stop a Geo-gTLD proposal that uses (only) the full string of the relevant > political-administrative entity? Of course they should! Public policy > includes economic policy, and economic policy includes competition policy. > Due to the current structure of the DNS, a full CityTLD necessarily > establishes a technology-based monopoly, or at least a superior market > position. Even dotBerlin admits that a TLD solution is more attractive than > using "Berlin" at the second level, including the fact that in Google > searches domain names using the CityTLD would get a higher ranking (see > www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/advantages-of-the-nyc-tld). The > introduction of a .berlin would primarily not effect the domain name market > in Brasilia, Canberra or Washington D.C., but the one in Berlin. So it's a > decision to be made in Berlin. As long as hundreds of alternatives are > already available or could easily be established (using existing TLD; > introducing new TLD like .city or .metropole; introducing placeholder > CityTLD like .ber, .bln, combined strings like .berlinfriends etc.), I do > not see why any authority should allow somebody to gain a superior market > position. The introduction of a CityTLD using only the name string does not > strengthen competition, but is the end of fair competition. > > The legal and economic assessment has to be made at the local level, not in > Marina del Rey. The core function of ICANN is that of a technical > co-ordination body, and wherever possible, it should stick to that role. > ICANN should especially not try to become a global regulator, watching local > and regional Domain Name markets, finally judging “oh, in city X a Geo-gTLD > may enrich the market, but in city Y it already looks like cut-throat > competition...”. Quite similiar to the ccTLD re-delegation process > (actually, compared to the use of strange two-letter ISO codes the use of a > full geo-string is even more sensitive to the local community), ICANN should > follow exernal decisions and restrict itself to a verification of the > technical expertise of the future registry. > > If you put into question the competence or legitimacy of elected officials > and the public authorities regarding the GeoTLD issue - where do you see the > role of citizens? Should they have a say regarding the use of the name of > the city they live in? As of today, the number of people from Berlin openly > supporting the .berlin proposal via the dotBerlin website is somewhat around > 330, which equals roughly 0.01% of the Berlin population. Is this an > adequate number of supportes? And how many citizens are needed to veto a > CityTLD proposal, e. g. by sending emails to ICANN? Number of supporters > plus one? 10%, 25% or 50% of the population? > > The question of "who speaks for Berlin" is especially important if you > follow the concept of GeoTLD being a sponsored TLD. sTLD require not only a > sponsored community, but also a sponsoring organization. Actually, it is > expected to provide evidence of support from the sponsoring organization. > So, in the case of a CityTLD, who is the sponsoring organization? dotBerlin > claims that it "represents all Berliners in applying for the .berlin TLD > ..." (see www.dotberlin.de/en/about; interestingly nobody in my friends and > family circle has ever given this mandate to the company), but my > understanding of a sTLD is that registry and sponsoring organization should > be seperate entities. Business associations etc. only reflect the position > of specific parts of the society, not the local community at-large. So, who > can represent a city or state, if not those legitimate authorities that do > exactly the same in all other areas? (By the way, I don't think that the > sTLD concept applies to GeoTLD, because if you allow everybody to register > under a certain TLD, there is no precisely defined sponsored community.) > > From my point of view, your question regarding a possible re-naming of a > city in N.J. does not fit into this discussion. Many cities can carry the > name Berlin without seriously effeting each other, so why should there be a > problem? This is not the monopoly situation of a CityTLD using the Berlin > string. Same goes for using the string in book titles etc. > > Regarding your remark on ALAC: If you subscribe to my model in which, > regarding full Geo-gTLD, the ICANN board simply follows decisions made at > the local or regional level, than there is no need to talk about ALAC. But > if you see it as an internal ICANN process, than you have to answer the > question how to integrate the relevant ICANN constituencies, and this does > not only include the GNSO, but also the GAC and, of course, the ALAC. > > Enjoy the Holiday season, > > Michael > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 30 Tage > kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 vb at bertola.eu Mon Dec 31 05:04:18 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:04:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Taking Stock of Rio - IGC submission? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4778BEA2.5020406@bertola.eu> Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for > taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on > the renewal of the Advisory Group (see > http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0)? Having just > returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own responses in any case, > but I would love to see something from the IGC (and would be happy to > contribute to it, though it's more appropriate for you to coordinate). I think we have to, and of course would be willing to help, though I would first like that we fix the situation with the coordinatorship, my mandate having expired at the end of the IGF. -- 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 vb at bertola.eu Mon Dec 31 05:15:02 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:15:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: GeoTLD In-Reply-To: <4773FA19.4060404@cavebear.com> References: <2037715431@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110CCF8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4773520E.9030808@cavebear.com> <000b01c84866$3dec2790$b9c476b0$@net> <47737756.8040604@cavebear.com> <07CCD1F2-CF33-4B60-A0D2-CEFF902E5065@psg.com> <4773FA19.4060404@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4778C126.3010000@bertola.eu> Karl Auerbach ha scritto: > And ICANN has made itself an easy subject for such tools: ICANN has > taken number of its structural cues from the old Soviet Union - > everything from the ALAC having a structure that bears a surprising > resemblance to the faux-democratic system of village soviets (ALSO's), > regional soviets (RALO's), and a supreme soviet (Nomcom) Well, happy new year to you and to everyone on the list, from all the commies at ICANN! I'm sure that in 2008 all those reds like Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson will finally get what they deserve :-D -- 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 avri at psg.com Mon Dec 31 11:51:05 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:51:05 -0500 Subject: coordinator election stuff Re: [governance] Taking Stock of Rio - IGC submission? In-Reply-To: <4778BEA2.5020406@bertola.eu> References: <4778BEA2.5020406@bertola.eu> Message-ID: On 31 Dec 2007, at 05:04, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > though I would first like that we fix the situation with the > coordinatorship, just to let you all know, the system with the voting software we used last time is about to be rebuilt and moved and it will be a while before i have that, or any other, voting system running again. so we will need to find another solution. it is still my hope that somewhere, somehow, someday someone will set up a reliable/verifiable/... vote server for free CS group voting. i might still be able to do so at some point, but not right now. maybe someone else has the capability they can let the IGC use. sorry. 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 Dec 31 14:30:23 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:30:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [afnog] AAAA records to be added for root servers In-Reply-To: <49878589-D2C2-485F-98D2-4A57127CFDFB@icann.org> References: <49878589-D2C2-485F-98D2-4A57127CFDFB@icann.org> Message-ID: Happy New Year indeed! ;-) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Barbara Roseman Date: Dec 31, 2007 9:05 PM Subject: [afnog] AAAA records to be added for root servers To: ietf at ietf.org, dnsop at ietf.org, sanog at sanog.org, nanog at nanog.org, afnog at afnog.org, dns-operations at mail.oarc.isc.org, dns-wg at ripe.net, gacsec at gac.icann.org, lacnog at lacnic.net, ac-coord' AC , caribnog at caribnog.net, alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org, announce at gnso.icann.org, ccnsosecretariat at icann.org, ppml at arin.net, anuncios at lacnic.net, apnic-talk at apnic.net, ncc-services-wg at ripe.net, announce at afrinic.net, pacnog at pacnog.org, ipv6-wg at ripe.net apologies for cross-posting... On 4 February 2008, IANA will add AAAA records for the IPv6 addresses of the four root servers whose operators have requested it. A technical analysis of inserting IPv6 records into the root has been done by a joint working group of ICANN's Root Server System Advisory Committee and Security and Stability Advisory Committee, a report of which can be found at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ sac018.pdf. Network operators should take whatever steps they feel appropriate to prepare for the inclusion of AAAA records in response to root queries. More information will be posted to the IANA web site during January. Regards, Barbara Roseman IANA General OperationsManager ICANN _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Dec 31 22:17:19 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:17:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village! Message-ID: 'One Laptop' a hit in Peruvian village http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/25/onelaptop.onevillage.ap/index.html Story Highlights: * 50 primary school children in hilltop Andean village using "One Laptop" machines * Peru has ordered more than 272,000 machines for 9,000 elementary schools * Project the brainchild of former MIT Media Lab director Nicholas Negroponte - ARAHUAY, Peru (AP) -- Doubts about whether poor, rural children really can benefit from quirky little computers evaporate as quickly as the morning dew in this hilltop Andean village, where 50 primary school children got machines from the One Laptop Per Child project six months ago. These offspring of peasant families whose monthly earnings rarely exceed the cost of one of the $188 laptops -- people who can ill afford pencil and paper much less books -- can't get enough of their "XO" laptops. At breakfast, they're already powering up the combination library/videocam/audio recorder/music maker/drawing kits. At night, they're dozing off in front of them -- if they've managed to keep older siblings from waylaying the coveted machines. "It's really the kind of conditions that we designed for," Walter Bender, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff, said of this agrarian backwater up a precarious dirt road. Founded in 2005 by former MIT Media Lab director Nicholas Negroponte, the One Laptop program has retreated from early boasts that developing-world governments would snap up millions of the pint-sized laptops at $100 each. In a backhanded tribute, One Laptop now faces homegrown competitors everywhere from Brazil to India -- and a full-court press from Intel Corp.'s more power-hungry Classmate. But no competitor approaches the XO in innovation. It is hard drive-free, runs on the Linux operating system and stretches wireless networks with "mesh" technology that lets each computer in a village relay data to the others. Mass production began last month and Negroponte, brother of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, says he expects at least 1.5 million machines to be sold by next November. Even that would be far less than Negroponte originally envisioned. The higher-than-initially-advertised price and a lack of the Windows operating system, still being tested for the XO, have dissuaded many potential government buyers. Peru made the single biggest order to date -- more than 272,000 machines -- in its quest to turn around a primary education system that the World Economic Forum recently ranked last among 131 countries surveyed. Uruguay was the No. 2 buyers of the laptops, inking a contract for 100,000. Negroponte said 150,000 more laptops will get shipped to countries including Rwanda, Mongolia, Haiti, and Afghanistan in early 2008 through "Give One, Get One," a U.S.-based promotion ending December 31 in which you buy a pair of laptops for $399 and donate one or both. The children of Arahuay prove One Laptop's transformative conceit: that you can revolutionize education and democratize the Internet by giving a simple, durable, power-stingy but feature-packed laptop to the worlds' poorest kids. "Some tell me that they don't want to be like their parents, working in the fields," first-grade teacher Erica Velasco says of her pupils. She had just sent them to the Internet to seek out photos of invertebrates -- animals without backbones. Antony, 12, wants to become an accountant. Alex, 7, aspires to be a lawyer. Kevin, 9, wants to play trumpet. Saida, 10, is already a promising videographer, judging from her artful recording of the town's recent Fiesta de la Virgen. "What they work with most is the (built-in) camera. They love to record," says Maria Antonieta Mendoza, an Education Ministry psychologist studying the Arahuay pilot to devise strategies for the big rollout when the new school year begins in March. Before the laptops, the only cameras the kids at Santiago Apostol school saw in this population-800 hamlet arrived with tourists who visit for festivals or to see local Inca ruins. Arahuay's lone industry is agriculture. Surrounding fields yield avocados, mangoes, potatoes, corn, alfalfa and cherimoya. Many adults share only weekends with their children, spending the work week in fields many hours' walk from town and relying on charities to help keep their families nourished. When they finish school, young people tend to abandon the village. Peru's head of educational technology, Oscar Becerra, is betting the One Laptop program can reverse this rural exodus to the squalor of Lima's shantytowns four hours away. It's the best answer yet to "a global crisis of education" in which curricula have no relevance, he said. "If we make education pertinent, something the student enjoys, then it won't matter if the classroom's walls are straw or the students are sitting on fruit boxes." Indeed, Arahuay's elementary school population rose by 10 when families learned the laptop pilot was coming, said Guillermo Lazo, the school's director. The XOs that Peru is buying will be distributed to pupils in 9,000 elementary schools from the Pacific to the Amazon basin where a single teacher serves all grades, Becerra said. Although Peru boasts thousands of rural satellite downlinks that provide Internet access, only about 4,000 of the schools getting XOs will be connected, said Becerra. Negroponte says One Laptop is committed to helping Peru overcome that hurdle. Without Internet access, he believes, the program is incomplete. Teachers will get 2� days of training on the laptops, Becerra said. Each machine will initially be loaded with about 100 copyright-free books. Where applicable, texts in native languages will be included, he added. The machines will also have a chat function that will let kids make faraway friends over the Internet. Critics of the rollout have two key concerns. The first is the ability of teachers -- poorly trained and equipped to begin with -- to cope with profoundly disruptive technology. Eduardo Villanueva, a communications professor at Lima's Catholic University, fears "a general disruption of the educational system that will manifest itself in the students overwhelming the teachers." To counter that fear, Becerra said the government is offering $150 grants to qualifying teachers toward the purchase of conventional laptops, for which it is also arranging low-interest loans. The second big concern is maintenance. For every 100 units it will distribute to students, Peru is buying one extra for parts. But there is no tech support program. Students and teachers will have to do it. "What you want is for the kids to do the repairs," said Negroponte, who believes such tinkering is itself a valuable lesson. "I think the kids can repair 95 percent of the laptops." Tech support is nevertheless a serious issue in many countries, Negroponte acknowledged in a phone interview. One Laptop is currently bidding on a contract with Brazil's government that Negroponte says demanded unrealistically onerous support requirements. The XO machines are water resistant, rugged and designed to last five years. They have no fan so they won't suck up dust, are built to withstand drops from a meter and a half and can absorb power spikes typical of places with irregular electricity. Mendoza, the psychologist, is overjoyed that the program stipulates that kids get ownership of the laptops. Take Kevin, the aspiring trumpet player. Sitting in his dirt-floor kitchen as his mother cooks lunch, he draws a soccer field on his XO, then erases it. Kevin plays a song by "Caliente," his favorite combo, that he recorded off Arahuay's single TV channel. He shows a reporter photos he took of him with his 3-year-old brother. A bare light bulb hangs by a wire from the ceiling. A hen bobs around the floor. There are no books in this two-room house. Kevin's parents didn't get past the sixth grade. Indeed, the laptop project also has adults in its sights. Parents in Arahuay are asking Mendoza, the visiting psychologist, what the Internet can do for them. Among them is Charito Arrendondo, 39, who sheds brief tears of joy when a reporter asks what the laptop belonging to ruddy-cheeked Miluska -- the youngest of her six children -- has meant to her. Miluska's father, it turns out, abandoned the family when she was 1. "We never imagined having a computer," said Arrendondo, a cook. Is she afraid to use the laptop, as is typical of many Arahuay parents, about half of whom are illiterate? "No, I like it. Sometimes when I'm alone and the kids are not around I turn it on and poke around." Arrendondo likes to play checkers on the laptop. "It's also got chess, which I sort of know," she said, pausing briefly. "I'm going to learn." -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance