From christine at apdip.net Mon Jan 8 00:38:41 2007 From: christine at apdip.net (christine) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:38:41 +0700 Subject: [governance] UNDP-APDIP Releases a Study of Pro-Poor e-Governance Projects in India Message-ID: <00f001c732e7$416ac920$8e0aa8c0@undp.or.th> Empowering the Poor Information and Communications Technology for Governance and Poverty Reduction - A Study of Rural Development Projects in India Authors: Roger Harris and Rajesh Rajora (Foreword by Prof. M. S. Swaminathan) C UNDP-APDIP, Elsevier, 2006 ISBN: 81-312-0629-7 http://www.apdip.net/news/empoweringthepoor to download publication It is widely believed that, if used appropriately, information and communications technology (ICT) are effective tools in the fight against poverty. As India's poverty is deepening and its ICT industry booming, there are many projects underway that are using ICT to reduce poverty and promote good governance. This publication, with a foreword by Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, is the product of a research study that systematically analyzes 18 projects in India that use ICT for the benefit of poor people, and provides recommendations on how ICT can be applied to the massive, widespread and seemingly intractable problems of poverty. The intention of this research study was to understand what influences will determine the extent to which projects like these can be scaled up from what often appears to be a perpetual pilot syndrome; either to greater use within existing recipient beneficiaries (infusion) or among wider beneficiary populations (diffusion), or both. Projects were analyzed and ranked by their relevance, service delivery, community participation and empowerment, equality in decision-making and benefits, sustainability, replicability and their prospects for being scaled-up. This research study is a joint initiative of UNDP-APDIP, UNDP India and the Government of India's Department of Personnel and Training. It was guided by an advisory group of eminent researchers and practitioners. Questionnaires were completed by 2,156 project beneficiaries and interviews were conducted with project stakeholders and personnel. The lessons learned from India's experiences can guide the Nation's future directions, as well as that of other countries. The publication is an ideal resource not only for government officers, but also development practitioners and ICT for development researchers. This publication is part of the trilogy of UNDP-APDIP ICT4D Case Studies. Other published titles include: * Breaking Barriers: The Potential of Free and Open Source Software for Sustainable Human Development - A Compilation of Case Studies from Across the World * Exploring New Modalities: Experiences with Information and Communications Technology Interventions in the Asia-Pacific Region - A Review and Analysis of the Pan-Asia ICT R&D Grants Programme All UNDP-APDIP publications are available for free download at http://www.apdip.net/elibrary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54422 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From aizu at anr.org Mon Jan 8 03:33:56 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:33:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team Message-ID: Dear list, A Happy New Year to all! As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our ideas clearly. If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the selection process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as possible. Thanks, izumi ----------------------- Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team A) Qualified IGC member Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members. Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom process started on November 20th 2006.) B) Qualifications Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community. C) Diversity and balance Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: - Geographic and cultural diversity - Gender - Age - Skill set and knowledge - Disability These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. D) Others To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time. -- end -- For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal Team - by Jan 8 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rishi at gipi.org.in Mon Jan 8 03:54:22 2007 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:24:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, Regarding point A) Definition of Member - The current definition means that those members of the CS-IGC who have not subscribed to the charter are not eligible for being part of Appeal team. Is this the intent? Regards Rishi Chawla www.ictpolicy.org New Delhi, India -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team Dear list, A Happy New Year to all! As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our ideas clearly. If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the selection process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as possible. Thanks, izumi ----------------------- Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team A) Qualified IGC member Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members. Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom process started on November 20th 2006.) B) Qualifications Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community. C) Diversity and balance Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: - Geographic and cultural diversity - Gender - Age - Skill set and knowledge - Disability These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. D) Others To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time. -- end -- For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal Team - by Jan 8 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Jan 8 04:05:10 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:05:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Rishi, Thank you for the clarification question. There can be two interpretations: a) s/he has subscribed to the Charter - voted YES - when we adopted it. b) s/he will make clear to subscribe/support the Carter, irrespective of the vote I thought it is b), but we at Nomcom have not defined it (yet). We should and we will. What is your opinion? Thanks, izumi 2007/1/8, Rishi Chawla : > Dear Izumi, > > Regarding point A) Definition of Member - The current definition means that > those members of the CS-IGC who have not subscribed to the charter are not > eligible for being part of Appeal team. Is this the intent? > > Regards > > Rishi Chawla > www.ictpolicy.org > New Delhi, India > > -----Original Message----- > From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > Dear list, > > A Happy New Year to all! > > As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, > Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following > as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. > > We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our ideas > clearly. > If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on > this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think > additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. > > In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, > so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on > Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the selection > process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection > work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as > possible. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > ----------------------- > Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > A) Qualified IGC member > Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS > IGC) members. > > Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the > IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the > appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom > process started on November 20th 2006.) > > B) Qualifications > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment > to consultation and dialogue with the community. > > C) Diversity and balance > Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The > attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: > - Geographic and cultural diversity > - Gender > - Age > - Skill set and knowledge > - Disability > > These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. > > D) Others > To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a > particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given > time. > > -- end -- > > For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: > > 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal Team > - by Jan 8 > > 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 > > 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 > > 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 > > 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 > > 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 > > 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Jan 8 04:16:35 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 04:16:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24249D58-2FC8-4FD4-8922-7B9321686A33@psg.com> hi, i don't think you have any way to ascertain that someone voted yes on the charter vote. if can be ascertained _that_ they voted on the charter vote or the coordinator vote which means they self identified as members, but now how they voted. also it can be ascertained that someone was a member of the list by a certain date. a. On 8 jan 2007, at 04.05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Rishi, > > Thank you for the clarification question. > > There can be two interpretations: > a) s/he has subscribed to the Charter - voted YES - when we adopted > it. > b) s/he will make clear to subscribe/support the Carter, irrespective > of the vote > > I thought it is b), but we at Nomcom have not defined it (yet). We > should and we will. What is your opinion? > > Thanks, > > izumi > > 2007/1/8, Rishi Chawla : >> Dear Izumi, >> >> Regarding point A) Definition of Member - The current definition >> means that >> those members of the CS-IGC who have not subscribed to the charter >> are not >> eligible for being part of Appeal team. Is this the intent? >> >> Regards >> >> Rishi Chawla >> www.ictpolicy.org >> New Delhi, India >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] >> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:04 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team >> >> >> Dear list, >> >> A Happy New Year to all! >> >> As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, >> Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following >> as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. >> >> We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our >> ideas >> clearly. >> If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on >> this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think >> additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. >> >> In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, >> so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on >> Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the >> selection >> process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection >> work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as >> possible. >> >> Thanks, >> >> izumi >> >> ----------------------- >> Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team >> >> A) Qualified IGC member >> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS >> IGC) members. >> >> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the >> IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the >> appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The >> Nomcom >> process started on November 20th 2006.) >> >> B) Qualifications >> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and >> experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. >> >> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and >> unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) >> commitment >> to consultation and dialogue with the community. >> >> C) Diversity and balance >> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The >> attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: >> - Geographic and cultural diversity >> - Gender >> - Age >> - Skill set and knowledge >> - Disability >> >> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. >> >> D) Others >> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a >> particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given >> time. >> >> -- end -- >> >> For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: >> >> 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for >> Appeal Team >> - by Jan 8 >> >> 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 >> >> 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 >> >> 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 >> >> 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 >> >> 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 >> >> 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society >> Kumon Center, Tama University >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rishi at gipi.org.in Mon Jan 8 04:25:40 2007 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:55:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, I agree with you on this. It should be (b). If the member has not voted he will give a declaration that he subscribes to the charter. If he has voted in negative earlier, his declaration would over-ride his earlier vote. I suggest the delaration should start with the phrase "Notwithstanding anything communicated earlier ....... or Notwithstanding the position taken during the voing process, I undertake to subscribe / support the CS-IGC Charter" Rishi Chawla www.ictpolicy.org New Delhi, India -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza at anr.org] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rishi Chawla Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team Dear Rishi, Thank you for the clarification question. There can be two interpretations: a) s/he has subscribed to the Charter - voted YES - when we adopted it. b) s/he will make clear to subscribe/support the Carter, irrespective of the vote I thought it is b), but we at Nomcom have not defined it (yet). We should and we will. What is your opinion? Thanks, izumi 2007/1/8, Rishi Chawla : > Dear Izumi, > > Regarding point A) Definition of Member - The current definition means that > those members of the CS-IGC who have not subscribed to the charter are not > eligible for being part of Appeal team. Is this the intent? > > Regards > > Rishi Chawla > www.ictpolicy.org > New Delhi, India > > -----Original Message----- > From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > Dear list, > > A Happy New Year to all! > > As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, > Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following > as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. > > We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our ideas > clearly. > If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on > this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think > additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. > > In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, > so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on > Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the selection > process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection > work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as > possible. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > ----------------------- > Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > A) Qualified IGC member > Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS > IGC) members. > > Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the > IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the > appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom > process started on November 20th 2006.) > > B) Qualifications > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment > to consultation and dialogue with the community. > > C) Diversity and balance > Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The > attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: > - Geographic and cultural diversity > - Gender > - Age > - Skill set and knowledge > - Disability > > These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. > > D) Others > To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a > particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given > time. > > -- end -- > > For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: > > 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal Team > - by Jan 8 > > 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 > > 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 > > 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 > > 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 > > 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 > > 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 8 07:37:55 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:07:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070108123755.70751E1B87@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear everyone, A happy new year to everyone; and thanks to the noncom for all the good work. I have the following suggestions on the selection criteria for the noncom to consider. > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. Can we replace 'neutrality' with 'fairness and discretion'. This 'neutrality' word makes me uncomfortable.... And similarly see if you will like to change > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > unbiased consideration to > The successful candidate should be a person, who in the role of judgment on the behalf of the IGC, is with (thoughtful and) > unbiased consideration Regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi > AIZU > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > Dear list, > > A Happy New Year to all! > > As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, > Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following > as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. > > We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our ideas > clearly. > If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on > this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think > additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. > > In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, > so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on > Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the selection > process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection > work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as > possible. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > ----------------------- > Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > A) Qualified IGC member > Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS > IGC) members. > > Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the > IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the > appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom > process started on November 20th 2006.) > > B) Qualifications > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment > to consultation and dialogue with the community. > > C) Diversity and balance > Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The > attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: > - Geographic and cultural diversity > - Gender > - Age > - Skill set and knowledge > - Disability > > These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. > > D) Others > To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a > particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given > time. > > -- end -- > > For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: > > 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal > Team > - by Jan 8 > > 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 > > 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 > > 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 > > 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 > > 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 > > 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 08:15:19 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:15:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <20070108123755.70751E1B87@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070108123755.70751E1B87@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Dear All I agree with Parminder on what he says concerning the succesful candidate. But can he kindly let bare his mind on the worries concerning neutrality which to my understanding refers to fairness. regards Nyangkwe On 1/8/07, Parminder wrote: > > > Dear everyone, > > A happy new year to everyone; and thanks to the noncom for all the good > work. > > I have the following suggestions on the selection criteria for the noncom to > consider. > > > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > Can we replace 'neutrality' with 'fairness and discretion'. This > 'neutrality' word makes me uncomfortable.... > > > And similarly see if you will like to change > > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > > unbiased consideration > > to > > > The successful candidate should be a person, who in the role of judgment > on the behalf of the IGC, is with (thoughtful and) > > unbiased consideration > > > Regards > > Parminder > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi > > AIZU > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:04 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > > Dear list, > > > > A Happy New Year to all! > > > > As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, > > Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following > > as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. > > > > We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our ideas > > clearly. > > If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on > > this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think > > additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. > > > > In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, > > so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on > > Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the selection > > process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection > > work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as > > possible. > > > > Thanks, > > > > izumi > > > > ----------------------- > > Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > > A) Qualified IGC member > > Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS > > IGC) members. > > > > Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the > > IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the > > appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom > > process started on November 20th 2006.) > > > > B) Qualifications > > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > > unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment > > to consultation and dialogue with the community. > > > > C) Diversity and balance > > Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The > > attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: > > - Geographic and cultural diversity > > - Gender > > - Age > > - Skill set and knowledge > > - Disability > > > > These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. > > > > D) Others > > To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a > > particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given > > time. > > > > -- end -- > > > > For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: > > > > 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal > > Team > > - by Jan 8 > > > > 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 > > > > 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 > > > > 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 > > > > 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 > > > > 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 > > > > 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > > Kumon Center, Tama University > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 8 08:31:54 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:01:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070108133154.C8190C943F@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I agree with Parminder on what he says concerning the succesful candidate. > But can he kindly let bare his mind on the worries concerning > neutrality which to my understanding refers to fairness. > regards > Nyangkwe Nothing much, just the 'fairness' and 'discretion' terms appear more suited to the purpose... 'Neutrality' is a term we need to use with caution in a context which, like the IGC, is a quite socio-political, and advocacy oriented..... I am fine with a person being expected to be neutral in exercise of a specific judicial conduct, like in acting as a part of an appeals team, but not if expected to be neutral per se (whatever it means)as a criterion of selection. Thanks Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:45 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > Dear All > > I agree with Parminder on what he says concerning the succesful candidate. > But can he kindly let bare his mind on the worries concerning > neutrality which to my understanding refers to fairness. > regards > Nyangkwe > > On 1/8/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > Dear everyone, > > > > A happy new year to everyone; and thanks to the noncom for all the good > > work. > > > > I have the following suggestions on the selection criteria for the > noncom to > > consider. > > > > > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > > > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > > > Can we replace 'neutrality' with 'fairness and discretion'. This > > 'neutrality' word makes me uncomfortable.... > > > > > > And similarly see if you will like to change > > > > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > > > unbiased consideration > > > > to > > > > > The successful candidate should be a person, who in the role of > judgment > > on the behalf of the IGC, is with (thoughtful and) > > > unbiased consideration > > > > > > Regards > > > > Parminder > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Izumi > > > AIZU > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:04 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > > > > Dear list, > > > > > > A Happy New Year to all! > > > > > > As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, > > > Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following > > > as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. > > > > > > We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our > ideas > > > clearly. > > > If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on > > > this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think > > > additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. > > > > > > In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, > > > so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on > > > Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the selection > > > process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection > > > work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as > > > possible. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > izumi > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > > > > A) Qualified IGC member > > > Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS > > > IGC) members. > > > > > > Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the > > > IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the > > > appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom > > > process started on November 20th 2006.) > > > > > > B) Qualifications > > > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > > > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > > > > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > > > unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment > > > to consultation and dialogue with the community. > > > > > > C) Diversity and balance > > > Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The > > > attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: > > > - Geographic and cultural diversity > > > - Gender > > > - Age > > > - Skill set and knowledge > > > - Disability > > > > > > These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. > > > > > > D) Others > > > To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a > > > particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given > > > time. > > > > > > -- end -- > > > > > > For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: > > > > > > 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal > > > Team > > > - by Jan 8 > > > > > > 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 > > > > > > 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 > > > > > > 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 > > > > > > 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 > > > > > > 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 > > > > > > 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 > > > > > > -- > > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > > > Kumon Center, Tama University > > > * * * * * > > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > ASAFE > Tel. 237 337 50 22 > Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 09:40:16 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:40:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <20070108133154.C8190C943F@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070108133154.C8190C943F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: In that case, fairness should play the trick and spare some of us on IGC from suffering from moral gitters. It will also ignite a broader inclusive participation. Nyangkwe On 1/8/07, Parminder wrote: > > > I agree with Parminder on what he says concerning the succesful candidate. > > But can he kindly let bare his mind on the worries concerning > > neutrality which to my understanding refers to fairness. > > regards > > Nyangkwe > > Nothing much, just the 'fairness' and 'discretion' terms appear more suited > to the purpose... > > 'Neutrality' is a term we need to use with caution in a context which, like > the IGC, is a quite socio-political, and advocacy oriented..... I am fine > with a person being expected to be neutral in exercise of a specific > judicial conduct, like in acting as a part of an appeals team, but not if > expected to be neutral per se (whatever it means)as a criterion of > selection. > > Thanks > > Parminder > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:45 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > > Dear All > > > > I agree with Parminder on what he says concerning the succesful candidate. > > But can he kindly let bare his mind on the worries concerning > > neutrality which to my understanding refers to fairness. > > regards > > Nyangkwe > > > > On 1/8/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear everyone, > > > > > > A happy new year to everyone; and thanks to the noncom for all the good > > > work. > > > > > > I have the following suggestions on the selection criteria for the > > noncom to > > > consider. > > > > > > > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > > > > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > > > > > Can we replace 'neutrality' with 'fairness and discretion'. This > > > 'neutrality' word makes me uncomfortable.... > > > > > > > > > And similarly see if you will like to change > > > > > > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > > > > unbiased consideration > > > > > > to > > > > > > > The successful candidate should be a person, who in the role of > > judgment > > > on the behalf of the IGC, is with (thoughtful and) > > > > unbiased consideration > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > > Izumi > > > > AIZU > > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:04 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > > > > > > Dear list, > > > > > > > > A Happy New Year to all! > > > > > > > > As announced in the time line attached at the end of this e-mail, > > > > Nomcom for Appeals Team would like to propose the following > > > > as the criteria for selecting the Appeals Team members. > > > > > > > > We tried to be as simple as possible, but also like to convey our > > ideas > > > > clearly. > > > > If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on > > > > this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think > > > > additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. > > > > > > > > In the mean time, we will send out the Call for Nomination tomorrow, > > > > so that people can start to volunteer. Upon closing the nomination on > > > > Jan 21, which is our mutual challenge, Nomcom will begin the selection > > > > process. So, we should fix the criteria before starting the selection > > > > work. Please get ready to nominate as many good candidates as > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team > > > > > > > > A) Qualified IGC member > > > > Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS > > > > IGC) members. > > > > > > > > Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the > > > > IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the > > > > appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom > > > > process started on November 20th 2006.) > > > > > > > > B) Qualifications > > > > Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and > > > > experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality. > > > > > > > > The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and > > > > unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment > > > > to consultation and dialogue with the community. > > > > > > > > C) Diversity and balance > > > > Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The > > > > attributes to be considered include, but not limited to: > > > > - Geographic and cultural diversity > > > > - Gender > > > > - Age > > > > - Skill set and knowledge > > > > - Disability > > > > > > > > These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement. > > > > > > > > D) Others > > > > To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a > > > > particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given > > > > time. > > > > > > > > -- end -- > > > > > > > > For your reference, the time line announced is as follows: > > > > > > > > 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal > > > > Team > > > > - by Jan 8 > > > > > > > > 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 > > > > > > > > 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 > > > > > > > > 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 > > > > > > > > 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 > > > > > > > > 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 > > > > > > > > 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 > > > > > > > > -- > > > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > > > > Kumon Center, Tama University > > > > * * * * * > > > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > > > www.anr.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > -- > > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > > Special Assistant To The President > > ASAFE > > Tel. 237 337 50 22 > > Fax. 237 342 29 70 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Jan 8 09:57:31 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:57:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A25BDB.2000400@bertola.eu.org> Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > If you have any comment, suggestions or questions, please put them on > this list. The criteria below is close to final, but if we think > additional suggestions make more sense, we will incorporate them. I think they are a good set of criteria, and moreover we trust the people who are in the Nomcom to apply them in the right way; people taking care of appeals should be particularly balanced and able to distinguish between facts (e.g. consensus or rough consensus) and personal opinions. About the Charter, I think that people who serve in this group - which is established by the Charter - implicitly accept the Charter itself, but if this makes people more comfortable we might ask to those selected to send a message to the list confirming their acceptance of the Charter. Thanks anyway for the hard work! -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Jan 8 10:01:35 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:01:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Next IGF consultations Message-ID: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> All, it's just one month to Feb 13, the first IGF-07 consultation, so perhaps we should start to discuss what do we want to do for that event. Do we want to have a statement? I think that we could try to draft a statement about one or more of the following matters (additions welcome): - main subjects for the IGF 2007 - structure and membership of the next IGF-AG - dynamic coalitions: how they work, what do we do with the outputs etc What does the caucus think? Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Jan 8 10:11:48 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:11:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <45A25F34.8020001@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > it's just one month to Feb 13, the first IGF-07 consultation, Thanks for reminding us. > - dynamic coalitions: how they work, what do we do with the outputs etc > Does anybody know if there will be some space and time for dynamic coalitions to have meetings of their members and maybe even get some work done? Like half a day or even a full day back-to-back with the consultations? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 8 10:18:24 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:18:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45A25F34.8020001@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> <45A25F34.8020001@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: At 4:11 PM +0100 1/8/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >>it's just one month to Feb 13, the first IGF-07 consultation, >Thanks for reminding us. > >>- dynamic coalitions: how they work, what do we do with the outputs etc >> >Does anybody know if there will be some space and time for dynamic >coalitions to have meetings of their members and maybe even get some >work done? Like half a day or even a full day back-to-back with the >consultations? This hasn't been raised in the advisory group. I will ask. My guess is UN space would be very tight, Markus was having trouble confirming the dates for the consultations (remember to took a while to confirm the February dates.) Doesn't hurt to ask. Would rooms at lunch on Feb 13 be better than nothing? Adam >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Jan 8 10:20:41 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:20:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <45A26149.6020104@wz-berlin.de> Hi, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > All, > > it's just one month to Feb 13, the first IGF-07 consultation, so perhaps > we should start to discuss what do we want to do for that event. Do we > want to have a statement? > > I think that we could try to draft a statement about one or more of the > following matters (additions welcome): > - main subjects for the IGF 2007 > - structure and membership of the next IGF-AG > - dynamic coalitions: how they work, what do we do with the outputs etc > > What does the caucus think? Further topics I find relevant: * funding for travel grants * broadening of participation: how can we convince the organizations and companies that are relevant for the IG related WSIS follow up to attend the IGF? (As an example, would it not be nice to have a panel with those companies/providers that are actually involved in setting the interconnection prices?) * the governments' attitude towards the forum: it is a problem if governments only listen but don't participate or commit themselves. * workshop modalities: we should encourage the secretariat to maintain last year's selection procedure with everybody being invited to suggest themes and panelists for workshops, and all workshops are accepted as long as there is enough capacity. jeanette > > Ciao, ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 8 10:27:20 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:27:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: >All, > >it's just one month to Feb 13, the first IGF-07 consultation, so >perhaps we should start to discuss what do we want to do for that >event. Do we want to have a statement? > >I think that we could try to draft a statement about one or more of >the following matters (additions welcome): >- main subjects for the IGF 2007 >- structure and membership of the next IGF-AG >- dynamic coalitions: how they work, what do we do with the outputs etc coalitions -- would be good if the caucus to coordinate with civil society members of these groups and see what they feel they need. Not all we heard of in Athens seem to have sent descriptions to the coalition page 5 there now. I think there were more proposed in Athens.? I think it would be a boost to the standing of the coalitions in the overall process if each could report on what they've done since Athens. Short summary would be good to see before the Advisory Group meeting on Feb 12. >What does the caucus think? I thought people wanted to know what was happening with enhanced cooperation and someone would draft a letter to Nitin Desai asking for an update (so we'd know how to approach the question in the consultation.) Nothing to report from the advisory group, not news since the confirmation of the meeting dates last December 21st. Would be good to hear news of the stock taking exercise, but may not be for a couple of weeks. Thanks, Adam >Ciao, >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Jan 8 10:38:01 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:38:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <45A26559.8050601@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > I thought people wanted to know what was happening with enhanced > cooperation and someone would draft a letter to Nitin Desai asking for > an update (so we'd know how to approach the question in the consultation.) We should actually send that letter, it's an important point - however, AFAIK, it seems that many governments are now interpreting "enhanced cooperation" as "a slightly reformed GAC inside ICANN". -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jan 8 10:50:51 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:50:51 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Enhanced cooperation References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> <45A26559.8050601@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D020@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Vittorio: It seems that many governments are now interpreting "enhanced cooperation" as "a slightly reformed GAC inside ICANN. Wolfgang: There is great and growing confusion, fueled by the ITU 102 Resolution. It would make sense to produce a one or two page paper what CS (the Caucus) thinks about "EC". Madame Redings interpretation in Athens was, that this is a "governmental only" process which is the core of the issue while the IGF is more or less the "environment". But the Tunis text allows much broader interpretations. Even within the EU not everybody shares the position of the Commissioner. And David Gross shaked his head when Reding made this statement in Athens. Before other fill explicitly the empty space, we should make our voice heard. Probably this will contribute - for the moment - to the general confusion but this is better than to accept a one sided interpretation and a turn into the wrong direction. It can stimulate discussion. Best regards w [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 8 10:54:28 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:54:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <45A26559.8050601@bertola.eu.org> References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> <45A26559.8050601@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: At 4:38 PM +0100 1/8/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>I thought people wanted to know what was happening with enhanced >>cooperation and someone would draft a letter to Nitin Desai asking >>for an update (so we'd know how to approach the question in the >>consultation.) > >We should actually send that letter, it's an important point - >however, AFAIK, it seems that many governments are now interpreting >"enhanced cooperation" as "a slightly reformed GAC inside ICANN". I agree, they do see it that way. But Nitin was asked by the Secretary General to look into how to convene the process, so I would still hope he can respond. (I am actually only following up on a general comments from a few members last year -- my preference is still for "enhanced cooperation" to be kept out of the IGF. But if its something the caucus would like us to push in the MAG then I think we need this kind of information.) >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Jan 8 10:59:46 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:59:46 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D020@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> <45A26559.8050601@bertola.eu.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D020@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <45A26A72.70009@wz-berlin.de> Hi Wolfgang, is this really worth it? Why disturbing the funeral? Enhanced cooperation seems such a dead horse... jeanette Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Vittorio: It seems that many governments are now interpreting > "enhanced cooperation" as "a slightly reformed GAC inside ICANN. > > Wolfgang: There is great and growing confusion, fueled by the ITU 102 > Resolution. It would make sense to produce a one or two page paper > what CS (the Caucus) thinks about "EC". Madame Redings interpretation > in Athens was, that this is a "governmental only" process which is > the core of the issue while the IGF is more or less the > "environment". But the Tunis text allows much broader > interpretations. Even within the EU not everybody shares the position > of the Commissioner. And David Gross shaked his head when Reding made > this statement in Athens. Before other fill explicitly the empty > space, we should make our voice heard. Probably this will contribute > - for the moment - to the general confusion but this is better than > to accept a one sided interpretation and a turn into the wrong > direction. It can stimulate discussion. > > Best regards > > w > > > > > [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jan 8 11:05:18 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:05:18 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Enhanced cooperation References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> <45A26559.8050601@bertola.eu.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D020@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <45A26A72.70009@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D021@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeanette: Why disturbing the funeral? Enhanced cooperation seems such a dead horse... Wolfgang: Yes and no. It depends whih has what kind of ambitions and interest to make trouble. To be prepared for such a situation is probably not so bad. w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 11:21:20 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:21:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D021@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <496208.72474.qm@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> I do agree here that we need to ask for ''modalities'' of the next IGF meeting. Then we could proceed from there. But I believe that whether or not a response is given or not (pending on who has to respond and the time he has or what governments think) the caucus still needs to contribute Happy New Year Nnenna Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: Jeanette: Why disturbing the funeral? Enhanced cooperation seems such a dead horse... Wolfgang: Yes and no. It depends whih has what kind of ambitions and interest to make trouble. To be prepared for such a situation is probably not so bad. w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 13:14:35 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:14:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <45A25BDB.2000400@bertola.eu.org> References: <45A25BDB.2000400@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: I think everyone has a bias, a background, a set of interests. I think it would be important for those to be stated in a transparent way, why the applicant is on this list or wants to serve on the appeals committee. I think most applicants would expect to be fair and I think this is easiest to do if everyone knows the applicant's focus. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jan 8 14:05:27 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:05:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?mo=95dal=95i=95ties?= Message-ID: CS-IGC and All, Re: mo�dal�i�ties clarification The use of the word "modalities" in regards to the CS-IGC encompasses a broad number of meanings: Definition per: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/modality mo�dal�i�ty (m-dl-t) n. pl. mo�dal�i�ties 1. The fact, state, or quality of being modal. 2. A tendency to conform to a general pattern or belong to a particular group or category. 3. Logic The classification of propositions on the basis of whether they assert or deny the possibility, impossibility, contingency, or necessity of their content. Also called mode. 4. modalities The ceremonial forms, protocols, or conditions that surround formal agreements or negotiations: "[He] grew so enthusiastic about our prospects that he began to speculate on the modalities of signing" Henry A. Kissinger. 5. Medicine A therapeutic method or agent, such as surgery, chemotherapy, or electrotherapy, that involves the physical treatment of a disorder. 6. Physiology Any of the various types of sensation, such as vision or hearing. - My questions are: (encompassing definitions: #2,#3,and #4) 2. A tendency to conform to a general pattern or belong to a particular group or category. As this definition applies to the CS-IGC, does it mean that the CS-IGC: conforms or belongs to: the IGF ? the WSIS ? The ITU ? the Icann GAC ? Too which of the aforementioned groups are you subordinate? - 3. Logic The classification of propositions on the basis of whether they assert or deny the possibility, impossibility, contingency, or necessity of their content. Also called mode. As this definition applies to the CS-IGC, what are the 'Propositions' of the CS-IGC ? Upon the basis of these 'Propositions', what are the possibilities, impossibility, contingency, or necessity of their content? - 4. modalities The ceremonial forms, protocols, or conditions that surround formal agreements or negotiations: "[He] grew so enthusiastic about our prospects that he began to speculate on the modalities of signing" Henry A. Kissinger. As this definition applies to the CS-IGC, what protocols or conditions surrounding the Formal agreements or negotiations do you (the CS-IGC) demand? Regards, Yehuda Katz ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Mon Jan 8 15:42:45 2007 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:42:45 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01486254@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Vittoria, May I propose we at least prepare a statement on ICT marginalised groups like persons with disabilities, in particular those with information and communication disabilities. There are means for providing information and communication, but it is often so expensive that it is not reachable for many and exclude almost everyone in developing countries! Taking this into account and combined that fact with the newly adopted UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which you are very aware of I know, it would serve two purposes. 1. To put a focus on those most marginalised in ICT of all persons 2. To highlight States responsibilities of the commitments in the convention, which address ICT clearly! Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] Skickat: den 8 januari 2007 16:02 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Next IGF consultations All, it's just one month to Feb 13, the first IGF-07 consultation, so perhaps we should start to discuss what do we want to do for that event. Do we want to have a statement? I think that we could try to draft a statement about one or more of the following matters (additions welcome): - main subjects for the IGF 2007 - structure and membership of the next IGF-AG - dynamic coalitions: how they work, what do we do with the outputs etc What does the caucus think? Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jan 8 20:07:19 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:07:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed Criteria for CS IGC Appeals Team Message-ID: >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/8/2007 7:37 AM >>> >Can we replace 'neutrality' with 'fairness and discretion'. Fine with me. Or just fairness. >This 'neutrality' word makes me uncomfortable.... Except perhaps for Net Neutraility, eh? Well, never let it be said that Parminder is neutral about anything. :-) > The successful candidate should be a person, who in the role of >judgment on the behalf of the IGC, is with (thoughtful and) > unbiased consideration This is better, actually, except that it's ungrammatical now so you probably want something like [ The successful candidate should be a person, who in the role of considering appeals on the behalf of the IGC, is thoughtful and gives unbiased consideration to the views expressed. ] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 8 20:18:31 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:18:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please Message-ID: >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to the >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed to be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point of contention between EU and USA. There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive watchers of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one of the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS Forum politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to face with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call their bluff Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be said: >a letter asking for >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 8 20:37:54 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:37:54 -0500 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Enhanced cooperation Message-ID: >Jeanette: >Why disturbing the funeral? Enhanced cooperation seems such a dead >horse... Then let the relevant governments openly declare so. Enhanced cooperation (ec) is potentially far more significant than the IGF, if the truth be told. IGF is very much at risk of becoming nothing more than a diversionary tactic that obligates governments to do nothing while co-opting hundreds of civil society activists who like going to meetings and feeling "included." If the real politics of IG -- who rules the root, who exercises political oversight and how, the terms of trade in internet services, censorship, IPR, etc. -- are to be changed at all, ec represents one possible avenue. It should not be ignored. Even if it does only mean a slightly reformed GAC, that would be a concrete change (and one fraught with negative as well as positive potential. (Here I can't help wondering what would happen if all the activists who went to IGF also -- or instead -- went to an ICANN meeting and got involved. EC could also mean more than GAC reform, if it led to some formal negotiations about the role of nation-states in IG. And how is it that we in civil society who profess to be so committed to multi-stakeholder participation are willing to sit back and let govts assert that the ec process can proceed without us, and without any transparency as to what it is or even whether it is happening? It makes no sense to me. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 9 01:21:14 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:51:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070109062117.52ECC5C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last to do a draft in 3-4 days. A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body of this email below. A couple of points about the draft. Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the case and making a formal claim to know the present position against clear commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' (EC) as THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of Tunis agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed in more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. Tunis agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions on this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public policy' eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para 69 that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about different public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs (64).. Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public policy also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly improved GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that was ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or process .. Parminder (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) >From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Nitin Desai Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. Dear Mr Desai, Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial mould-setting exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a new multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but in general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global governance. IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, which gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related to the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for needed change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough degree of consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - for instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, incorporating agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all stakeholders, civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after they reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, require inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period that continues to cause concern to us. The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda also expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate of the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with the task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite evident. As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out such a clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles and processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly mandated issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well as a stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS and post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these issues, in terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the Tunis agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as a government-only process. This is completely at variance with the overall envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and 61) as well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p 71). We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be required by you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation of public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of our times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. Thanking you. Sincerely > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to the > > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed to > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point of > contention between EU and USA. > > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive watchers > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one of > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS Forum > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to face > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call > their bluff > > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be said: > > >a letter asking for > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 9 01:45:31 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:15:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070109062117.52ECC5C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070109064537.6D163E0C6B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Sorry, forgot the attachment Helps people to make track changes ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:51 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller'; ajp at glocom.ac.jp Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last to do a draft in 3-4 days. A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body of this email below. A couple of points about the draft. Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the case and making a formal claim to know the present position against clear commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' (EC) as THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of Tunis agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed in more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. Tunis agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions on this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public policy' eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para 69 that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about different public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs (64).. Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public policy also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly improved GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that was ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or process .. Parminder (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) >From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Nitin Desai Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. Dear Mr Desai, Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial mould-setting exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a new multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but in general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global governance. IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, which gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related to the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for needed change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough degree of consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - for instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, incorporating agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all stakeholders, civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after they reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, require inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period that continues to cause concern to us. The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda also expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate of the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with the task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite evident. As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out such a clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles and processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly mandated issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well as a stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS and post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these issues, in terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the Tunis agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as a government-only process. This is completely at variance with the overall envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and 61) as well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p 71). We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be required by you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation of public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of our times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. Thanking you. Sincerely > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to the > > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed to > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point of > contention between EU and USA. > > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive watchers > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one of > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS Forum > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to face > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call > their bluff > > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be said: > > >a letter asking for > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: letter to nitin 0107.doc Type: application/msword Size: 37376 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Jan 9 05:56:40 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:56:40 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01486254@ensms02.iris.se> References: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01486254@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <45A374E8.9030508@bertola.eu.org> Kicki Nordström ha scritto: > Dear Vittoria, > > May I propose we at least prepare a statement on ICT marginalised > groups like persons with disabilities, in particular those with > information and communication disabilities. There are means for > providing information and communication, but it is often so expensive > that it is not reachable for many and exclude almost everyone in > developing countries! Taking this into account and combined that fact > with the newly adopted UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with > Disabilities, which you are very aware of I know, it would serve two > purposes. 1. To put a focus on those most marginalised in ICT of all > persons 2. To highlight States responsibilities of the commitments in > the convention, which address ICT clearly! While I share your point of view, I remind that the Feb 13 meeting is mostly on process, not on substance - so I would keep our statement focused on the matters of process that will be discussed there. However, the discussion on which themes should be addressed at the IGF 2007 is likely to come up, and on that point, if the caucus agrees, we might want to suggest disabilities as one of them. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 09:00:19 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 06:00:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please ) a bit of editing In-Reply-To: <20070109062117.52ECC5C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <502499.38300.qm@web50204.mail.yahoo.com> >From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Nitin Desai Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. Dear Mr Desai, Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial mould-setting exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it positively, and with due care (replace care with engagement). We have been able to set the stage for a new multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but in general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global governance. (The IGF has succeeded in establishing a strong base for an enhanced multistakehomder engagement in global governance, not only for the Internet but also for global development) IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, which gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related to the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for needed change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough degree of consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own – for instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, incorporating agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all stakeholders, civil society groups, business and the governments. Paragraph break However (All the same), the fact remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after they reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, require input ( delete ing) into an appropriate political arena of global public policy making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period that continues to cause concern to us. The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes ‘that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms’ (paragraph 60 of Tunis agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the ‘need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations (p 61). The Tunis agenda also expressly calls for ‘creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles’ (p 70). The intent and mandate of the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with the task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite evident. As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out such a clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word,(there appears to be little communication) much less action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles and processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly mandated issue, with timelines, of initiating the ‘process towards enhanced cooperation’. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well as a stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS and post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these issues, in terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society(strongly reaffirm our readiness to fully engage) in the envisaged process of ‘enhanced cooperation’ and other public policy processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the Tunis agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with concern that some parties have tried to claim ‘enhanced cooperation’ as a government-only process. This is completely at variance with the overall envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and 61) as well as in terms of the specific process of ‘enhanced cooperation’ (p 71). We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be required by you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation (thinking this should be replaced, maybe with input)of public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of our times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. Thanking you. Sincerely __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Jan 9 09:22:30 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:22:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please Message-ID: Parminder: Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate of the amount of work required. I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the point. Something like, " Dear Nitin: We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for civil society in them? >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last to do a draft in 3-4 days. A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body of this email below. A couple of points about the draft. Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the case and making a formal claim to know the present position against clear commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' (EC) as THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of Tunis agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed in more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. Tunis agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions on this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public policy' eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para 69 that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about different public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs (64).. Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public policy also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly improved GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that was ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or process .. Parminder (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) >From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Nitin Desai Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. Dear Mr Desai, Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial mould-setting exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a new multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but in general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global governance. IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, which gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related to the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for needed change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough degree of consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - for instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, incorporating agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all stakeholders, civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after they reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, require inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period that continues to cause concern to us. The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda also expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate of the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with the task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite evident. As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out such a clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles and processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly mandated issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well as a stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS and post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these issues, in terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the Tunis agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as a government-only process. This is completely at variance with the overall envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and 61) as well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p 71). We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be required by you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation of public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of our times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. Thanking you. Sincerely > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to the > > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed to > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point of > contention between EU and USA. > > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive watchers > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one of > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS Forum > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to face > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call > their bluff > > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be said: > > >a letter asking for > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 9 09:38:11 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:38:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Parminder, I think Milton's captured what we need. Short and to the point, and should bring the answer we need. You probably need to spell out Internet Governace Caucus (IGC), but then it's done. Thanks, Adam At 9:22 AM -0500 1/9/07, Milton Mueller wrote: >Parminder: >Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the >delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate of >the amount of work required. > >I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the >point. Something like, > >" Dear Nitin: > > >We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >issues related to the Internet. > >The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of >the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What >concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for >civil society in them? > > > >>>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> >> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > >> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > > >I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last >to do >a draft in 3-4 days. > > > >A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body >of >this email below. > > > >A couple of points about the draft. > > > >Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the >case and >making a formal claim to know the present position against clear >commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. > > > >Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' >(EC) as >THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of >Tunis >agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed >in >more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. >Tunis >agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions >on >this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public >policy' >eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para >69 >that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat >exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more >multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about >different >public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs >(64).. >Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public >policy >also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly >improved >GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that >was >ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or >process >.. > > > >Parminder > > > >(draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > > > > > > > >From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > > >Nitin Desai > >Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > > > > > > > > > >Dear Mr Desai, > > > >Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > > >The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for >the >very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A >good >amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and >that of >your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial >mould-setting >exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it >positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a >new >multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed >path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but >in >general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global >governance. > > > >IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, >which >gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related >to >the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for >needed >change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough >degree of >consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - >for >instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, >incorporating >agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all >stakeholders, >civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact >remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after >they >reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, >require >inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy >making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period >that >continues to cause concern to us. > > > >The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting >international public policy issues that require attention and are not >adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis >agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, >and >reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral >process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil >society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda >also >expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this >development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate >of >the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with >the >task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and >processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite >evident. > > > >As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out >such a >clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > > > >The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN >Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of >the >first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their >respective >roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal >process, >and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should >commence >a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, >proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The >same >relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual >performance >reports. > > > >However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less >action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles >and >processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly >mandated >issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced >cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well >as a >stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS >and >post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these >issues, in >terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. > > > >We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the >envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy >processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the >Tunis >agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with >concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as >a >government-only process. This is completely at variance with the >overall >envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and >61) as >well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p >71). >We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be >required by >you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation >of >public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of >our >times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. > > > >Thanking you. > > > > > >Sincerely > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > >> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> > >> >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > >> >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > >> >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to >the > >> > >> >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > >> > >> I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced > >> cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed >to > >> be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point >of > >> contention between EU and USA. > >> > >> There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive >watchers > >> of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one >of > >> the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS >Forum > >> politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to >face > >> with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > >> anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call > >> their bluff > >> > >> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > >> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >> > >> Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be >said: > >> > >> >a letter asking for > >> >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be > >> >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > >> >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > >> > > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 9 11:21:04 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:21:04 -0600 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, I agree that it's better to be short and get to the point quickly, but wonder whether a wee bit of elaboration on Milton's last sentence might prompt more specific answers and capture the spirit of Parminder's last paragraph, e.g. replacing >> What >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for >> civil society in them? With In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and b) the plans for beginning to involve civil society in the process per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. ..or something like that... Best, Bill On 1/9/07 8:38 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Parminder, I think Milton's captured what we need. > > Short and to the point, and should bring the answer we need. You > probably need to spell out Internet Governace Caucus (IGC), but then > it's done. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 9:22 AM -0500 1/9/07, Milton Mueller wrote: >> Parminder: >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate of >> the amount of work required. >> >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the >> point. Something like, >> >> " Dear Nitin: >> >> >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >> issues related to the Internet. >> >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for >> civil society in them? >> >> >> >>>>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> >>> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to >> >>> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >> >> >> >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last >> to do >> a draft in 3-4 days. >> >> >> >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body >> of >> this email below. >> >> >> >> A couple of points about the draft. >> >> >> >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the >> case and >> making a formal claim to know the present position against clear >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. >> >> >> >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' >> (EC) as >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of >> Tunis >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed >> in >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. >> Tunis >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions >> on >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public >> policy' >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para >> 69 >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about >> different >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs >> (64).. >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public >> policy >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly >> improved >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that >> was >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or >> process >> .. >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >> >> >> >> >> Nitin Desai >> >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Mr Desai, >> >> >> >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for >> the >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A >> good >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and >> that of >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial >> mould-setting >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a >> new >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but >> in >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global >> governance. >> >> >> >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, >> which >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related >> to >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for >> needed >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough >> degree of >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - >> for >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, >> incorporating >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all >> stakeholders, >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after >> they >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, >> require >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period >> that >> continues to cause concern to us. >> >> >> >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting >> international public policy issues that require attention and are not >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, >> and >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral >> process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda >> also >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate >> of >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with >> the >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite >> evident. >> >> >> >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out >> such a >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. >> >> >> >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of >> the >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their >> respective >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal >> process, >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should >> commence >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The >> same >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual >> performance >> reports. >> >> >> >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less >> action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles >> and >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly >> mandated >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well >> as a >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS >> and >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these >> issues, in >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. >> >> >> >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the >> Tunis >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as >> a >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with the >> overall >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and >> 61) as >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p >> 71). >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be >> required by >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation >> of >> public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of >> our >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. >> >> >> >> Thanking you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM >> >>> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >>> >> >>>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> >> >>>> Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on >> >>>> enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to >> the >> >>> >> >>>> February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) >> >>> >> >>> I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced >> >>> cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed >> to >> >>> be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point >> of >> >>> contention between EU and USA. >> >>> >> >>> There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive >> watchers >> >>> of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one >> of >> >>> the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS >> Forum >> >>> politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to >> face >> >>> with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing >> >>> anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call >> >>> their bluff >> >>> >> >>> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to >> >>> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >> >>> >> >>> Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be >> said: >> >>> >> >>>> a letter asking for >> >>>> progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be >> >>>> involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if >> >>>> they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> >> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Jan 9 11:58:01 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:58:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A3C999.8050109@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Parminder, I think Milton's captured what we need. > > Short and to the point, and should bring the answer we need. You > probably need to spell out Internet Governace Caucus (IGC), but then > it's done. Personally speaking, I agree as well. Bill's spelling out of what exactly we want to know is fine, but we should try to keep this letter into 2-3 paragraphs, so that the message is clear. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Jan 9 11:58:15 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:58:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Parminder for your extensive work. Though I like the explanatory and diplomatic introduction of yours, I tend to agree with what Milton, Adam and Bill said. The shorter concise one to send it quickly will be more effective this time I think. thanks, izumi 2007/1/10, William Drake : > > Hi, > > I agree that it's better to be short and get to the point quickly, but > wonder whether a wee bit of elaboration on Milton's last sentence might > prompt more specific answers and capture the spirit of Parminder's last > paragraph, e.g. replacing > > >> What > >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for > >> civil society in them? > > With > > In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any > discussions > and consultations that have been held with governments and other > stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and > b) > the plans for beginning to involve civil society in the process per the > clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > ..or something like that... > > Best, > > Bill > > On 1/9/07 8:38 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > Parminder, I think Milton's captured what we need. > > > > Short and to the point, and should bring the answer we need. You > > probably need to spell out Internet Governace Caucus (IGC), but then > > it's done. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > At 9:22 AM -0500 1/9/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > >> Parminder: > >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the > >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate > of > >> the amount of work required. > >> > >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the > >> point. Something like, > >> > >> " Dear Nitin: > >> > >> > >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy > >> issues related to the Internet. > >> > >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of > >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What > >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for > >> civil society in them? > >> > >> > >> > >>>>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > >>> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > >> > >>> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >> > >> > >> > >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last > >> to do > >> a draft in 3-4 days. > >> > >> > >> > >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body > >> of > >> this email below. > >> > >> > >> > >> A couple of points about the draft. > >> > >> > >> > >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the > >> case and > >> making a formal claim to know the present position against clear > >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. > >> > >> > >> > >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' > >> (EC) as > >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of > >> Tunis > >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed > >> in > >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. > >> Tunis > >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions > >> on > >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public > >> policy' > >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para > >> 69 > >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat > >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more > >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about > >> different > >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs > >> (64).. > >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public > >> policy > >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly > >> improved > >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that > >> was > >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or > >> process > >> .. > >> > >> > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Nitin Desai > >> > >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Mr Desai, > >> > >> > >> > >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > >> > >> > >> > >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for > >> the > >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A > >> good > >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and > >> that of > >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial > >> mould-setting > >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it > >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a > >> new > >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed > >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but > >> in > >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global > >> governance. > >> > >> > >> > >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, > >> which > >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related > >> to > >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for > >> needed > >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough > >> degree of > >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - > >> for > >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, > >> incorporating > >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all > >> stakeholders, > >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact > >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after > >> they > >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, > >> require > >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy > >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period > >> that > >> continues to cause concern to us. > >> > >> > >> > >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting > >> international public policy issues that require attention and are not > >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis > >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, > >> and > >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral > >> process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil > >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda > >> also > >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this > >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate > >> of > >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with > >> the > >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and > >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite > >> evident. > >> > >> > >> > >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out > >> such a > >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > >> > >> > >> > >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN > >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of > >> the > >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > >> respective > >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal > >> process, > >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should > >> commence > >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, > >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The > >> same > >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual > >> performance > >> reports. > >> > >> > >> > >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less > >> action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles > >> and > >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly > >> mandated > >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced > >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well > >> as a > >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS > >> and > >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these > >> issues, in > >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. > >> > >> > >> > >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the > >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy > >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the > >> Tunis > >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with > >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as > >> a > >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with the > >> overall > >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and > >> 61) as > >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p > >> 71). > >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be > >> required by > >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation > >> of > >> public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of > >> our > >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanking you. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sincerely > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >> > >>> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > >> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > >> > >>> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>> Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> > >>> > >> > >>>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > >> > >>>> Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > >> > >>>> enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to > >> the > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced > >> > >>> cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed > >> to > >> > >>> be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point > >> of > >> > >>> contention between EU and USA. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive > >> watchers > >> > >>> of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one > >> of > >> > >>> the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS > >> Forum > >> > >>> politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to > >> face > >> > >>> with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > >> > >>> anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call > >> > >>> their bluff > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > >> > >>> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be > >> said: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> a letter asking for > >> > >>>> progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be > >> > >>>> involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > >> > >>>> they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>> > >> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >> > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ******************************************************* > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake > ******************************************************* > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jan 9 12:19:41 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:19:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please Message-ID: very good modifications. great. >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 1/9/2007 11:21 AM >>> In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and b) the plans for beginning to involve civil society in the process per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 9 12:21:31 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:21:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <45A3C999.8050109@bertola.eu.org> References: <45A3C999.8050109@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: I think it would be more effective to keep it narrow and simply ask Nitin for an update (As Milton suggested). Para 71 is fine, until you get to "involve all stakeholders in their respective roles" and then it become a mess, I'm sure everyone remembers how ridiculously CS role was defined. The answers to the simple questions will tell us what we need to know to ask more. The coordinators could just go ahead and do it, nothing controversial in just asking for an update (as suggested in early December when this first came up...) Thanks, Adam At 5:58 PM +0100 1/9/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>Parminder, I think Milton's captured what we need. >> >>Short and to the point, and should bring the answer we need. You >>probably need to spell out Internet Governace Caucus (IGC), but >>then it's done. > >Personally speaking, I agree as well. Bill's spelling out of what >exactly we want to know is fine, but we should try to keep this >letter into 2-3 paragraphs, so that the message is clear. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Jan 9 12:25:22 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:25:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A3D002.1080309@wz-berlin.de> Yes, this is very good. I can already foresee some red faces among the EU member states hissing that "enhanced cooperation" is _their_ process and that civil society has got nothing to do with it... provided there is indeed any process going on. I still doubt that. jeanette Milton Mueller wrote: > very good modifications. great. > >>>> drake at hei.unige.ch 1/9/2007 11:21 AM >>> > In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any > discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and > other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced > cooperation, and b) the plans for beginning to involve civil society in > the process per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 9 13:05:05 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:05:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <45A3D002.1080309@wz-berlin.de> References: <45A3D002.1080309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: I prefer simpler, suspect it will bring better, quicker results. But won't object to more. Adam (as the appeals team isn't in place, just sending a letter now would be better than not sending a letter :-) At 6:25 PM +0100 1/9/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Yes, this is very good. I can already foresee some red faces among >the EU member states hissing that "enhanced cooperation" is _their_ >process and that civil society has got nothing to do with it... >provided there is indeed any process going on. I still doubt that. >jeanette > >Milton Mueller wrote: >>very good modifications. great. >>>>>drake at hei.unige.ch 1/9/2007 11:21 AM >>> >>In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any >>discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and >>other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced >>cooperation, and b) the plans for beginning to involve civil society in >>the process per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Tue Jan 9 14:16:12 2007 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:16:12 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45A374E8.9030508@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01486581@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Vittoria, I was more thinking of the themes for the IGF 2007 as I feel more concerned of this, despite I am following the quite detailed debate on the list. We could keep this in mind for the next step! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] Skickat: den 9 januari 2007 11:57 Till: Kicki Nordström Kopia: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] Next IGF consultations Kicki Nordström ha scritto: > Dear Vittoria, > > May I propose we at least prepare a statement on ICT marginalised > groups like persons with disabilities, in particular those with > information and communication disabilities. There are means for > providing information and communication, but it is often so expensive > that it is not reachable for many and exclude almost everyone in > developing countries! Taking this into account and combined that fact > with the newly adopted UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with > Disabilities, which you are very aware of I know, it would serve two > purposes. 1. To put a focus on those most marginalised in ICT of all > persons 2. To highlight States responsibilities of the commitments in > the convention, which address ICT clearly! While I share your point of view, I remind that the Feb 13 meeting is mostly on process, not on substance - so I would keep our statement focused on the matters of process that will be discussed there. However, the discussion on which themes should be addressed at the IGF 2007 is likely to come up, and on that point, if the caucus agrees, we might want to suggest disabilities as one of them. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 15:40:45 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:40:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: <45A3D002.1080309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 1/9/07, Adam Peake wrote: > > I prefer simpler, suspect it will bring better, quicker results. But > won't object to more. Yes, short and simple, with no hints of disappointment please. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 9 19:13:49 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:13:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01486581@ensms02.iris.se> (message from =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?= on Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:16:12 +0100) References: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01486581@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20070110001349.D3F094C25A@quill.bollow.ch> Kicki Nordstr�m wrote: > > May I propose we at least prepare a statement on ICT marginalised > > groups like persons with disabilities, in particular those with > > information and communication disabilities. There are means for > > providing information and communication, but it is often so expensive > > that it is not reachable for many and exclude almost everyone in > > developing countries! Taking this into account and combined that fact > > with the newly adopted UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with > > Disabilities, which you are very aware of I know, it would serve two > > purposes. 1. To put a focus on those most marginalised in ICT of all > > persons 2. To highlight States responsibilities of the commitments in > > the convention, which address ICT clearly! This proposal has my wholehearted support. Vittorio Bertola commented: > While I share your point of view, I remind that the Feb 13 meeting is > mostly on process, not on substance - so I would keep our statement > focused on the matters of process that will be discussed there. However, > the discussion on which themes should be addressed at the IGF 2007 is > likely to come up, and on that point, if the caucus agrees, we might > want to suggest disabilities as one of them. The Feb 13 meeting is on "taking stock and the way forward". It says on http://intgovforum.org/ "All stakeholders are invited to send us their comments and views on the Athens meeting and make suggestions with regard to the preparation of the meeting in Rio de Janeiro." My comment and views on the Athens meeting are very much along the lines that the Athens IGF has successfully demonstrated that genuine multistakeholder communication is possible, but that in order to achieve genuine long-term benefits, future IGF meetings must be much more clearly-focused on a small number of relatively narrow topic areas where governments very clearly have a responsibility to take action. These IGF meetings would then attract civil society organisations which are able to inform about the needs of various groups of people and about their views about principles that should be respected by governments when taking action in these topic areas. Likewise, industry organisations would inform about the contributions that they can make to getting these needs met and about the kind of market environment that can lead to these needs being met better. I think that Kicki's suggestion is really spot-on. It's a very good example of a topic area where an IGF meeting could actually contribute significantly to some worthwhile progress. And it's a topic area which is currently "hot": It would be a shame if it were to happen that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities does not achieve its full potential benefit because we fail to follow up on it properly. I think in addition to this topic, the Rio Janeiro IGF meeting should have two more topics, I'd suggest open standards for data formats and "open access" via the internet to scientific literature. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 18:52:00 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:52:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] web: Technology addiction lawsuit Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109155146.0458d2e8@peoplewho.org> TECHNOLOGY ADDICTION LAWSUITS: WILL THEY SUCCEED? Just last month, in a U.S. District Court in New York, IBM asked a federal judge to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit brought against it by a former employee. Plaintiff James Pacenza, who had been with IBM for 19 years, alleges that he was wrongfully fired for misusing his workplace computer. More specifically, Pacenza claims he is "addicted" to the Internet - and thus suffers from a disability. He also says the root of his disability is another disability - post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on his service in Vietnam. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20070109.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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 20:21:30 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:21:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] Disability presence in Rio Message-ID: "Project South" coordinated disability input from South America for the recently adopted Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Maria Veronica Reina was a liaison between their work and the International Disability Caucus. Maria is now a Senior Research Associate for the Syracuse-based Burton Blatt Institute in the Washington, DC office. I've suggested she get in touch with Derrick Cogburn and Milton about a disability presence at the Rio meeting, and I've also mentioned this to Hiroshi. I know Norbert and Linda are also thinking about this. What I'd like to see is a visible number of people with disabilities attending the Rio meeting, as well as some sessions on accessibility - technical, free software, other aspects of ip, poverty, ... - accessibility in the widest sense of the word. One thing that means an intention statement from the organizers when the 'invitations' go out. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Jan 10 00:33:35 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:33:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call for Nomination to Appeal Team Message-ID: Dear List, Here is the Call fr Nomination. I hope we will find many good candidates and give headache to us to choose from. We tried to make it as simple as possible, but may have some room to refine. Again, please send your question or comments to the list. izumi *Call for Nomination to Appeal Team* Jan 9 2006 >From Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) Appeal Team Nomcom Bret Fausett, Milton Mueller, Maja Andjelkovic, Adam Peake, Ralf Bendrath, Izumi Aizu (non-voting Chair) Following our charter, we like to call for nomination to the Members of the Appeal Team. (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html). We need to select five (5) IGC members. To reach high quality members, we like to have more than 10 nominations as a minimum target. Please send your nomination by Jan 21. If we don't get 10 nominations by then, we "may" extend the deadline for another week or so though that will be decided by Nomcom (with consultation with the list, of course). We will announce the result by January 31. *Appeal Team function* The work of Appeal Team is, as the name suggests, a kind of work like judges in the court: When more than 4 individual members find the decision of our two coordinators (now Parminder and Vittorio) not acceptable they can bring the matter to the Appeals Team with their co-signed statement. In other words, if things are going all OK, there is no work for Appeal Team. When a decision is appealed, however, the appeals team should review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. *Qualifications* Nomcom has proposed that Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members. More specifically, anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. (The Nomcom process started on November 20th 2006, so anyone who has been the member since before September 21 is eligible). Naturally, two coordinators are NOT eligible. All Nomcom members including the non-voting Chair are also not eligible. We expect that the successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community. *How to nominate* Any CS-IGC member qualified to above conditions can make the nomination. Nomination should be submitted to the IGC list by the end of January 21 2006, UTC. Self nomination will be accepted. It is recommended to have a second support expressed by other IGC member(s) that will add more weight for the selection. People who are nominated are kindly requested to submit their statement to accept the nomination and indicate their commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community. For the CS IGC Charter, please see: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html END -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 10 02:06:20 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:36:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070110070630.C503DE04AA@smtp3.electricembers.net> > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy > issues related to the Internet. Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed from this... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > Parminder: > Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the > delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate of > the amount of work required. > > I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the > point. Something like, > > " Dear Nitin: > > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy > issues related to the Internet. > > The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of > the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What > concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for > civil society in them? > > > > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > > > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > > > I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last > to do > a draft in 3-4 days. > > > > A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body > of > this email below. > > > > A couple of points about the draft. > > > > Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the > case and > making a formal claim to know the present position against clear > commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. > > > > Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' > (EC) as > THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of > Tunis > agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed > in > more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. > Tunis > agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions > on > this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public > policy' > eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para > 69 > that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat > exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more > multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about > different > public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs > (64).. > Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public > policy > also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly > improved > GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that > was > ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or > process > .. > > > > Parminder > > > > (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > > > > > > > > From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > > > Nitin Desai > > Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr Desai, > > > > Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for > the > very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A > good > amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and > that of > your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial > mould-setting > exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it > positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a > new > multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed > path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but > in > general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global > governance. > > > > IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, > which > gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related > to > the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for > needed > change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough > degree of > consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - > for > instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, > incorporating > agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all > stakeholders, > civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact > remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after > they > reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, > require > inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy > making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period > that > continues to cause concern to us. > > > > The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting > international public policy issues that require attention and are not > adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis > agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, > and > reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral > process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil > society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda > also > expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this > development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate > of > the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with > the > task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and > processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite > evident. > > > > As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out > such a > clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > > > > The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN > Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of > the > first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > respective > roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal > process, > and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should > commence > a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, > proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The > same > relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual > performance > reports. > > > > However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles > and > processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly > mandated > issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced > cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well > as a > stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS > and > post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these > issues, in > terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. > > > > We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the > envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy > processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the > Tunis > agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with > concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as > a > government-only process. This is completely at variance with the > overall > envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and > 61) as > well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p > 71). > We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be > required by > you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation > of > public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of > our > times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. > > > > Thanking you. > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > > > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > > > > > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > > > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > > > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to > the > > > > > > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > > > > > > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced > > > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed > to > > > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point > of > > > contention between EU and USA. > > > > > > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive > watchers > > > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one > of > > > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS > Forum > > > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to > face > > > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > > > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call > > > their bluff > > > > > > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > > > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > > > > > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be > said: > > > > > > >a letter asking for > > > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be > > > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > > > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Wed Jan 10 02:28:53 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:28:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070110070630.C503DE04AA@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070110070630.C503DE04AA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <56BCC7DD-EA25-4D5E-8D3C-CFF75A6F81CF@maxwell.syr.edu> Parminder, I remember Nitin Desai saying in meetings that he had been asked. Regards, John On Jan 10, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >> issues related to the Internet. > > Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin > consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed from > this... > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM >> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >> Parminder: >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your >> overestimate of >> the amount of work required. >> >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the >> point. Something like, >> >> " Dear Nitin: >> >> >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >> issues related to the Internet. >> >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." >> What >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for >> civil society in them? >> >> >> >>>>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> >>> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to >> >>> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >> >> >> >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th >> last >> to do >> a draft in 3-4 days. >> >> >> >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the >> body >> of >> this email below. >> >> >> >> A couple of points about the draft. >> >> >> >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the >> case and >> making a formal claim to know the present position against clear >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. >> >> >> >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' >> (EC) as >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and >> 61 of >> Tunis >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets >> discussed >> in >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter >> option. >> Tunis >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions >> on >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public >> policy' >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening >> para >> 69 >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is >> more >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about >> different >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs >> (64).. >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public >> policy >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly >> improved >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that >> was >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or >> process >> .. >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >> >> >> >> >> Nitin Desai >> >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Mr Desai, >> >> >> >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate >> you for >> the >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum >> (IGF). A >> good >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and >> that of >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial >> mould-setting >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage >> for a >> new >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, >> but >> in >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global >> governance. >> >> >> >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, >> which >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues >> related >> to >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for >> needed >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough >> degree of >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its >> own - >> for >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, >> incorporating >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all >> stakeholders, >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after >> they >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, >> require >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS >> period >> that >> continues to cause concern to us. >> >> >> >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross- >> cutting >> international public policy issues that require attention and are not >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of >> Tunis >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, >> and >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and >> multilateral >> process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda >> also >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and >> mandate >> of >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed >> with >> the >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite >> evident. >> >> >> >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out >> such a >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. >> >> >> >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of >> the >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their >> respective >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal >> process, >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should >> commence >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The >> same >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual >> performance >> reports. >> >> >> >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less >> action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles >> and >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly >> mandated >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as >> well >> as a >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the >> WSIS >> and >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these >> issues, in >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. >> >> >> >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of >> the >> Tunis >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced >> cooperation' as >> a >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with the >> overall >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and >> 61) as >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p >> 71). >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be >> required by >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation >> of >> public interest in the development of the most powerful >> technologies of >> our >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. >> >> >> >> Thanking you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM >> >>> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >>> >> >>>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> >> >>>> Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on >> >>>> enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to >> the >> >>> >> >>>> February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) >> >>> >> >>> I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced >> >>> cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was >>> supposed >> to >> >>> be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point >> of >> >>> contention between EU and USA. >> >>> >> >>> There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive >> watchers >> >>> of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one >> of >> >>> the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS >> Forum >> >>> politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to >> face >> >>> with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing >> >>> anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call >> >>> their bluff >> >>> >> >>> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to >> >>> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >> >>> >> >>> Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be >> said: >> >>> >> >>>> a letter asking for >> >>>> progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be >> >>>> involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if >> >>>> they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> >> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 02:32:52 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:32:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070110070632.0A25FF0018@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com> References: <20070110070632.0A25FF0018@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com> Message-ID: At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >> issues related to the Internet. > >Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin >consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed from >this... Yes. UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and enhance cooperation . Relevant part: "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to start such a process. " The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) Adam >Parminder > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM >> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >> Parminder: >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate of >> the amount of work required. >> >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the >> point. Something like, >> >> " Dear Nitin: >> >> >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >> issues related to the Internet. >> >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for >> civil society in them? >> >> >> >> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to >> >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >> >> >> >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last >> to do >> a draft in 3-4 days. >> >> >> >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body >> of >> this email below. >> >> >> >> A couple of points about the draft. >> >> >> >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the >> case and >> making a formal claim to know the present position against clear >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. >> >> >> >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' >> (EC) as >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of >> Tunis >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed >> in >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. >> Tunis >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions >> on >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public >> policy' >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para >> 69 >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about > > different >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs >> (64).. >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public >> policy >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly >> improved >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that >> was >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or >> process >> .. >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > >> >> >> >> >> Nitin Desai >> >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Mr Desai, >> >> >> >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for >> the >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A >> good >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and >> that of >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial >> mould-setting >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a >> new >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but >> in >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global >> governance. >> >> >> >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, >> which >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related >> to >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for >> needed >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough >> degree of >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - >> for >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, >> incorporating >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all >> stakeholders, >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after >> they >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, >> require >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period >> that >> continues to cause concern to us. >> >> >> >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting >> international public policy issues that require attention and are not >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, >> and >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral >> process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda >> also >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate >> of >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with >> the >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite >> evident. >> >> >> >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out >> such a >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. >> >> >> >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of >> the >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their >> respective >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal >> process, >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should >> commence >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The >> same >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual >> performance >> reports. >> >> >> >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less > > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles >> and >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly >> mandated >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well >> as a >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS >> and >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these >> issues, in >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. > > >> >> >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the >> Tunis >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as >> a >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with the >> overall >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and >> 61) as >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p >> 71). >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be >> required by >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation >> of >> public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of >> our >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. >> >> >> >> Thanking you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM >> >> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >> > >> >> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> >> >> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on >> >> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to >> the >> >> > >> >> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) >> >> > >> >> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced >> >> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed >> to >> >> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point >> of >> >> > contention between EU and USA. >> >> > >> >> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive >> watchers >> >> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one >> of >> >> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS >> Forum >> >> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to >> face >> >> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing >> >> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call >> >> > their bluff >> >> > >> >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to >> >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >> >> > >> >> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be >> said: >> >> > >> >> > >a letter asking for >> >> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be >> >> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if >> >> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > >> >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jan 10 06:21:14 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:21:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation References: <20070110070630.C503DE04AA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <56BCC7DD-EA25-4D5E-8D3C-CFF75A6F81CF@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D036@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list, my understanding and knowledge is that the UN SG has asked Nitin on March, 2, 2006 "to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet." see: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10366.doc.htm As a result of this formal invitation, Nitin had a series of bilateral consultations with group of governments in May 2006 in Geneva. The mandate for Nitin was restricted. He should "consult informally how to start a process". It was not his mandate to start the process itself. Insofar the mandate given by the WSIS to the UN SG and Nitin has been fulfilled. It should be clear that the relevant para. 71 says nothing more than: "The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports.". To take this litarelly, Kofi Annan and Nitin Desai did what they had to do. It is now upon the stakeholders to "proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process." Here the confusion starts. The other paragraph, para 69, singles out governments (without a special reference to the UN Secretary General) by recognizing "the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." My interpretation is that 69 defines "enhanced cooperation on a lower level" (among governments themselves as one stakeholder group) to enable governments to participate in the "enhanced cooperation on a higher level" (among all stakeholders groups) as defined in 71. In a certain way, 69 is restrictive. It says that governments should be enabled "to carry out their roles and responsibiliteis" which is further down interpreted as issues with an "impact on international public policy issues". Excluded are the "day-to-day technical and operational matters". The problem is that there is no definition what "the roles and responsibilities" of governments are. Helpful could be Para. 30 from the WGIG Report which says: " The roles and responsibilities of Governments include: * Public policymaking and coordination and implementation, as appropriate, at the national level, and policy development and coordination at the regional and international levels. * Creating an enabling environment for information and communication technology (ICT) development. * Oversight functions. * Development and adoption of laws, regulations and standards. * Treaty-making. * Development of best practices. * Fostering capacity-building in and through ICTs. * Promoting research and development of technologies and standards. * Promoting access to ICT services. * Combating cybercrime. * Fostering international and regional cooperation. * Promoting the development of infrastructure and ICT applications. * Addressing general developmental issues. * Promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity. * Dispute resolution and arbitration" Very broad, very controversial, open for all kind of interpretation. But it is useful to compare Para. 30 of the WGIG report with the following Paras 31 and 32 which define in a similar broad and general (and controversial) way the roles and responsibilities of private sector and civil society. WGIG had no time to take the needed next step and to discuss a formal mechanism for the interaction among the three stakeholders groups (on an equal footing based on the specific/respective roles and responsibilties). This highly needed "new quality of multistakeholder nework partnership" is not yet discussed. Great opportunity for the IGF. But so far next to ICANN there is no pratical project in place. Another open question is how to define the borderline between the "day-to-day technical and operational matters" and "international public policy issues". Is the launch of new gTLDs a "technical issue" or is it a "international public policy issue". Are the switches to IPv6 or the introduction of iDNS "operational issues" or are they "public policies"? The formulation "to enable governments" could be interpreted as a call for a process to teach governments that they understand and finally define what their "respective roles and responsibilities" (within the defined limitations) are so that they can participate effectively in the process of "enhanced cooperation" on a broader level with the other stakeholders. Insofar to start a process within the GAC to enable the GAC to make better contributions to the broader process would be one step in a right direction, compatible with Para. 69. But it would be only part of governmental involvement, because Tunis accepted the WGIG proposal for a broad interpretation of Internet Govnernace that IG is much more than "names and numbers". All this has not yet cleared so far and no government has really started a process. I have also my doubts that governments understand fully what they decided in Tunis. The interpretation of EU Comissioner Reding, that para. 69 and the inter-governmental process is the "core" of everything and that all the the other processes, including the collobration among relevant organisations and the IGF, are more or less circles around the "core", is wrong. Neither 69 nor 71 creates a hierachie. 69 rejects a "hierarchie" among governments themselves, calling for an "equal footing". Para 71 creates a network of stakeholders which has to be included in "their respective roles and responsibilities". This says clearly that a. there are individual fields of responsibilities for each stakeholders and b. there is no sub-ordination of one stakeholder group under another staekholder group but diversified responsibilties which should complement each other (in a multilayer multiplayer mechanism of communication, coordination and cooperation). . Insofar, 69 is nothing more than one element which "enables governments" to make a contribution into the broader process of "enhanced cooperation" which, accordingly to para 71 "will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles" and will be "responsive to innovation". BTW this additon "responsive to innovation" is important. It appears twice in 71. My interpretation from this part is that it should block public policies which can be seen as a barrier for innovation. Is it in accordance with the Tunis Commitment when African governments declare - in the "interest of public policy" - VOIP as illegal and surpress innovation for security or economic reasons? Para 71 raises another issue and points to a deficit: The second sentence says: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports.". Here are also a number of open questions: What are the "relevant organisations"? ICANN, ITU, NRO, IETF, UNESCO, ISOC, IGC....? Which organisation has "to commence" a process? Should this become a "network of organisations", something like a "Global Association of Relevant Internet Organisations Towards Enhanced Cooperation" (GARIOTEC)? And are all organisations obliged, as the text of this second sentence in para 71 says, to involve "all stakeholders"? My interpretation of the ITU resolution 102 is that the ITU has "commenced" this process, but does exclude some stakeholders. ICANN is more or less silent about this, waiting for "Godot" and hoping for the death of "enhanced cooperation". Others are confused. Next question: Who should "request" relevant organisations to "provide annual performance reports"? The US governments, in the new Joint Project Agreement (JPA), requests an annual report from ICANN. ITU Resolution 102 ask member states, the ITU Secretary General and the ITU Council to report on a regular basis. It remains to be seen who reports to whom what and who is collecting all these reports? Is there a central depositary? Could or should the IGF Secretariat become the place where all these reports are collected and put on the Website? Furthermore, the whole subject is even more complex and is indeed the most political hot potatoe because in Para 69, a four word insert, opens another "pandora box". The call for the process to "enable governments" to "carry out their roles and responsibilities" is linked to the obligation to do this "on an equal footing". This is aimed clearly against the US government which has a special position with regard to the authorization of the publication of TLD Zone Files in the Root and with regard to oversight over the Hidden Server based on the IANA contract and the contracts with VeriSign as the operator of the Hidden Server. This is not "equal footing". My interpretation of the US interpretation is that the US government sees its role and function as part of the "day-to-day technical and operational matters" which does not involve inernational public policy issues. Other governments, including the EU, argue that the authorization and oversight function is a public policy issue. So what? What has changed since Bangemann and Daley agreed on basic issues in September 1998? Read the EU intervention from February 1998 to the DOC and Magaziner´s reply during a Hearing in the US Congress in March 1998 and the exchange of letters between Daley and Bangemann and you can be sure that a. the issue will not walk away and b. there is stuff for another "Internet Summitt" after a round of five IGFs in 2011. This is part of the global power struggle. And this will continue. But the interesting new dimension is that is not only a power struggle among governments - as we know from history - this is now also a power struggle among stakeholders. And this is new. And this is the future. Great challenge for GIGANET. Best regards Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 10 10:05:32 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:35:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D036@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Thanks Wolfgang for an exhaustive analysis.... A couple of comments which may add to the discussion >process". It was not his mandate to start the process itself. Insofar the > mandate given by the WSIS to the UN SG and Nitin has been fulfilled. I am unable to agree to this at all. Mandate to Nitin (we know of it only from a press statement) is different from the WSIS mandate to SG -we cant conflate the two. An informal consultation with no known agenda, no process and no known outcomes, cannot be taken as fulfillment of a Summit's mandate to the SG to start a ' process towards enhanced cooperation'. And the SG cannot take refuge in the second part of para 71 which casts a parallel responsibility on the relevant organizations to starts the process as well. Obviously, a coming together of a top-down process (SGs) and a bottom up (of relevant organizations) process is meant. And we have seen nothing of the SG's process. While para 71 itself is clear enough to on a new SG initiated process, it needs to be read with 58, 59 and 60 which are very clear about the inadequacy of the excising mechanism. And para 61 that goes ahead and attempts to lay out, in general terms, what may be required. There is no way SG can get away with saying his office has done what was required of it... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:51 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; John Mathiason; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > Parminder > Subject: Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear list, > > my understanding and knowledge is that the UN SG has asked Nitin on March, > 2, 2006 "to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the > Internet." see: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10366.doc.htm > > As a result of this formal invitation, Nitin had a series of bilateral > consultations with group of governments in May 2006 in Geneva. The mandate > for Nitin was restricted. He should "consult informally how to start a > process". It was not his mandate to start the process itself. Insofar the > mandate given by the WSIS to the UN SG and Nitin has been fulfilled. It > should be clear that the relevant para. 71 says nothing more than: "The > process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary- > General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first > quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, > will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and > will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence a > process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, > proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same > relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance > reports.". > > To take this litarelly, Kofi Annan and Nitin Desai did what they had to > do. It is now upon the stakeholders to "proceed as quickly as possible > consistent with legal process." > > Here the confusion starts. The other paragraph, para 69, singles out > governments (without a special reference to the UN Secretary General) by > recognizing "the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable > governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and > responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the > Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, > that do not impact on international public policy issues." > > My interpretation is that 69 defines "enhanced cooperation on a lower > level" (among governments themselves as one stakeholder group) to enable > governments to participate in the "enhanced cooperation on a higher level" > (among all stakeholders groups) as defined in 71. In a certain way, 69 is > restrictive. It says that governments should be enabled "to carry out > their roles and responsibiliteis" which is further down interpreted as > issues with an "impact on international public policy issues". Excluded > are the "day-to-day technical and operational matters". > > The problem is that there is no definition what "the roles and > responsibilities" of governments are. Helpful could be Para. 30 from the > WGIG Report which says: > " The roles and responsibilities of Governments include: > > * Public policymaking and coordination and implementation, as > appropriate, at the national level, and policy development and > coordination at the regional and international levels. > > * Creating an enabling environment for information and > communication technology (ICT) development. > > * Oversight functions. > > * Development and adoption of laws, regulations and standards. > > * Treaty-making. > > * Development of best practices. > > * Fostering capacity-building in and through ICTs. > > * Promoting research and development of technologies and > standards. > > * Promoting access to ICT services. > > * Combating cybercrime. > > * Fostering international and regional cooperation. > > * Promoting the development of infrastructure and ICT > applications. > > * Addressing general developmental issues. > > * Promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity. > > * Dispute resolution and arbitration" > > Very broad, very controversial, open for all kind of interpretation. But > it is useful to compare Para. 30 of the WGIG report with the following > Paras 31 and 32 which define in a similar broad and general (and > controversial) way the roles and responsibilities of private sector and > civil society. WGIG had no time to take the needed next step and to > discuss a formal mechanism for the interaction among the three > stakeholders groups (on an equal footing based on the specific/respective > roles and responsibilties). This highly needed "new quality of > multistakeholder nework partnership" is not yet discussed. Great > opportunity for the IGF. But so far next to ICANN there is no pratical > project in place. > > Another open question is how to define the borderline between the "day-to- > day technical and operational matters" and "international public policy > issues". Is the launch of new gTLDs a "technical issue" or is it a > "international public policy issue". Are the switches to IPv6 or the > introduction of iDNS "operational issues" or are they "public policies"? > > The formulation "to enable governments" could be interpreted as a call for > a process to teach governments that they understand and finally define > what their "respective roles and responsibilities" (within the defined > limitations) are so that they can participate effectively in the process > of "enhanced cooperation" on a broader level with the other stakeholders. > Insofar to start a process within the GAC to enable the GAC to make better > contributions to the broader process would be one step in a right > direction, compatible with Para. 69. But it would be only part of > governmental involvement, because Tunis accepted the WGIG proposal for a > broad interpretation of Internet Govnernace that IG is much more than > "names and numbers". > > All this has not yet cleared so far and no government has really started a > process. I have also my doubts that governments understand fully what they > decided in Tunis. The interpretation of EU Comissioner Reding, that para. > 69 and the inter-governmental process is the "core" of everything and that > all the the other processes, including the collobration among relevant > organisations and the IGF, are more or less circles around the "core", is > wrong. Neither 69 nor 71 creates a hierachie. 69 rejects a "hierarchie" > among governments themselves, calling for an "equal footing". Para 71 > creates a network of stakeholders which has to be included in "their > respective roles and responsibilities". This says clearly that a. there > are individual fields of responsibilities for each stakeholders and b. > there is no sub-ordination of one stakeholder group under another > staekholder group but diversified responsibilties which should complement > each other (in a multilayer multiplayer mechanism of communication, > coordination and cooperation). . > > Insofar, 69 is nothing more than one element which "enables governments" > to make a contribution into the broader process of "enhanced cooperation" > which, accordingly to para 71 "will involve all stakeholders in their > respective roles" and will be "responsive to innovation". > > BTW this additon "responsive to innovation" is important. It appears twice > in 71. My interpretation from this part is that it should block public > policies which can be seen as a barrier for innovation. Is it in > accordance with the Tunis Commitment when African governments declare - in > the "interest of public policy" - VOIP as illegal and surpress innovation > for security or economic reasons? > > Para 71 raises another issue and points to a deficit: The second sentence > says: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced > cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible > and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be > requested to provide annual performance reports.". > > Here are also a number of open questions: What are the "relevant > organisations"? ICANN, ITU, NRO, IETF, UNESCO, ISOC, IGC....? Which > organisation has "to commence" a process? Should this become a "network of > organisations", something like a "Global Association of Relevant Internet > Organisations Towards Enhanced Cooperation" (GARIOTEC)? And are all > organisations obliged, as the text of this second sentence in para 71 > says, to involve "all stakeholders"? > > My interpretation of the ITU resolution 102 is that the ITU has > "commenced" this process, but does exclude some stakeholders. ICANN is > more or less silent about this, waiting for "Godot" and hoping for the > death of "enhanced cooperation". Others are confused. > > Next question: Who should "request" relevant organisations to "provide > annual performance reports"? The US governments, in the new Joint Project > Agreement (JPA), requests an annual report from ICANN. ITU Resolution 102 > ask member states, the ITU Secretary General and the ITU Council to report > on a regular basis. It remains to be seen who reports to whom what and who > is collecting all these reports? Is there a central depositary? Could or > should the IGF Secretariat become the place where all these reports are > collected and put on the Website? > > Furthermore, the whole subject is even more complex and is indeed the most > political hot potatoe because in Para 69, a four word insert, opens > another "pandora box". The call for the process to "enable governments" to > "carry out their roles and responsibilities" is linked to the obligation > to do this "on an equal footing". This is aimed clearly against the US > government which has a special position with regard to the authorization > of the publication of TLD Zone Files in the Root and with regard to > oversight over the Hidden Server based on the IANA contract and the > contracts with VeriSign as the operator of the Hidden Server. This is not > "equal footing". > > My interpretation of the US interpretation is that the US government sees > its role and function as part of the "day-to-day technical and operational > matters" which does not involve inernational public policy issues. Other > governments, including the EU, argue that the authorization and oversight > function is a public policy issue. > > So what? What has changed since Bangemann and Daley agreed on basic issues > in September 1998? Read the EU intervention from February 1998 to the DOC > and Magaziner´s reply during a Hearing in the US Congress in March 1998 > and the exchange of letters between Daley and Bangemann and you can be > sure that > a. the issue will not walk away and > b. there is stuff for another "Internet Summitt" after a round of five > IGFs in 2011. > > This is part of the global power struggle. And this will continue. But the > interesting new dimension is that is not only a power struggle among > governments - as we know from history - this is now also a power struggle > among stakeholders. And this is new. And this is the future. Great > challenge for GIGANET. > > Best regards > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 10 10:55:40 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:25:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070110155549.F3E6BC9440@smtp1.electricembers.net> We still wait for more comments/ suggestions on the proposed letter to Nitin Desai on enhanced cooperation. Meanwhile, I have tried to pull the texts proposed by Milton and Bill together. To this text I have added the fact of the mandate of the Tunis agenda in para 1 (para 2 from Bill already had such a mention) The proposed text is We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process aimed at 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related to the Internet, as required by the paragraph 71 of the Tunis agenda. The IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation". In particular, we would welcome information on a)any concrete steps taken so far, like, any discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and b) the plans for involving civil society in the process per the clear mandate in paragraph 71. (ends) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:03 PM > To: Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: > > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy > >> issues related to the Internet. > > > >Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin > >consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed from > >this... > > > Yes. > > UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and enhance > cooperation > . Relevant > part: > > "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask > Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related > to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to > start such a process. " > > The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. > (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is > best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) > > Adam > > > > >Parminder > > > >________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change, Bangalore > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM > >> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> > >> Parminder: > >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the > >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate > of > >> the amount of work required. > >> > >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the > >> point. Something like, > >> > >> " Dear Nitin: > >> > >> > >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy > >> issues related to the Internet. > >> > >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of > >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What > >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for > >> civil society in them? > >> > >> > >> > >> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > >> > >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >> > >> > >> > >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last > >> to do > >> a draft in 3-4 days. > >> > >> > >> > >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the > body > >> of > >> this email below. > >> > >> > >> > >> A couple of points about the draft. > >> > >> > >> > >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the > >> case and > >> making a formal claim to know the present position against clear > >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. > >> > >> > >> > >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' > >> (EC) as > >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of > >> Tunis > >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed > >> in > >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. > >> Tunis > >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions > >> on > >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public > >> policy' > >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para > >> 69 > >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat > >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more > >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about > > > different > >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs > >> (64).. > >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public > >> policy > >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly > >> improved > >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that > >> was > >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or > >> process > >> .. > >> > >> > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Nitin Desai > >> > >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Mr Desai, > >> > >> > >> > >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > >> > >> > >> > >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you > for > >> the > >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > A > >> good > >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and > >> that of > >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial > >> mould-setting > >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it > >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for > a > >> new > >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed > >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but > >> in > >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global > >> governance. > >> > >> > >> > >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, > >> which > >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues > related > >> to > >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for > >> needed > >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough > >> degree of > >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own > - > >> for > >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, > >> incorporating > >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all > >> stakeholders, > >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact > >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after > >> they > >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, > >> require > >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy > >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS > period > >> that > >> continues to cause concern to us. > >> > >> > >> > >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting > >> international public policy issues that require attention and are not > >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis > >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, > >> and > >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral > >> process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil > >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda > >> also > >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this > >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and > mandate > >> of > >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed > with > >> the > >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and > >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite > >> evident. > >> > >> > >> > >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out > >> such a > >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > >> > >> > >> > >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN > >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of > >> the > >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > >> respective > >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal > >> process, > >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should > >> commence > >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, > >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The > >> same > >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual > >> performance > >> reports. > >> > >> > >> > >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less > > > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles > >> and > >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly > >> mandated > >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced > >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well > >> as a > >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the > WSIS > >> and > >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these > >> issues, in > >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. > > > > >> > >> > >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the > >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy > >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the > >> Tunis > >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with > >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' > as > >> a > >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with the > >> overall > >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and > >> 61) as > >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p > >> 71). > >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be > >> required by > >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation > >> of > >> public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies > of > >> our > >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanking you. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sincerely > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > >> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > >> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > >> > >> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > >> > >> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > >> > >> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to > >> the > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced > >> > >> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was > supposed > >> to > >> > >> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point > >> of > >> > >> > contention between EU and USA. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive > >> watchers > >> > >> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one > >> of > >> > >> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS > >> Forum > >> > >> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to > >> face > >> > >> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > >> > >> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call > >> > >> > their bluff > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > >> > >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be > >> said: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >a letter asking for > >> > >> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be > >> > >> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > >> > >> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> > > >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: > >> > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 11:13:32 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:13:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Right. We can't agree on detail once this get past the more basic level. So, please, can we send a letter to Nitin asking him what he has done. 11 January 2007 Dear Mr Desai, Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team. We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for civil society in them? Sincerely, P and V On behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus I prefer this short version, but I think there was more support for Bill's amendment: to replace: >> What >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for >> civil society in them? With: In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and b) the plans for beginning to involve civil society in the process per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. Thanks, Adam >Thanks Wolfgang for an exhaustive analysis.... > >A couple of comments which may add to the discussion > >>process". It was not his mandate to start the process itself. Insofar the >> mandate given by the WSIS to the UN SG and Nitin has been fulfilled. > >I am unable to agree to this at all. Mandate to Nitin (we know of it only >from a press statement) is different from the WSIS mandate to SG -we cant >conflate the two. An informal consultation with no known agenda, no process >and no known outcomes, cannot be taken as fulfillment of a Summit's mandate >to the SG to start a ' process towards enhanced cooperation'. > >And the SG cannot take refuge in the second part of para 71 which casts a >parallel responsibility on the relevant organizations to starts the process >as well. > >Obviously, a coming together of a top-down process (SGs) and a bottom up (of >relevant organizations) process is meant. And we have seen nothing of the >SG's process. > >While para 71 itself is clear enough to on a new SG initiated process, it >needs to be read with 58, 59 and 60 which are very clear about the >inadequacy of the excising mechanism. And para 61 that goes ahead and >attempts to lay out, in general terms, what may be required. > >There is no way SG can get away with saying his office has done what was >required of it... > >Parminder > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- >> halle.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:51 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; John Mathiason; governance at lists.cpsr.org; >> Parminder >> Subject: Enhanced Cooperation >> >> Dear list, >> >> my understanding and knowledge is that the UN SG has asked Nitin on March, >> 2, 2006 "to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at >> enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the >> Internet." see: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10366.doc.htm >> >> As a result of this formal invitation, Nitin had a series of bilateral >> consultations with group of governments in May 2006 in Geneva. The mandate >> for Nitin was restricted. He should "consult informally how to start a > > process". It was not his mandate to start the process itself. Insofar the >> mandate given by the WSIS to the UN SG and Nitin has been fulfilled. It >> should be clear that the relevant para. 71 says nothing more than: "The >> process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary- >> General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first >> quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, >> will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and >> will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence a >> process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same >> relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance >> reports.". >> >> To take this litarelly, Kofi Annan and Nitin Desai did what they had to >> do. It is now upon the stakeholders to "proceed as quickly as possible >> consistent with legal process." >> >> Here the confusion starts. The other paragraph, para 69, singles out >> governments (without a special reference to the UN Secretary General) by >> recognizing "the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable >> governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and >> responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the >> Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, >> that do not impact on international public policy issues." >> >> My interpretation is that 69 defines "enhanced cooperation on a lower >> level" (among governments themselves as one stakeholder group) to enable >> governments to participate in the "enhanced cooperation on a higher level" >> (among all stakeholders groups) as defined in 71. In a certain way, 69 is >> restrictive. It says that governments should be enabled "to carry out >> their roles and responsibiliteis" which is further down interpreted as >> issues with an "impact on international public policy issues". Excluded >> are the "day-to-day technical and operational matters". >> >> The problem is that there is no definition what "the roles and >> responsibilities" of governments are. Helpful could be Para. 30 from the >> WGIG Report which says: >> " The roles and responsibilities of Governments include: >> >> * Public policymaking and coordination and implementation, as >> appropriate, at the national level, and policy development and >> coordination at the regional and international levels. >> >> * Creating an enabling environment for information and >> communication technology (ICT) development. >> >> * Oversight functions. >> >> * Development and adoption of laws, regulations and standards. >> >> * Treaty-making. >> >> * Development of best practices. >> >> * Fostering capacity-building in and through ICTs. >> >> * Promoting research and development of technologies and >> standards. >> >> * Promoting access to ICT services. >> >> * Combating cybercrime. >> >> * Fostering international and regional cooperation. >> >> * Promoting the development of infrastructure and ICT >> applications. >> >> * Addressing general developmental issues. >> >> * Promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity. >> >> * Dispute resolution and arbitration" >> >> Very broad, very controversial, open for all kind of interpretation. But >> it is useful to compare Para. 30 of the WGIG report with the following >> Paras 31 and 32 which define in a similar broad and general (and >> controversial) way the roles and responsibilities of private sector and >> civil society. WGIG had no time to take the needed next step and to >> discuss a formal mechanism for the interaction among the three >> stakeholders groups (on an equal footing based on the specific/respective >> roles and responsibilties). This highly needed "new quality of >> multistakeholder nework partnership" is not yet discussed. Great >> opportunity for the IGF. But so far next to ICANN there is no pratical >> project in place. > > >> Another open question is how to define the borderline between the "day-to- >> day technical and operational matters" and "international public policy >> issues". Is the launch of new gTLDs a "technical issue" or is it a >> "international public policy issue". Are the switches to IPv6 or the >> introduction of iDNS "operational issues" or are they "public policies"? >> >> The formulation "to enable governments" could be interpreted as a call for >> a process to teach governments that they understand and finally define >> what their "respective roles and responsibilities" (within the defined >> limitations) are so that they can participate effectively in the process >> of "enhanced cooperation" on a broader level with the other stakeholders. >> Insofar to start a process within the GAC to enable the GAC to make better >> contributions to the broader process would be one step in a right >> direction, compatible with Para. 69. But it would be only part of >> governmental involvement, because Tunis accepted the WGIG proposal for a >> broad interpretation of Internet Govnernace that IG is much more than >> "names and numbers". >> >> All this has not yet cleared so far and no government has really started a >> process. I have also my doubts that governments understand fully what they >> decided in Tunis. The interpretation of EU Comissioner Reding, that para. >> 69 and the inter-governmental process is the "core" of everything and that >> all the the other processes, including the collobration among relevant >> organisations and the IGF, are more or less circles around the "core", is >> wrong. Neither 69 nor 71 creates a hierachie. 69 rejects a "hierarchie" >> among governments themselves, calling for an "equal footing". Para 71 >> creates a network of stakeholders which has to be included in "their >> respective roles and responsibilities". This says clearly that a. there >> are individual fields of responsibilities for each stakeholders and b. >> there is no sub-ordination of one stakeholder group under another >> staekholder group but diversified responsibilties which should complement >> each other (in a multilayer multiplayer mechanism of communication, >> coordination and cooperation). . >> >> Insofar, 69 is nothing more than one element which "enables governments" >> to make a contribution into the broader process of "enhanced cooperation" >> which, accordingly to para 71 "will involve all stakeholders in their >> respective roles" and will be "responsive to innovation". >> >> BTW this additon "responsive to innovation" is important. It appears twice >> in 71. My interpretation from this part is that it should block public >> policies which can be seen as a barrier for innovation. Is it in >> accordance with the Tunis Commitment when African governments declare - in >> the "interest of public policy" - VOIP as illegal and surpress innovation >> for security or economic reasons? >> >> Para 71 raises another issue and points to a deficit: The second sentence >> says: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced >> cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible >> and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be >> requested to provide annual performance reports.". >> >> Here are also a number of open questions: What are the "relevant >> organisations"? ICANN, ITU, NRO, IETF, UNESCO, ISOC, IGC....? Which >> organisation has "to commence" a process? Should this become a "network of >> organisations", something like a "Global Association of Relevant Internet >> Organisations Towards Enhanced Cooperation" (GARIOTEC)? And are all >> organisations obliged, as the text of this second sentence in para 71 >> says, to involve "all stakeholders"? >> >> My interpretation of the ITU resolution 102 is that the ITU has >> "commenced" this process, but does exclude some stakeholders. ICANN is >> more or less silent about this, waiting for "Godot" and hoping for the >> death of "enhanced cooperation". Others are confused. >> >> Next question: Who should "request" relevant organisations to "provide >> annual performance reports"? The US governments, in the new Joint Project > > Agreement (JPA), requests an annual report from ICANN. ITU Resolution 102 >> ask member states, the ITU Secretary General and the ITU Council to report >> on a regular basis. It remains to be seen who reports to whom what and who >> is collecting all these reports? Is there a central depositary? Could or >> should the IGF Secretariat become the place where all these reports are >> collected and put on the Website? >> >> Furthermore, the whole subject is even more complex and is indeed the most >> political hot potatoe because in Para 69, a four word insert, opens >> another "pandora box". The call for the process to "enable governments" to >> "carry out their roles and responsibilities" is linked to the obligation >> to do this "on an equal footing". This is aimed clearly against the US >> government which has a special position with regard to the authorization >> of the publication of TLD Zone Files in the Root and with regard to >> oversight over the Hidden Server based on the IANA contract and the >> contracts with VeriSign as the operator of the Hidden Server. This is not >> "equal footing". >> >> My interpretation of the US interpretation is that the US government sees >> its role and function as part of the "day-to-day technical and operational >> matters" which does not involve inernational public policy issues. Other >> governments, including the EU, argue that the authorization and oversight >> function is a public policy issue. >> >> So what? What has changed since Bangemann and Daley agreed on basic issues >> in September 1998? Read the EU intervention from February 1998 to the DOC >> and Magaziner´s reply during a Hearing in the US Congress in March 1998 >> and the exchange of letters between Daley and Bangemann and you can be >> sure that >> a. the issue will not walk away and >> b. there is stuff for another "Internet Summitt" after a round of five >> IGFs in 2011. >> >> This is part of the global power struggle. And this will continue. But the >> interesting new dimension is that is not only a power struggle among >> governments - as we know from history - this is now also a power struggle >> among stakeholders. And this is new. And this is the future. Great >> challenge for GIGANET. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolfgang >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 10 11:17:13 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:17:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070110155549.F3E6BC9440@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070110155549.F3E6BC9440@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: my email overlapped. Clearly I agree with sending the text. Adam >We still wait for more comments/ suggestions on the proposed letter to Nitin >Desai on enhanced cooperation. Meanwhile, I have tried to pull the texts >proposed by Milton and Bill together. To this text I have added the fact of >the mandate of the Tunis agenda in para 1 (para 2 from Bill already had such >a mention) > >The proposed text is > >We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process >aimed at 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues >related to the Internet, as required by the paragraph 71 of the Tunis >agenda. > >The IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of the >current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation". In particular, >we would welcome information on a)any concrete steps taken so far, like, any >discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other >stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and b) >the plans for involving civil society in the process per the clear mandate >in paragraph 71. > >(ends) > > >Parminder > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:03 PM >> To: Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >> At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: >> > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >> >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >> >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >> >> issues related to the Internet. >> > >> >Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin >> >consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed from >> >this... >> >> >> Yes. >> >> UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and enhance >> cooperation >> . Relevant >> part: >> >> "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask >> Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at >> enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related >> to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to >> start such a process. " >> >> The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. >> (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is >> best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >Parminder >> > >> >________________________________________________ >> >Parminder Jeet Singh >> >IT for Change, Bangalore >> >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >> >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >> >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >> >www.ITforChange.net >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM >> >> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >> >> >> Parminder: >> >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of the >> >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate >> of >> >> the amount of work required. >> >> >> >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the >> >> point. Something like, >> >> >> >> " Dear Nitin: >> >> >> >> >> >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >> >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >> >> issues related to the Internet. >> >> >> >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of >> >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What >> >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for >> >> civil society in them? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> >> >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to >> >> >> >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last >> >> to do >> >> a draft in 3-4 days. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the >> body >> >> of >> >> this email below. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A couple of points about the draft. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the >> >> case and >> >> making a formal claim to know the present position against clear >> >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' >> >> (EC) as >> >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of >> >> Tunis >> >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed >> >> in >> >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. >> >> Tunis >> >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions >> >> on >> >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public >> >> policy' >> >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para >> >> 69 >> >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat >> >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more >> >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about >> > > different >> >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs >> >> (64).. >> >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public >> >> policy >> >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly >> >> improved >> >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that >> >> was >> >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or >> >> process >> >> .. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nitin Desai >> >> >> >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Mr Desai, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you >> for >> >> the >> >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). >> A >> >> good >> >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and >> >> that of >> >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial >> >> mould-setting >> >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it >> >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for >> a >> >> new >> >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed >> >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but >> >> in >> >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global >> >> governance. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, >> >> which >> >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues >> related >> >> to >> >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for >> >> needed >> >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough >> >> degree of >> >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own > > - >> >> for >> >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, >> >> incorporating >> >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all >> >> stakeholders, >> >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact >> >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after >> >> they >> >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, >> >> require >> >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy >> >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS >> period >> >> that >> >> continues to cause concern to us. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting >> >> international public policy issues that require attention and are not >> >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis >> >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to initiate, >> >> and >> >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral >> >> process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil >> >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda >> >> also >> >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this >> >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and >> mandate >> >> of >> >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed >> with >> >> the >> >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and >> >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite >> >> evident. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out >> >> such a >> >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN >> >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of >> >> the >> >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their >> >> respective >> >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal >> >> process, >> >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should >> >> commence >> >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, >> >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The >> >> same >> >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual >> >> performance >> >> reports. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less >> > > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles >> >> and >> >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly >> >> mandated >> >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced >> >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well >> >> as a >> >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the >> WSIS >> >> and >> >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these >> >> issues, in >> >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken. >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the >> >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy >> >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the >> >> Tunis >> >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with >> >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' >> as >> >> a >> >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with the >> >> overall >> >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and >> >> 61) as >> >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p >> >> 71). >> >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be >> >> required by >> >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation >> >> of >> >> public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies >> of >> >> our >> >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanking you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> >> >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM >> >> >> >> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> >> >> >> >> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on >> >> >> >> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to >> >> the >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced >> >> >> >> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was >> supposed >> >> to >> >> >> >> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point >> >> of >> >> >> >> > contention between EU and USA. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive >> >> watchers >> >> >> >> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one >> >> of >> >> >> >> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS >> >> Forum >> >> >> >> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to >> >> face >> >> >> >> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing >> >> >> >> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call >> >> >> >> > their bluff >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to >> >> >> >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be >> >> said: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >a letter asking for >> >> >> >> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be >> >> >> >> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if >> >> >> >> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >> >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> >> >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >> >> >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 11:29:13 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:29:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: p06230909c1ca462cb63f@[192.168.0.2] Message-ID: That�s correct Adam, but a little known secret is that the Secretary-General also created a Sister Group: the Working Group on Constitutional Internet Governance (WGCIG) at the request of the first phase of the Summit, in Geneva in 2003. The third paragraph in your cited page makes no mention of this: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10366.doc.htm> circa 02/03/2006 � �The Secretariat will be headed by Markus Kummer, who has been the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was established by the Secretary-General at the request of the first phase of the Summit, in Geneva in 2003. The first meeting of the Forum is expected to take place later this year in Athens.� � However, the forth paragraph eludes-too the Secretary-General�s arrangement for the WGCIG through this process; � �has also decided to ask Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet.� � Paragraph four: � �On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to start such a process.� � Indeed many things have transpired between the Geneva in 2003 and the cited press release in 02/03/06 (approximately 3yrs have transpired). >From all of my search-observations, the WGCIG (.com/.net/.org) seems to be ahead of the game. Yehuda ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jan 10 11:36:03 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:36:03 +0100 Subject: AW: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D03A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Yehuda: That's correct Adam, but a little known secret is that the Secretary-General also created a Sister Group: the Working Group on Constitutional Internet Governance (WGCIG) at the request of the first phase of the Summit, in Geneva in 2003. Wolfgang: What is the WGCIG? Do you mean the WGIG? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 11:59:18 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:59:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <76469155-932E-4778-A35A-D3D326B1C605@psg.com> On 10 jan 2007, at 11.13, Adam Peake wrote: > Right. We can't agree on detail once this get past the more basic > level. > > So, please, can we send a letter to Nitin asking him what he has done. is the caucus at all interested in why no open consultative process? or maybe if/wehn there will be an open consultative process? if so, may we should ask explicitly. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Jan 10 12:37:35 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:37:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A5245F.5010502@bertola.eu.org> yehudakatz at mailinator.com ha scritto: > That’s correct Adam, but a little known secret is that the Secretary-General > also created a Sister Group: the Working Group on Constitutional Internet > Governance (WGCIG) at the request of the first phase of the Summit, in Geneva > in 2003. The best "policy spoofing" attempt that I've ever seen, but it still escapes me what is the purpose of it all... (The website is a collection of, well, random babbling and clever linking around the UN - I wouldn't click around too much, though) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jan 10 12:49:22 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:49:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: (message from Adam Peake on Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:13:32 +0900) References: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070110174922.5CF2952015@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake suggested sending this letter: > 11 January 2007 > Dear Mr Desai, > > Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like > to congratulate you for the very successful first > meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. A good > amount of the credit for this goes to your > personal leadership, and that of your advisory > team. > > We are writing to you because we understand you > were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin > informal consultations on how to start a process > aimed at enhancing cooperation on international > public policy issues related to the Internet. > > The IGC would very much appreciated an update on > progress and news of the current state of play > with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What > concrete measures have been taken and what role > is contemplated for civil society in them? > > Sincerely, > > P and V > On behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus Looks good to me. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Jan 10 12:55:00 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:55:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20070110174922.5CF2952015@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20070110174922.5CF2952015@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <45A52874.3060309@wz-berlin.de> > >> 11 January 2007 >> Dear Mr Desai, >> >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like >> to congratulate you for the very successful first >> meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. A good >> amount of the credit for this goes to your >> personal leadership, and that of your advisory >> team. Isn't the secretariat missing here? >> >> We are writing to you because we understand you >> were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin >> informal consultations on how to start a process >> aimed at enhancing cooperation on international >> public policy issues related to the Internet. >> >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on >> progress and news of the current state of play >> with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What >> concrete measures have been taken and what role >> is contemplated for civil society in them? I agree with Avri that we should also ask about open consultations that allows us to at least follow the process, if there is one. jeanette >> >> Sincerely, >> >> P and V >> On behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus > > Looks good to me. > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Jan 10 13:36:13 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (michael_leibrandt at web.de) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:36:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: 2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D036@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de Message-ID: hi there, just in case some people knowing me find it frightening to see my name popping up at a civil society list: after nine years of service as the german gac rep, i left the ict directorate of the federal economics ministry with the beginning of 2007. though still in the administration, i�m professionally now dealing with issues lightyears away from internet governance. due to the fact that my personal envolvement in ict issues goes back at least three decades, i will contribute to the discussion with my very personal observations on internet governance as a private internet user. no longer beeing bound by instructions and the golden rules of diplomatic language, please don�t be surprised if i will be more outspoken than i was on earlier occasions. having said that, i have a serious problem to follow the ongoing discussion on enhanced cooperation. from my point of view, there is absolutely no need to read the aweful last-minute language from tunis over and over again like a law student or a religious believer. actually, things are pretty easy: the only valuable starting point is the spirit of the outcome as seen by those who finally agreed to the wording. is there anybody who really believes that after two years of (very) difficult intergovernmental negotiations the only intention was to say that existing constituencies should improve the way they communicate? in fact, the core outcome is that � besides the igf as discussion forum � there are two seperate ec streams: a) looking at the weak role of governments in a mainly industry-driven internet governance environment, the first idea is to upgrade governments to equal players in existing multistakeholder fora (the icann issue), and b) looking at infrastructure issues beyond the icann mandate, quite a number of governments ask for a fair global power distribution (the oversight issue). so: we have the government vs government ec (68 ta), and we have the governments vs others ec (69 ta). baring this concept in mind, the tunis language becomes much more readable. now the second part: the multistakeholder concept. again, i think that�s easy to answer, at least by accepting political reality. 69 ta can only be done in a full multistakeholder setting. but 68 ta � by intention talking about consultation, not participation - is such a delicate political challenge, that it would be naive to expect openness and transparancy at all stages of the process. imagine that the present or another usg would start thinking about a new oversight modell for the root zone (e. g. the famous root zone council model): is it realistic to believe that civil society reps would be invited to the initial rounds of negotiations? is it realistic to believe that even all governments would be invited? i don�t think so. what does this mean for the proposed letter to nitin: well, it�s an important signal and should be sent out, because he has a role to play regarding 68. but don�t expect an answer that gives you the full picture� is 68 ta against the multistakeholder approach? talking about sitting at the negotiation table, yes. talking about participating in the discussion, no. participation shouldn�t be the core issue, ideas should. there is a desperate need � not at least on the governmental side - for good ideas regarding future governance settings; proposals coming from business and civil society would therefore be well received. and secondly: there is not only the global level. at least in democracies there are ways to influence the position of national and regional governments. one final comment: i don�t find it helpful to follow an either/or approach regarding the question of �what is public policy�. simply because it depends on the individual case. new gtld: .car or .holiday don�t have a lot of public policy implications, .xxx or .berlin really have. �who is�: regarding the primary use of the data (=technical stability of the net) � only to a minor extent, regarding the secondary use of �who is� data (=copyright infringement etc) � yes (and actually compelety outside the clearly limited icann mandate!). michael ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Jan 10 13:35:23 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:35:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <45A52874.3060309@wz-berlin.de> References: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20070110174922.5CF2952015@quill.bollow.ch> <45A52874.3060309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45A531EB.3000709@rits.org.br> Sorry for the erratic presence :) I agree with Jeanette (specially the notice that the secretariat is indeed missing) and understand there is a small typo in the statement -- it should read "The IGC would very much appreciate" instead of "The IGC would very much appreciated"... rgds from a non-English speaker --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> >>> 11 January 2007 >>> Dear Mr Desai, >>> >>> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you >>> for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance >>> Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal >>> leadership, and that of your advisory team. > > Isn't the secretariat missing here? > >>> >>> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >>> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy >>> issues related to the Internet. >>> >>> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of >>> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." >>> What concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated >>> for civil society in them? > > I agree with Avri that we should also ask about open consultations that > allows us to at least follow the process, if there is one. > jeanette >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> P and V >>> On behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus >> >> Looks good to me. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert. >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Jan 10 13:40:48 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:40:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: 2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D03A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de Message-ID: Yehuda: Don't know (?) Wolfgang / Vittorio, I found it by going to: http://www.igfgreece2006.net/ It also appeared here and there: http://www.igfgreece2006.info/ http://www.igf-greece2006.net/ http://www.igf-greece2006.info/ There was also: http://www.igf-greece2006.org/ http://www.igf-greece2006.org/ All of which forwarded too: http://www.igfgreece2006.gr/ http://www.wgcig.info returned to the WSIS entry I don�t think it is a spoof, to well invested. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Jan 10 13:56:35 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:56:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A536E3.1030408@rits.org.br> Hi Michael, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote: > hi there, > > just in case some people knowing me find it frightening to see my name popping > up at a civil society list: after nine years of service as the german gac rep, > i left the ict directorate of the federal economics ministry with the beginning > of 2007. though still in the administration, i’m professionally now dealing > with issues lightyears away from internet governance. due to the fact that my > personal envolvement in ict issues goes back at least three decades, i will > contribute to the discussion with my very personal observations on internet > governance as a private internet user. no longer beeing bound by instructions > and the golden rules of diplomatic language, please don’t be surprised if i > will be more outspoken than i was on earlier occasions. No big deal, Herr Leibrand -- our good fellow de la Chapelle has rightfully travelled the opposite path, and we have had no problem with it (to the contrary). You are quite welcome. > > having said that, i have a serious problem to follow the ongoing discussion on > enhanced cooperation. from my point of view, there is absolutely no need to > read the aweful last-minute language from tunis over and over again like a law > student or a religious believer. actually, things are pretty easy: the only > valuable starting point is the spirit of the outcome as seen by those who > finally agreed to the wording. is there anybody who really believes that after > two years of (very) difficult intergovernmental negotiations the only intention > was to say that existing constituencies should improve the way they > communicate? in fact, the core outcome is that – besides the igf as discussion > forum – there are two seperate ec streams: a) looking at the weak role of > governments in a mainly industry-driven internet governance environment, the > first idea is to upgrade governments to equal players in existing > multistakeholder fora (the icann issue), and b) looking at infrastructure > issues beyond the icann mandate, quite a number of governments ask for a fair > global power distribution (the oversight issue). so: we have the government vs > government ec (68 ta), and we have the governments vs others ec (69 ta). baring > this concept in mind, the tunis language becomes much more readable. Refreshing view, Michael. In a way, leading discussants here are old-timers from the WSIS process which need, from time to time, a "freio de arrumação"[*] -- shaking up ourselves to return our feet to the quickly changing reality. > > now the second part: the multistakeholder concept. again, i think that’s easy > to answer, at least by accepting political reality. 69 ta can only be done in a > full multistakeholder setting. but 68 ta – by intention talking about > consultation, not participation - is such a delicate political challenge, that > it would be naive to expect openness and transparancy at all stages of the > process. imagine that the present or another usg would start thinking about a > new oversight modell for the root zone (e. g. the famous root zone council > model): is it realistic to believe that civil society reps would be invited to > the initial rounds of negotiations? is it realistic to believe that even all > governments would be invited? i don’t think so. what does this mean for the > proposed letter to nitin: well, it’s an important signal and should be sent > out, because he has a role to play regarding 68. but don’t expect an answer > that gives you the full picture… > Please insert into your picture the obvious fact that most countries are far from the representative democracy's mis-en-scene of the two major 300-million-people + 13-trillion-dollars economies (the US and the EU). These exercises land differently in each socio-political scenario, and result in different reactions and alignments (such as the apparently odd like-minded country group during the WSIS process). Keep one thing in mind: Nitin is an Indian, but he is obliged by profession to express himself as a Geneva+NY UN environment rep (and he does so in a brilliantl way) -- a language so generic that it leaves out most of the 240+ countries as far as real practical outcomes affecting their local peoples are concerned. > is 68 ta against the multistakeholder approach? talking about sitting at the > negotiation table, yes. talking about participating in the discussion, no. > participation shouldn’t be the core issue, ideas should. there is a desperate > need – not at least on the governmental side - for good ideas regarding future > governance settings; proposals coming from business and civil society would > therefore be well received. and secondly: there is not only the global level. > at least in democracies there are ways to influence the position of national > and regional governments. > > one final comment: i don’t find it helpful to follow an either/or approach > regarding the question of „what is public policy“. simply because it depends on > the individual case. new gtld: .car or .holiday don’t have a lot of public > policy implications, .xxx or .berlin really have. „who is“: regarding the > primary use of the data (=technical stability of the net) – only to a minor > extent, regarding the secondary use of „who is“ data (=copyright infringement > etc) – yes (and actually compelety outside the clearly limited icann mandate!). I am not qualified to discuss amongst the mainstream flock the details of these gTLD letter combinations, since I have been defending that there is already abundant off-the-shelf network technology to handle infinite gTLD domains without disturbing the Internet routing systems. But the huge business construed around making sure gTLDs are excreted from the ICANN system in a very homeopatic way precludes this gTLD issue from becoming what should be obvious -- its appropriation by the commons and its ceasing to be a registry-registrar money-making activity. Welcome again! --c.a. -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Jan 10 14:04:54 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:04:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <45A536E3.1030408@rits.org.br> References: <45A536E3.1030408@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <45A538D6.2020901@rits.org.br> Forgot to translate the footnote in my reply to Michael: freio de arrumação (Brazilian Portuguese) -- a bus driver hits the brakes when it is full and people are not moving to allow more people to enter. So he hits the "freio" (brakes) to do an "arrumação" (reorganizing) of the people inside the bus. :) --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 kino at iris.se Wed Jan 10 15:28:56 2007 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:28:56 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014868FD@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Adam and all, I support your short version! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Skickat: den 10 januari 2007 17:14 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Ämne: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation Right. We can't agree on detail once this get past the more basic level. So, please, can we send a letter to Nitin asking him what he has done. 11 January 2007 Dear Mr Desai, Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team. We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for civil society in them? Sincerely, P and V On behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus I prefer this short version, but I think there was more support for Bill's amendment: to replace: >> What >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for >> civil society in them? With: In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and b) the plans for beginning to involve civil society in the process per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. Thanks, Adam >Thanks Wolfgang for an exhaustive analysis.... > >A couple of comments which may add to the discussion > >>process". It was not his mandate to start the process itself. Insofar >>the >> mandate given by the WSIS to the UN SG and Nitin has been fulfilled. > >I am unable to agree to this at all. Mandate to Nitin (we know of it >only from a press statement) is different from the WSIS mandate to SG >-we cant conflate the two. An informal consultation with no known >agenda, no process and no known outcomes, cannot be taken as >fulfillment of a Summit's mandate to the SG to start a ' process towards enhanced cooperation'. > >And the SG cannot take refuge in the second part of para 71 which casts >a parallel responsibility on the relevant organizations to starts the >process as well. > >Obviously, a coming together of a top-down process (SGs) and a bottom >up (of relevant organizations) process is meant. And we have seen >nothing of the SG's process. > >While para 71 itself is clear enough to on a new SG initiated process, >it needs to be read with 58, 59 and 60 which are very clear about the >inadequacy of the excising mechanism. And para 61 that goes ahead and >attempts to lay out, in general terms, what may be required. > >There is no way SG can get away with saying his office has done what >was required of it... > >Parminder > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- >> halle.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:51 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; John Mathiason; >> governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Subject: Enhanced Cooperation >> >> Dear list, >> >> my understanding and knowledge is that the UN SG has asked Nitin on >> March, 2, 2006 "to consult informally on how to start a process >> aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues >> related to the Internet." see: >> http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10366.doc.htm >> >> As a result of this formal invitation, Nitin had a series of >> bilateral consultations with group of governments in May 2006 in >> Geneva. The mandate for Nitin was restricted. He should "consult >> informally how to start a > > process". It was not his mandate to start the process itself. > Insofar the >> mandate given by the WSIS to the UN SG and Nitin has been fulfilled. >> It should be clear that the relevant para. 71 says nothing more >> than: "The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by >> the UN Secretary- General, involving all relevant organizations by >> the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders >> in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible >> consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. >> Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced >> cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as >> possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant >> organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports.". >> >> To take this litarelly, Kofi Annan and Nitin Desai did what they had >> to do. It is now upon the stakeholders to "proceed as quickly as >> possible consistent with legal process." >> >> Here the confusion starts. The other paragraph, para 69, singles out >> governments (without a special reference to the UN Secretary General) >> by recognizing "the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to >> enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles >> and responsibilities, in international public policy issues >> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and >> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." >> >> My interpretation is that 69 defines "enhanced cooperation on a >> lower level" (among governments themselves as one stakeholder group) >> to enable governments to participate in the "enhanced cooperation on a higher level" >> (among all stakeholders groups) as defined in 71. In a certain way, >> 69 is restrictive. It says that governments should be enabled "to >> carry out their roles and responsibiliteis" which is further down >> interpreted as issues with an "impact on international public policy >> issues". Excluded are the "day-to-day technical and operational matters". >> >> The problem is that there is no definition what "the roles and >> responsibilities" of governments are. Helpful could be Para. 30 from >> the WGIG Report which says: >> " The roles and responsibilities of Governments include: >> >> * Public policymaking and coordination and implementation, >> as appropriate, at the national level, and policy development and >> coordination at the regional and international levels. >> >> * Creating an enabling environment for information and >> communication technology (ICT) development. >> >> * Oversight functions. >> >> * Development and adoption of laws, regulations and standards. >> >> * Treaty-making. >> >> * Development of best practices. >> >> * Fostering capacity-building in and through ICTs. >> >> * Promoting research and development of technologies and >> standards. >> >> * Promoting access to ICT services. >> >> * Combating cybercrime. >> >> * Fostering international and regional cooperation. >> >> * Promoting the development of infrastructure and ICT >> applications. >> >> * Addressing general developmental issues. >> >> * Promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity. >> >> * Dispute resolution and arbitration" >> >> Very broad, very controversial, open for all kind of interpretation. >> But it is useful to compare Para. 30 of the WGIG report with the >> following Paras 31 and 32 which define in a similar broad and >> general (and >> controversial) way the roles and responsibilities of private sector >> and civil society. WGIG had no time to take the needed next step and >> to discuss a formal mechanism for the interaction among the three >> stakeholders groups (on an equal footing based on the >> specific/respective roles and responsibilties). This highly needed >> "new quality of multistakeholder nework partnership" is not yet >> discussed. Great opportunity for the IGF. But so far next to ICANN >> there is no pratical project in place. > > >> Another open question is how to define the borderline between the >> "day-to- day technical and operational matters" and "international >> public policy issues". Is the launch of new gTLDs a "technical >> issue" or is it a "international public policy issue". Are the >> switches to IPv6 or the introduction of iDNS "operational issues" or are they "public policies"? >> >> The formulation "to enable governments" could be interpreted as a >> call for a process to teach governments that they understand and >> finally define what their "respective roles and responsibilities" >> (within the defined >> limitations) are so that they can participate effectively in the >> process of "enhanced cooperation" on a broader level with the other stakeholders. >> Insofar to start a process within the GAC to enable the GAC to make >> better contributions to the broader process would be one step in a >> right direction, compatible with Para. 69. But it would be only part >> of governmental involvement, because Tunis accepted the WGIG >> proposal for a broad interpretation of Internet Govnernace that IG >> is much more than "names and numbers". >> >> All this has not yet cleared so far and no government has really >> started a process. I have also my doubts that governments understand >> fully what they decided in Tunis. The interpretation of EU Comissioner Reding, that para. >> 69 and the inter-governmental process is the "core" of everything >> and that all the the other processes, including the collobration >> among relevant organisations and the IGF, are more or less circles >> around the "core", is wrong. Neither 69 nor 71 creates a hierachie. 69 rejects a "hierarchie" >> among governments themselves, calling for an "equal footing". Para >> 71 creates a network of stakeholders which has to be included in >> "their respective roles and responsibilities". This says clearly >> that a. there are individual fields of responsibilities for each stakeholders and b. >> there is no sub-ordination of one stakeholder group under another >> staekholder group but diversified responsibilties which should >> complement each other (in a multilayer multiplayer mechanism of >> communication, coordination and cooperation). . >> >> Insofar, 69 is nothing more than one element which "enables governments" >> to make a contribution into the broader process of "enhanced cooperation" >> which, accordingly to para 71 "will involve all stakeholders in >> their respective roles" and will be "responsive to innovation". >> >> BTW this additon "responsive to innovation" is important. It appears >> twice in 71. My interpretation from this part is that it should >> block public policies which can be seen as a barrier for innovation. >> Is it in accordance with the Tunis Commitment when African >> governments declare - in the "interest of public policy" - VOIP as >> illegal and surpress innovation for security or economic reasons? >> >> Para 71 raises another issue and points to a deficit: The second >> sentence >> says: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards >> enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as >> quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant >> organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports.". >> >> Here are also a number of open questions: What are the "relevant >> organisations"? ICANN, ITU, NRO, IETF, UNESCO, ISOC, IGC....? Which >> organisation has "to commence" a process? Should this become a >> "network of organisations", something like a "Global Association of >> Relevant Internet Organisations Towards Enhanced Cooperation" >> (GARIOTEC)? And are all organisations obliged, as the text of this >> second sentence in para 71 says, to involve "all stakeholders"? >> >> My interpretation of the ITU resolution 102 is that the ITU has >> "commenced" this process, but does exclude some stakeholders. ICANN >> is more or less silent about this, waiting for "Godot" and hoping >> for the death of "enhanced cooperation". Others are confused. >> >> Next question: Who should "request" relevant organisations to >> "provide annual performance reports"? The US governments, in the new >> Joint Project > > Agreement (JPA), requests an annual report from ICANN. ITU > Resolution 102 >> ask member states, the ITU Secretary General and the ITU Council to >> report on a regular basis. It remains to be seen who reports to whom >> what and who is collecting all these reports? Is there a central >> depositary? Could or should the IGF Secretariat become the place >> where all these reports are collected and put on the Website? >> >> Furthermore, the whole subject is even more complex and is indeed >> the most political hot potatoe because in Para 69, a four word >> insert, opens another "pandora box". The call for the process to >> "enable governments" to "carry out their roles and responsibilities" >> is linked to the obligation to do this "on an equal footing". This >> is aimed clearly against the US government which has a special >> position with regard to the authorization of the publication of TLD >> Zone Files in the Root and with regard to oversight over the Hidden >> Server based on the IANA contract and the contracts with VeriSign as >> the operator of the Hidden Server. This is not "equal footing". >> >> My interpretation of the US interpretation is that the US government >> sees its role and function as part of the "day-to-day technical and >> operational matters" which does not involve inernational public >> policy issues. Other governments, including the EU, argue that the >> authorization and oversight function is a public policy issue. >> >> So what? What has changed since Bangemann and Daley agreed on basic >> issues in September 1998? Read the EU intervention from February >> 1998 to the DOC and Magaziner´s reply during a Hearing in the US >> Congress in March 1998 and the exchange of letters between Daley and >> Bangemann and you can be sure that a. the issue will not walk away >> and b. there is stuff for another "Internet Summitt" after a round >> of five IGFs in 2011. >> >> This is part of the global power struggle. And this will continue. >> But the interesting new dimension is that is not only a power >> struggle among governments - as we know from history - this is now >> also a power struggle among stakeholders. And this is new. And this >> is the future. Great challenge for GIGANET. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolfgang >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 16:07:55 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:07:55 -0500 Subject: AW: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please Message-ID: Yehuda: You've been fooled. Welcome to the world of typosquatting and tld confusion. the web site you saw has nothing to do with the IGF Forum >>> yehudakatz at mailinator.com 1/10/2007 1:40 PM >>> Yehuda: Don't know (?) Wolfgang / Vittorio, I found it by going to: http://www.igfgreece2006.net/ It also appeared here and there: http://www.igfgreece2006.info/ http://www.igf-greece2006.net/ http://www.igf-greece2006.info/ There was also: http://www.igf-greece2006.org/ http://www.igf-greece2006.org/ All of which forwarded too: http://www.igfgreece2006.gr/ http://www.wgcig.info returned to the WSIS entry I don*t think it is a spoof, to well invested. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 10 16:18:20 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:18:20 -0600 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Michael, On 1/10/07 12:36 PM, "michael_leibrandt at web.de" wrote: > just in case some people knowing me find it frightening to see my name popping > up at a civil society list: after nine years of service as the german gac rep, > i left the ict directorate of the federal economics ministry with the > beginning of 2007. though still in the administration, i‚m professionally now Nice to see you here, but pity that a number of the governmental folks who made things interesting (including for the USG) have moved on to greener pastures... One comment: > consultation, not participation - is such a delicate political challenge, that > it would be naive to expect openness and transparancy at all stages of the > process. imagine that the present or another usg would start thinking about a > new oversight modell for the root zone (e. g. the famous root zone council > model): is it realistic to believe that civil society reps would be invited to > the initial rounds of negotiations? is it realistic to believe that even all > governments would be invited? i don‚t think so. what does this mean for the > proposed letter to nitin: well, it‚s an important signal and should be sent > out, because he has a role to play regarding 68. but don‚t expect an answer > that gives you the full picture∑ I suspect everyone understands this and privately has realistic expectations, but it doesn't hurt for CS to periodically show we're alive and publicly be a bit unrealistic in hopes of pushing the envelope a little. That's what pressure groups are supposed to do, no? Sometimes it even makes for better outcomes than unquestioned closed processes... 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Jan 10 18:07:25 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:07:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Appeals Team nomination Message-ID: Hi, Avri kindly prepared the webpage to put all the nomination and related information. Yet, it is empty - need your nomination NOW. 10 people may seam easy to reach, but I am not so sure. If those 25 people who have volunteered for Nocom again volunteer, except the ones selected, that is more than enough. And the workload of appeal team member is not too high unless there are many appeals which, I hope, will not be the case. But in any case, we really need people to commit and volunteer for our caucus to be open and accountable. Therefore, please advance your nomination as soon as possible. Thanks, izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 22:55:06 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:55:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <20070110150545.C38A75C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 1/10/07, Adam Peake wrote: > Right. We can't agree on detail once this get past the more basic level. > > So, please, can we send a letter to Nitin asking him what he has done. Yes > > > > I prefer this short version, but I think there > was more support for Bill's amendment: > I think yours is just peachy!! He knows what's in the tunis doc, no need to remind him! AFAIAC, ec is happening, just not in a formal way. -- Cheers, McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Jan 11 07:57:30 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:57:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! Message-ID: Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list all those nominations for Appeal Team. http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html And Jeremy took the first, thank you! Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? How about others? Please. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From aizu at anr.org Thu Jan 11 08:52:29 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:52:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070110155549.F3E6BC9440@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070110155549.F3E6BC9440@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, thanks for the further edit. I think we can send this now. One minor suggetion is to spell out IGC, and add Civil Society to make it clear, so "Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to..." reads better. Thanks, izumi 2007/1/11, Parminder : > > > > We still wait for more comments/ suggestions on the proposed letter to > Nitin > Desai on enhanced cooperation. Meanwhile, I have tried to pull the texts > proposed by Milton and Bill together. To this text I have added the fact > of > the mandate of the Tunis agenda in para 1 (para 2 from Bill already had > such > a mention) > > The proposed text is > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > process > aimed at 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues > related to the Internet, as required by the paragraph 71 of the Tunis > agenda. > > The IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of the > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation". In > particular, > we would welcome information on a)any concrete steps taken so far, like, > any > discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and > other > stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and > b) > the plans for involving civil society in the process per the clear mandate > in paragraph 71. > > (ends) > > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:03 PM > > To: Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > > > At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the > UN > > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > policy > > >> issues related to the Internet. > > > > > >Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin > > >consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed from > > >this... > > > > > > Yes. > > > > UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and enhance > > cooperation > > . Relevant > > part: > > > > "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask > > Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related > > to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to > > start such a process. " > > > > The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. > > (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is > > best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > >________________________________________________ > > >Parminder Jeet Singh > > >IT for Change, Bangalore > > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > >www.ITforChange.net > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM > > >> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > >> > > >> Parminder: > > >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of > the > > >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your > overestimate > > of > > >> the amount of work required. > > >> > > >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the > > >> point. Something like, > > >> > > >> " Dear Nitin: > > >> > > >> > > >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > policy > > >> issues related to the Internet. > > >> > > >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news > of > > >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." > What > > >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for > > >> civil society in them? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > > >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > > >> > > >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th > last > > >> to do > > >> a draft in 3-4 days. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the > > body > > >> of > > >> this email below. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> A couple of points about the draft. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the > > >> case and > > >> making a formal claim to know the present position against clear > > >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' > > >> (EC) as > > >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 > of > > >> Tunis > > >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets > discussed > > >> in > > >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter > option. > > >> Tunis > > >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of > opinions > > >> on > > >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public > > >> policy' > > >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening > para > > >> 69 > > >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat > > >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is > more > > >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about > > > > different > > >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs > > >> (64).. > > >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of > public > > >> policy > > >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly > > >> improved > > >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all > that > > >> was > > >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or > > >> process > > >> .. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Parminder > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Nitin Desai > > >> > > >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Dear Mr Desai, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you > > for > > >> the > > >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). > > A > > >> good > > >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and > > >> that of > > >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial > > >> mould-setting > > >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it > > >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage > for > > a > > >> new > > >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed > > >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, > but > > >> in > > >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global > > >> governance. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to > all, > > >> which > > >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues > > related > > >> to > > >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies > for > > >> needed > > >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough > > >> degree of > > >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its > own > > - > > >> for > > >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, > > >> incorporating > > >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all > > >> stakeholders, > > >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the > fact > > >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after > > >> they > > >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, > > >> require > > >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public > policy > > >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS > > period > > >> that > > >> continues to cause concern to us. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many > cross-cutting > > >> international public policy issues that require attention and are > not > > >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of > Tunis > > >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to > initiate, > > >> and > > >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and > multilateral > > >> process, with the participation of governments, private sector, > civil > > >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda > > >> also > > >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this > > >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and > > mandate > > >> of > > >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed > > with > > >> the > > >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and > > >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite > > >> evident. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out > > >> such a > > >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN > > >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end > of > > >> the > > >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > > >> respective > > >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal > > >> process, > > >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should > > >> commence > > >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, > > >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The > > >> same > > >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual > > >> performance > > >> reports. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much > less > > > > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles > > >> and > > >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly > > >> mandated > > >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced > > >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as > well > > >> as a > > >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the > > WSIS > > >> and > > >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these > > >> issues, in > > >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be > taken. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the > > >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy > > >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of > the > > >> Tunis > > >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note > with > > >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' > > as > > >> a > > >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with the > > >> overall > > >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 > and > > >> 61) as > > >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' > (p > > >> 71). > > >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be > > >> required by > > >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure > incorporation > > >> of > > >> public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies > > of > > >> our > > >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanking you. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sincerely > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > > >> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > >> > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > > >> > > >> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > > >> > > >> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > > >> > > >> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to > > >> the > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. > Enhanced > > >> > > >> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was > > supposed > > >> to > > >> > > >> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical > point > > >> of > > >> > > >> > contention between EU and USA. > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive > > >> watchers > > >> > > >> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is > one > > >> of > > >> > > >> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS > > >> Forum > > >> > > >> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to > > >> face > > >> > > >> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > > >> > > >> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to > call > > >> > > >> > their bluff > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > > >> > > >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be > > >> said: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >a letter asking for > > >> > > >> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to > be > > >> > > >> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > > >> > > >> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> > > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> > > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > For all list information and functions, see: > > >> > > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- 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 Thu Jan 11 11:58:56 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:58:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please Message-ID: I'll second Izumi on the spelling out, and then closing/sending this out. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> aizu at anr.org 1/11/2007 8:52 AM >>> Parminder, thanks for the further edit. I think we can send this now. One minor suggetion is to spell out IGC, and add Civil Society to make it clear, so "Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to..." reads better. Thanks, izumi 2007/1/11, Parminder : > > > > We still wait for more comments/ suggestions on the proposed letter to > Nitin > Desai on enhanced cooperation. Meanwhile, I have tried to pull the texts > proposed by Milton and Bill together. To this text I have added the fact > of > the mandate of the Tunis agenda in para 1 (para 2 from Bill already had > such > a mention) > > The proposed text is > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > process > aimed at 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues > related to the Internet, as required by the paragraph 71 of the Tunis > agenda. > > The IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of the > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation". In > particular, > we would welcome information on a)any concrete steps taken so far, like, > any > discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and > other > stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and > b) > the plans for involving civil society in the process per the clear mandate > in paragraph 71. > > (ends) > > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:03 PM > > To: Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > > > At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the > UN > > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > policy > > >> issues related to the Internet. > > > > > >Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin > > >consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed from > > >this... > > > > > > Yes. > > > > UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and enhance > > cooperation > > . Relevant > > part: > > > > "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask > > Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related > > to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to > > start such a process. " > > > > The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. > > (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is > > best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > >________________________________________________ > > >Parminder Jeet Singh > > >IT for Change, Bangalore > > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > >www.ITforChange.net > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM > > >> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > >> > > >> Parminder: > > >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some of > the > > >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your > overestimate > > of > > >> the amount of work required. > > >> > > >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the > > >> point. Something like, > > >> > > >> " Dear Nitin: > > >> > > >> > > >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > policy > > >> issues related to the Internet. > > >> > > >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news > of > > >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." > What > > >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for > > >> civil society in them? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > > >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > > >> > > >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th > last > > >> to do > > >> a draft in 3-4 days. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the > > body > > >> of > > >> this email below. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> A couple of points about the draft. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the > > >> case and > > >> making a formal claim to know the present position against clear > > >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' > > >> (EC) as > > >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 > of > > >> Tunis > > >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets > discussed > > >> in > > >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter > option. > > >> Tunis > > >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of > opinions > > >> on > > >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public > > >> policy' > > >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening > para > > >> 69 > > >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat > > >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is > more > > >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about > > > > different > > >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs > > >> (64).. > > >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of > public > > >> policy > > >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly > > >> improved > > >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all > that > > >> was > > >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or > > >> process > > >> .. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Parminder > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Nitin Desai > > >> > > >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Dear Mr Desai, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you > > for > > >> the > > >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). > > A > > >> good > > >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and > > >> that of > > >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial > > >> mould-setting > > >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it > > >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage > for > > a > > >> new > > >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed > > >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, > but > > >> in > > >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global > > >> governance. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to > all, > > >> which > > >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues > > related > > >> to > > >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies > for > > >> needed > > >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough > > >> degree of > > >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its > own > > - > > >> for > > >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, > > >> incorporating > > >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all > > >> stakeholders, > > >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the > fact > > >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after > > >> they > > >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, > > >> require > > >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public > policy > > >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS > > period > > >> that > > >> continues to cause concern to us. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many > cross-cutting > > >> international public policy issues that require attention and are > not > > >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of > Tunis > > >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to > initiate, > > >> and > > >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and > multilateral > > >> process, with the participation of governments, private sector, > civil > > >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis agenda > > >> also > > >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this > > >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and > > mandate > > >> of > > >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed > > with > > >> the > > >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and > > >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite > > >> evident. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out > > >> such a > > >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN > > >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end > of > > >> the > > >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > > >> respective > > >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal > > >> process, > > >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should > > >> commence > > >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, > > >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The > > >> same > > >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual > > >> performance > > >> reports. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much > less > > > > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles > > >> and > > >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly > > >> mandated > > >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced > > >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as > well > > >> as a > > >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the > > WSIS > > >> and > > >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these > > >> issues, in > > >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be > taken. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the > > >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy > > >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of > the > > >> Tunis > > >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note > with > > >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' > > as > > >> a > > >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with the > > >> overall > > >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 > and > > >> 61) as > > >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' > (p > > >> 71). > > >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be > > >> required by > > >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure > incorporation > > >> of > > >> public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies > > of > > >> our > > >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanking you. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sincerely > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > > >> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > >> > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > > >> > > >> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > > >> > > >> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > > >> > > >> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to > > >> the > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. > Enhanced > > >> > > >> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was > > supposed > > >> to > > >> > > >> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical > point > > >> of > > >> > > >> > contention between EU and USA. > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive > > >> watchers > > >> > > >> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is > one > > >> of > > >> > > >> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS > > >> Forum > > >> > > >> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to > > >> face > > >> > > >> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing > > >> > > >> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to > call > > >> > > >> > their bluff > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to > > >> > > >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be > > >> said: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >a letter asking for > > >> > > >> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to > be > > >> > > >> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > > >> > > >> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> > > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> > > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > For all list information and functions, see: > > >> > > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 18:35:17 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:35:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] web: U.N. TELECOM NOT EYING INTERNET CONTROL Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070112153443.045628c8@peoplewho.org> The United Nations will not try to take the lead in determining the future of the Internet, the head of the U.N. telecommunications agency said Friday. Hamadoun Toure, a Malian who was elected director-general of the International Telecommunication Union in November, said the agency would be just one of many organizations involved in shaping the Internet's development. http://news.findlaw.com/ap/i/629/01-12-2007/43820014ef8b227e.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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 12 23:37:41 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:07:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070113043749.60C79E05AC@smtp3.electricembers.net> This is the text of the letter planned to be sent out. (starts) >From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus To Nitin Desai Special Advisor to the Secretary-General United Nations Dear Mr Desai Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team. We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process of 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The CS-IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In particular, we would welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, and (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. Sincerely, Vittorio Bertola and Parminder Jeet Singh (On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus) (ends) McTim, I have removed the reference to Tunis agenda in para 1 but not in para 2. I think the issue is not just that Nitin knows it is there, but to claim WSIS legitimacy for our demand. Avri, since brevity is the general style adopted, I haven't mentioned a call for an open consultative process which is implied in the last line. And I haven't put 'secretariat' along with Nitin and AG because, well... it becomes a bit long, and somewhat perfunctory. I will send it tomorrow evening, if there are no other comments, in pdf format enclosed in an email to nitin. Pamrinder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:29 PM > To: aizu at anr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Adam Peake; Milton Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > I'll second Izumi on the spelling out, and then closing/sending this > out. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> aizu at anr.org 1/11/2007 8:52 AM >>> > Parminder, thanks for the further edit. > > I think we can send this now. > > One minor suggetion is to spell out IGC, and add Civil Society to > make it clear, so "Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) > would > like to..." reads better. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > > > 2007/1/11, Parminder : > > > > > > > > We still wait for more comments/ suggestions on the proposed letter > to > > Nitin > > Desai on enhanced cooperation. Meanwhile, I have tried to pull the > texts > > proposed by Milton and Bill together. To this text I have added the > fact > > of > > the mandate of the Tunis agenda in para 1 (para 2 from Bill already > had > > such > > a mention) > > > > The proposed text is > > > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > > Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > > process > > aimed at 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy > issues > > related to the Internet, as required by the paragraph 71 of the > Tunis > > agenda. > > > > The IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of > the > > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation". In > > particular, > > we would welcome information on a)any concrete steps taken so far, > like, > > any > > discussions and consultations that have been held with governments > and > > other > > stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, > and > > b) > > the plans for involving civil society in the process per the clear > mandate > > in paragraph 71. > > > > (ends) > > > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:03 PM > > > To: Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > > > > > At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by > the > > UN > > > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to > start a > > > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > > policy > > > >> issues related to the Internet. > > > > > > > >Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin > > > >consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed > from > > > >this... > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and > enhance > > > cooperation > > > . > Relevant > > > part: > > > > > > "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to > ask > > > Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > > > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues > related > > > to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General > to > > > start such a process. " > > > > > > The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. > > > (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is > > > best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > > > >________________________________________________ > > > >Parminder Jeet Singh > > > >IT for Change, Bangalore > > > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > > >www.ITforChange.net > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM > > > >> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, > please > > > >> > > > >> Parminder: > > > >> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some > of > > the > > > >> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your > > overestimate > > > of > > > >> the amount of work required. > > > >> > > > >> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to > the > > > >> point. Something like, > > > >> > > > >> " Dear Nitin: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by > the UN > > > >> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to > start a > > > >> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > > policy > > > >> issues related to the Internet. > > > >> > > > >> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and > news > > of > > > >> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced > cooperation." > > What > > > >> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated > for > > > >> civil society in them? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > > > >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for > them to > > > >> > > > >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on > 30th > > last > > > >> to do > > > >> a draft in 3-4 days. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in > the > > > body > > > >> of > > > >> this email below. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> A couple of points about the draft. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing > the > > > >> case and > > > >> making a formal claim to know the present position against > clear > > > >> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS > process. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced > cooperation' > > > >> (EC) as > > > >> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 > and 61 > > of > > > >> Tunis > > > >> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets > > discussed > > > >> in > > > >> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter > > option. > > > >> Tunis > > > >> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of > > opinions > > > >> on > > > >> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our > 'public > > > >> policy' > > > >> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the > opening > > para > > > >> 69 > > > >> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a > somewhat > > > >> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however > is > > more > > > >> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk > about > > > > > different > > > >> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and > gTLDs > > > >> (64).. > > > >> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of > > public > > > >> policy > > > >> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a > slightly > > > >> improved > > > >> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as > all > > that > > > >> was > > > >> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy > space or > > > >> process > > > >> .. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Parminder > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Nitin Desai > > > >> > > > >> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Dear Mr Desai, > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate > you > > > for > > > >> the > > > >> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum > > (IGF). > > > A > > > >> good > > > >> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, > and > > > >> that of > > > >> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial > > > >> mould-setting > > > >> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties > approached it > > > >> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the > stage > > for > > > a > > > >> new > > > >> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed > > > >> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the > Internet, > > but > > > >> in > > > >> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global > > > >> governance. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive > to > > all, > > > >> which > > > >> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy > issues > > > related > > > >> to > > > >> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as > constituencies > > for > > > >> needed > > > >> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high > enough > > > >> degree of > > > >> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on > its > > own > > > - > > > >> for > > > >> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, > > > >> incorporating > > > >> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all > > > >> stakeholders, > > > >> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, > the > > fact > > > >> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least > after > > > >> they > > > >> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the > IGF, > > > >> require > > > >> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public > > policy > > > >> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post > WSIS > > > period > > > >> that > > > >> continues to cause concern to us. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many > > cross-cutting > > > >> international public policy issues that require attention and > are > > not > > > >> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 > of > > Tunis > > > >> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to > > initiate, > > > >> and > > > >> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and > > multilateral > > > >> process, with the participation of governments, private > sector, > > civil > > > >> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis > agenda > > > >> also > > > >> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates > this > > > >> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent > and > > > mandate > > > >> of > > > >> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to > proceed > > > with > > > >> the > > > >> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, > and > > > >> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is > quite > > > >> evident. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays > out > > > >> such a > > > >> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the > UN > > > >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the > end > > of > > > >> the > > > >> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > > > >> respective > > > >> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with > legal > > > >> process, > > > >> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations > should > > > >> commence > > > >> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all > stakeholders, > > > >> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. > The > > > >> same > > > >> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual > > > >> performance > > > >> reports. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, > much > > less > > > > > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy > principles > > > >> and > > > >> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly > > > >> mandated > > > >> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards > enhanced > > > >> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, > as > > well > > > >> as a > > > >> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of > the > > > WSIS > > > >> and > > > >> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of > these > > > >> issues, in > > > >> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be > > taken. > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society > in the > > > >> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public > policy > > > >> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts > of > > the > > > >> Tunis > > > >> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We > note > > with > > > >> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced > cooperation' > > > as > > > >> a > > > >> government-only process. This is completely at variance with > the > > > >> overall > > > >> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p > 60 > > and > > > >> 61) as > > > >> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced > cooperation' > > (p > > > >> 71). > > > >> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may > be > > > >> required by > > > >> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure > > incorporation > > > >> of > > > >> public interest in the development of the most powerful > technologies > > > of > > > >> our > > > >> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social > change. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanking you. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Sincerely > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > > >> > > > >> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > >> > > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > > > >> > > > >> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update > on > > > >> > > > >> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on > statements/contributions to > > > >> the > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. > > Enhanced > > > >> > > > >> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was > > > supposed > > > >> to > > > >> > > > >> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a > critical > > point > > > >> of > > > >> > > > >> > contention between EU and USA. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being > passive > > > >> watchers > > > >> > > > >> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop > is > > one > > > >> of > > > >> > > > >> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with > post-WSIS > > > >> Forum > > > >> > > > >> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us > face to > > > >> face > > > >> > > > >> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of > doing > > > >> > > > >> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need > to > > call > > > >> > > > >> > their bluff > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for > them to > > > >> > > > >> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to > be > > > >> said: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >a letter asking for > > > >> > > > >> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like > to > > be > > > >> > > > >> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to > see if > > > >> > > > >> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be > helpful. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> > > > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> > > > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> > > > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> > > > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Sat Jan 13 05:59:54 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:59:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: <20070111223344.27401.qmail@web34313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070111223344.27401.qmail@web34313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thank you very much Mr. Ooragbon for your nomination, Could you please ask MS Nneka NNENA to write her statement including the aceptance of the nomination and her committment to consultation and dialogue with the community? That will be great. Thanks, izumi 2007/1/12, NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS : > > I am Nominating MS Nneka NNENA. > Voted in Charter/2006 coordinator vote. > Pastor Peters OMORAGBON > Nurses Across the Borders > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Jan 13 06:06:20 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:06:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070113043749.60C79E05AC@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070113043749.60C79E05AC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45A8BD2C.3090505@wz-berlin.de> As I said before, the letter should also mention the secretariat, which did the main work anyway. Is there any reason not to mention it? jeanette Parminder schrieb: > This is the text of the letter planned to be sent out. > > (starts) > > From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > To > > Nitin Desai > Special Advisor to the Secretary-General > United Nations > > > Dear Mr Desai > > Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to > congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet > Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal > leadership, and that of your advisory team. > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process > of 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related to > the Internet. > > The CS-IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of the > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In particular, > we would welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, and > (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the clear > mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > Sincerely, > > Vittorio Bertola > and > Parminder Jeet Singh > > (On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus) > > (ends) > > > McTim, I have removed the reference to Tunis agenda in para 1 but not in > para 2. I think the issue is not just that Nitin knows it is there, but to > claim WSIS legitimacy for our demand. > > Avri, since brevity is the general style adopted, I haven't mentioned a call > for an open consultative process which is implied in the last line. > > And I haven't put 'secretariat' along with Nitin and AG because, well... it > becomes a bit long, and somewhat perfunctory. > > I will send it tomorrow evening, if there are no other comments, in pdf > format enclosed in an email to nitin. > > Pamrinder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:29 PM >> To: aizu at anr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Cc: Adam Peake; Milton Mueller >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >> >> I'll second Izumi on the spelling out, and then closing/sending this >> out. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >>>>> aizu at anr.org 1/11/2007 8:52 AM >>> >> Parminder, thanks for the further edit. >> >> I think we can send this now. >> >> One minor suggetion is to spell out IGC, and add Civil Society to >> make it clear, so "Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) >> would >> like to..." reads better. >> >> Thanks, >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> 2007/1/11, Parminder : >>> >>> >>> We still wait for more comments/ suggestions on the proposed letter >> to >>> Nitin >>> Desai on enhanced cooperation. Meanwhile, I have tried to pull the >> texts >>> proposed by Milton and Bill together. To this text I have added the >> fact >>> of >>> the mandate of the Tunis agenda in para 1 (para 2 from Bill already >> had >>> such >>> a mention) >>> >>> The proposed text is >>> >>> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN >>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a >>> process >>> aimed at 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy >> issues >>> related to the Internet, as required by the paragraph 71 of the >> Tunis >>> agenda. >>> >>> The IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of >> the >>> current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation". In >>> particular, >>> we would welcome information on a)any concrete steps taken so far, >> like, >>> any >>> discussions and consultations that have been held with governments >> and >>> other >>> stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, >> and >>> b) >>> the plans for involving civil society in the process per the clear >> mandate >>> in paragraph 71. >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> ________________________________________________ >>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>> IT for Change, Bangalore >>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >>> www.ITforChange.net >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:03 PM >>>> To: Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >>>> >>>> At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: >>>>> > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by >> the >>> UN >>>>>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to >> start a >>>>>> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public >>> policy >>>>>> issues related to the Internet. >>>>> Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin >>>>> consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed >> from >>>>> this... >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and >> enhance >>>> cooperation >>>> . >> Relevant >>>> part: >>>> >>>> "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to >> ask >>>> Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at >>>> enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues >> related >>>> to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General >> to >>>> start such a process. " >>>> >>>> The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. >>>> (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is >>>> best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>>>> IT for Change, Bangalore >>>>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >>>>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >>>>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >>>>> www.ITforChange.net >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM >>>>>> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, >> please >>>>>> Parminder: >>>>>> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some >> of >>> the >>>>>> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your >>> overestimate >>>> of >>>>>> the amount of work required. >>>>>> >>>>>> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to >> the >>>>>> point. Something like, >>>>>> >>>>>> " Dear Nitin: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by >> the UN >>>>>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to >> start a >>>>>> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public >>> policy >>>>>> issues related to the Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and >> news >>> of >>>>>> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced >> cooperation." >>> What >>>>>> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated >> for >>>>>> civil society in them? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> >>>>>> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for >> them to >>>>>> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on >> 30th >>> last >>>>>> to do >>>>>> a draft in 3-4 days. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in >> the >>>> body >>>>>> of >>>>>> this email below. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple of points about the draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing >> the >>>>>> case and >>>>>> making a formal claim to know the present position against >> clear >>>>>> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS >> process. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced >> cooperation' >>>>>> (EC) as >>>>>> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 >> and 61 >>> of >>>>>> Tunis >>>>>> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets >>> discussed >>>>>> in >>>>>> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter >>> option. >>>>>> Tunis >>>>>> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of >>> opinions >>>>>> on >>>>>> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our >> 'public >>>>>> policy' >>>>>> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the >> opening >>> para >>>>>> 69 >>>>>> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a >> somewhat >>>>>> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however >> is >>> more >>>>>> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk >> about >>>>> > different >>>>>> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and >> gTLDs >>>>>> (64).. >>>>>> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of >>> public >>>>>> policy >>>>>> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a >> slightly >>>>>> improved >>>>>> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as >> all >>> that >>>>>> was >>>>>> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy >> space or >>>>>> process >>>>>> .. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nitin Desai >>>>>> >>>>>> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Mr Desai, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate >> you >>>> for >>>>>> the >>>>>> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum >>> (IGF). >>>> A >>>>>> good >>>>>> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, >> and >>>>>> that of >>>>>> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial >>>>>> mould-setting >>>>>> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties >> approached it >>>>>> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the >> stage >>> for >>>> a >>>>>> new >>>>>> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed >>>>>> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the >> Internet, >>> but >>>>>> in >>>>>> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global >>>>>> governance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive >> to >>> all, >>>>>> which >>>>>> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy >> issues >>>> related >>>>>> to >>>>>> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as >> constituencies >>> for >>>>>> needed >>>>>> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high >> enough >>>>>> degree of >>>>>> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on >> its >>> own >>>> - >>>>>> for >>>>>> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, >>>>>> incorporating >>>>>> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all >>>>>> stakeholders, >>>>>> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, >> the >>> fact >>>>>> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least >> after >>>>>> they >>>>>> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the >> IGF, >>>>>> require >>>>>> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public >>> policy >>>>>> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post >> WSIS >>>> period >>>>>> that >>>>>> continues to cause concern to us. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many >>> cross-cutting >>>>>> international public policy issues that require attention and >> are >>> not >>>>>> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 >> of >>> Tunis >>>>>> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to >>> initiate, >>>>>> and >>>>>> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and >>> multilateral >>>>>> process, with the participation of governments, private >> sector, >>> civil >>>>>> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis >> agenda >>>>>> also >>>>>> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates >> this >>>>>> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent >> and >>>> mandate >>>>>> of >>>>>> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to >> proceed >>>> with >>>>>> the >>>>>> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, >> and >>>>>> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is >> quite >>>>>> evident. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays >> out >>>>>> such a >>>>>> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the >> UN >>>>>> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the >> end >>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their >>>>>> respective >>>>>> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with >> legal >>>>>> process, >>>>>> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations >> should >>>>>> commence >>>>>> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all >> stakeholders, >>>>>> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. >> The >>>>>> same >>>>>> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual >>>>>> performance >>>>>> reports. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, >> much >>> less >>>>> > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy >> principles >>>>>> and >>>>>> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly >>>>>> mandated >>>>>> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards >> enhanced >>>>>> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, >> as >>> well >>>>>> as a >>>>>> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of >> the >>>> WSIS >>>>>> and >>>>>> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of >> these >>>>>> issues, in >>>>>> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be >>> taken. >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society >> in the >>>>>> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public >> policy >>>>>> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts >> of >>> the >>>>>> Tunis >>>>>> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We >> note >>> with >>>>>> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced >> cooperation' >>>> as >>>>>> a >>>>>> government-only process. This is completely at variance with >> the >>>>>> overall >>>>>> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p >> 60 >>> and >>>>>> 61) as >>>>>> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced >> cooperation' >>> (p >>>>>> 71). >>>>>> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may >> be >>>>>> required by >>>>>> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure >>> incorporation >>>>>> of >>>>>> public interest in the development of the most powerful >> technologies >>>> of >>>>>> our >>>>>> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social >> change. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanking you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sincerely >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>>>> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >>>>>> >>>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM >>>>>> >>>>>> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update >> on >>>>>> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on >> statements/contributions to >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. >>> Enhanced >>>>>> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was >>>> supposed >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a >> critical >>> point >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> > contention between EU and USA. >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being >> passive >>>>>> watchers >>>>>> >>>>>> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop >> is >>> one >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with >> post-WSIS >>>>>> Forum >>>>>> >>>>>> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us >> face to >>>>>> face >>>>>> >>>>>> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of >> doing >>>>>> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need >> to >>> call >>>>>> > their bluff >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for >> them to >>>>>> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to >> be >>>>>> said: >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >a letter asking for >>>>>> >>>>>> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like >> to >>> be >>>>>> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to >> see if >>>>>> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be >> helpful. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> >>>>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> >>>>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> >>>>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society >> Kumon Center, Tama University >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 13 06:41:50 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:41:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070113043749.60C79E05AC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, On 1/13/07 5:37 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > The CS-IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of the > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In particular, > we would welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, and > (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the clear > mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. FWIW, as it would be easy to simply reply to this formulation that no "concrete measures" have been taken, I'd suggested, In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and b) the plans for beginning to involve civil society in the process per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. Per Michael's point about realistic expectations and the limits of transparency, I wouldn't expect much of a substantive recap of the conversations, but it'd be nice to at least have acknowledgement that they've happened. If even that's impossible, I guess it clarifies the meaning of CS' "involvement" in its "respective role." Whatever, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 13 06:42:14 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:12:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <45A8BD2C.3090505@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20070113114231.76F60E0DD6@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Jeanette > As I said before, the letter should also mention the secretariat, which > did the main work anyway. Is there any reason not to mention it? My reasons were as follows: 1. The concerned line is just an opener for the substantial issue that comes in later - a kind of soft-ner. If it were a doc where the substantial issue was IGC's comments on IGF etc it would be different. 2. the main import of the line is to refer to Nitin desai's personal leadership in IGF before we take him up on the trickier issue to follow. We just add AG, to make it little more 'democratic'. I know that the hardest part of the work is often done by the secretariats, and their role mostly remains largely unsung.. However I am unable to take this line of thinking so far as to believe that the 'main work' is done by them. leadership counts for a lot. And in this case I thought it was very important, and a key element. In any case as I said this line wasn't meant to be our substantive comment on the conduct of the IGF but a eulogy to nitin's leadership. The changed line will read A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team, as well as to the hard work put in by the secretariat. Is it fine. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:36 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > As I said before, the letter should also mention the secretariat, which > did the main work anyway. Is there any reason not to mention it? > jeanette > > > Parminder schrieb: > > This is the text of the letter planned to be sent out. > > > > (starts) > > > > From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > To > > > > Nitin Desai > > Special Advisor to the Secretary-General > > United Nations > > > > > > Dear Mr Desai > > > > Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to > > congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet > > Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your > personal > > leadership, and that of your advisory team. > > > > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > > Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > process > > of 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related > to > > the Internet. > > > > The CS-IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of > the > > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In > particular, > > we would welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, > and > > (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the > clear > > mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Vittorio Bertola > > and > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > (On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus) > > > > (ends) > > > > > > McTim, I have removed the reference to Tunis agenda in para 1 but not in > > para 2. I think the issue is not just that Nitin knows it is there, but > to > > claim WSIS legitimacy for our demand. > > > > Avri, since brevity is the general style adopted, I haven't mentioned a > call > > for an open consultative process which is implied in the last line. > > > > And I haven't put 'secretariat' along with Nitin and AG because, well... > it > > becomes a bit long, and somewhat perfunctory. > > > > I will send it tomorrow evening, if there are no other comments, in pdf > > format enclosed in an email to nitin. > > > > Pamrinder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > >> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:29 PM > >> To: aizu at anr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Cc: Adam Peake; Milton Mueller > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> > >> I'll second Izumi on the spelling out, and then closing/sending this > >> out. > >> > >> Lee > >> > >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight > >> School of Information Studies > >> Syracuse University > >> +1-315-443-6891office > >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >> > >>>>> aizu at anr.org 1/11/2007 8:52 AM >>> > >> Parminder, thanks for the further edit. > >> > >> I think we can send this now. > >> > >> One minor suggetion is to spell out IGC, and add Civil Society to > >> make it clear, so "Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) > >> would > >> like to..." reads better. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > >> > >> 2007/1/11, Parminder : > >>> > >>> > >>> We still wait for more comments/ suggestions on the proposed letter > >> to > >>> Nitin > >>> Desai on enhanced cooperation. Meanwhile, I have tried to pull the > >> texts > >>> proposed by Milton and Bill together. To this text I have added the > >> fact > >>> of > >>> the mandate of the Tunis agenda in para 1 (para 2 from Bill already > >> had > >>> such > >>> a mention) > >>> > >>> The proposed text is > >>> > >>> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > >>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > >>> process > >>> aimed at 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy > >> issues > >>> related to the Internet, as required by the paragraph 71 of the > >> Tunis > >>> agenda. > >>> > >>> The IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of > >> the > >>> current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation". In > >>> particular, > >>> we would welcome information on a)any concrete steps taken so far, > >> like, > >>> any > >>> discussions and consultations that have been held with governments > >> and > >>> other > >>> stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, > >> and > >>> b) > >>> the plans for involving civil society in the process per the clear > >> mandate > >>> in paragraph 71. > >>> > >>> (ends) > >>> > >>> > >>> Parminder > >>> > >>> ________________________________________________ > >>> Parminder Jeet Singh > >>> IT for Change, Bangalore > >>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >>> www.ITforChange.net > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:03 PM > >>>> To: Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >>>> > >>>> At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: > >>>>> > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by > >> the > >>> UN > >>>>>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to > >> start a > >>>>>> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > >>> policy > >>>>>> issues related to the Internet. > >>>>> Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin > >>>>> consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed > >> from > >>>>> this... > >>>> > >>>> Yes. > >>>> > >>>> UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and > >> enhance > >>>> cooperation > >>>> . > >> Relevant > >>>> part: > >>>> > >>>> "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to > >> ask > >>>> Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > >>>> enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues > >> related > >>>> to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General > >> to > >>>> start such a process. " > >>>> > >>>> The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. > >>>> (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is > >>>> best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Parminder > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________________________ > >>>>> Parminder Jeet Singh > >>>>> IT for Change, Bangalore > >>>>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >>>>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >>>>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >>>>> www.ITforChange.net > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM > >>>>>> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, > >> please > >>>>>> Parminder: > >>>>>> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some > >> of > >>> the > >>>>>> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your > >>> overestimate > >>>> of > >>>>>> the amount of work required. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to > >> the > >>>>>> point. Something like, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> " Dear Nitin: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by > >> the UN > >>>>>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to > >> start a > >>>>>> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > >>> policy > >>>>>> issues related to the Internet. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and > >> news > >>> of > >>>>>> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced > >> cooperation." > >>> What > >>>>>> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated > >> for > >>>>>> civil society in them? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > >>>>>> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for > >> them to > >>>>>> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on > >> 30th > >>> last > >>>>>> to do > >>>>>> a draft in 3-4 days. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in > >> the > >>>> body > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> this email below. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A couple of points about the draft. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing > >> the > >>>>>> case and > >>>>>> making a formal claim to know the present position against > >> clear > >>>>>> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS > >> process. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced > >> cooperation' > >>>>>> (EC) as > >>>>>> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 > >> and 61 > >>> of > >>>>>> Tunis > >>>>>> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets > >>> discussed > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter > >>> option. > >>>>>> Tunis > >>>>>> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of > >>> opinions > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our > >> 'public > >>>>>> policy' > >>>>>> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the > >> opening > >>> para > >>>>>> 69 > >>>>>> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a > >> somewhat > >>>>>> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however > >> is > >>> more > >>>>>> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk > >> about > >>>>> > different > >>>>>> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and > >> gTLDs > >>>>>> (64).. > >>>>>> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of > >>> public > >>>>>> policy > >>>>>> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a > >> slightly > >>>>>> improved > >>>>>> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as > >> all > >>> that > >>>>>> was > >>>>>> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy > >> space or > >>>>>> process > >>>>>> .. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Parminder > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nitin Desai > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Mr Desai, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate > >> you > >>>> for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum > >>> (IGF). > >>>> A > >>>>>> good > >>>>>> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, > >> and > >>>>>> that of > >>>>>> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial > >>>>>> mould-setting > >>>>>> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties > >> approached it > >>>>>> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the > >> stage > >>> for > >>>> a > >>>>>> new > >>>>>> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed > >>>>>> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the > >> Internet, > >>> but > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global > >>>>>> governance. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive > >> to > >>> all, > >>>>>> which > >>>>>> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy > >> issues > >>>> related > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as > >> constituencies > >>> for > >>>>>> needed > >>>>>> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high > >> enough > >>>>>> degree of > >>>>>> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on > >> its > >>> own > >>>> - > >>>>>> for > >>>>>> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, > >>>>>> incorporating > >>>>>> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all > >>>>>> stakeholders, > >>>>>> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, > >> the > >>> fact > >>>>>> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least > >> after > >>>>>> they > >>>>>> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the > >> IGF, > >>>>>> require > >>>>>> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public > >>> policy > >>>>>> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post > >> WSIS > >>>> period > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> continues to cause concern to us. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many > >>> cross-cutting > >>>>>> international public policy issues that require attention and > >> are > >>> not > >>>>>> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 > >> of > >>> Tunis > >>>>>> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to > >>> initiate, > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and > >>> multilateral > >>>>>> process, with the participation of governments, private > >> sector, > >>> civil > >>>>>> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis > >> agenda > >>>>>> also > >>>>>> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates > >> this > >>>>>> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent > >> and > >>>> mandate > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to > >> proceed > >>>> with > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, > >> and > >>>>>> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is > >> quite > >>>>>> evident. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays > >> out > >>>>>> such a > >>>>>> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the > >> UN > >>>>>> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the > >> end > >>> of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > >>>>>> respective > >>>>>> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with > >> legal > >>>>>> process, > >>>>>> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations > >> should > >>>>>> commence > >>>>>> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all > >> stakeholders, > >>>>>> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. > >> The > >>>>>> same > >>>>>> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual > >>>>>> performance > >>>>>> reports. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, > >> much > >>> less > >>>>> > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy > >> principles > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly > >>>>>> mandated > >>>>>> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards > >> enhanced > >>>>>> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, > >> as > >>> well > >>>>>> as a > >>>>>> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of > >> the > >>>> WSIS > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of > >> these > >>>>>> issues, in > >>>>>> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be > >>> taken. > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society > >> in the > >>>>>> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public > >> policy > >>>>>> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts > >> of > >>> the > >>>>>> Tunis > >>>>>> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We > >> note > >>> with > >>>>>> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced > >> cooperation' > >>>> as > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> government-only process. This is completely at variance with > >> the > >>>>>> overall > >>>>>> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p > >> 60 > >>> and > >>>>>> 61) as > >>>>>> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced > >> cooperation' > >>> (p > >>>>>> 71). > >>>>>> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may > >> be > >>>>>> required by > >>>>>> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure > >>> incorporation > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> public interest in the development of the most powerful > >> technologies > >>>> of > >>>>>> our > >>>>>> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social > >> change. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanking you. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sincerely > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update > >> on > >>>>>> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on > >> statements/contributions to > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. > >>> Enhanced > >>>>>> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was > >>>> supposed > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a > >> critical > >>> point > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > contention between EU and USA. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being > >> passive > >>>>>> watchers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop > >> is > >>> one > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with > >> post-WSIS > >>>>>> Forum > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us > >> face to > >>>>>> face > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of > >> doing > >>>>>> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need > >> to > >>> call > >>>>>> > their bluff > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for > >> them to > >>>>>> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to > >> be > >>>>>> said: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >a letter asking for > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like > >> to > >>> be > >>>>>> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to > >> see if > >>>>>> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be > >> helpful. > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For all list information and functions, see: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> >> Izumi Aizu << > >> > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society > >> Kumon Center, Tama University > >> * * * * * > >> << Writing the Future of the History >> > >> www.anr.org > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Jan 13 06:46:37 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:46:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070113114231.76F60E0DD6@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070113114231.76F60E0DD6@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45A8C69D.30006@wz-berlin.de> > > A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, > and that of your advisory team, as well as to the hard work put in by > the secretariat. > > > > Is it fine. Yes, its fine. I was only concerned about politeness. je > > > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:36 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> > >> As I said before, the letter should also mention the secretariat, which > >> did the main work anyway. Is there any reason not to mention it? > >> jeanette > >> > >> > >> Parminder schrieb: > >> > This is the text of the letter planned to be sent out. > >> > > >> > (starts) > >> > > >> > From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >> > > >> > To > >> > > >> > Nitin Desai > >> > Special Advisor to the Secretary-General > >> > United Nations > >> > > >> > > >> > Dear Mr Desai > >> > > >> > Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > >> > > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to > >> > congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet > >> > Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your > >> personal > >> > leadership, and that of your advisory team. > >> > > >> > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > >> > Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > >> process > >> > of 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related > >> to > >> > the Internet. > >> > > >> > The CS-IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of > >> the > >> > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In > >> particular, > >> > we would welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, > >> and > >> > (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the > >> clear > >> > mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > >> > > >> > Sincerely, > >> > > >> > Vittorio Bertola > >> > and > >> > Parminder Jeet Singh > >> > > >> > (On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus) > >> > > >> > (ends) > >> > > >> > > >> > McTim, I have removed the reference to Tunis agenda in para 1 but not in > >> > para 2. I think the issue is not just that Nitin knows it is there, but > >> to > >> > claim WSIS legitimacy for our demand. > >> > > >> > Avri, since brevity is the general style adopted, I haven't mentioned a > >> call > >> > for an open consultative process which is implied in the last line. > >> > > >> > And I haven't put 'secretariat' along with Nitin and AG because, well... > >> it > >> > becomes a bit long, and somewhat perfunctory. > >> > > >> > I will send it tomorrow evening, if there are no other comments, in pdf > >> > format enclosed in an email to nitin. > >> > > >> > Pamrinder > >> > > >> > ________________________________________________ > >> > Parminder Jeet Singh > >> > IT for Change, Bangalore > >> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >> > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >> > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >> > www.ITforChange.net > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > >> >> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:29 PM > >> >> To: aizu at anr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >> Cc: Adam Peake; Milton Mueller > >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> >> > >> >> I'll second Izumi on the spelling out, and then closing/sending this > >> >> out. > >> >> > >> >> Lee > >> >> > >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight > >> >> School of Information Studies > >> >> Syracuse University > >> >> +1-315-443-6891office > >> >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >> >> > >> >>>>> aizu at anr.org 1/11/2007 8:52 AM >>> > >> >> Parminder, thanks for the further edit. > >> >> > >> >> I think we can send this now. > >> >> > >> >> One minor suggetion is to spell out IGC, and add Civil Society to > >> >> make it clear, so "Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) > >> >> would > >> >> like to..." reads better. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> > >> >> izumi > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2007/1/11, Parminder : > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> We still wait for more comments/ suggestions on the proposed letter > >> >> to > >> >>> Nitin > >> >>> Desai on enhanced cooperation. Meanwhile, I have tried to pull the > >> >> texts > >> >>> proposed by Milton and Bill together. To this text I have added the > >> >> fact > >> >>> of > >> >>> the mandate of the Tunis agenda in para 1 (para 2 from Bill already > >> >> had > >> >>> such > >> >>> a mention) > >> >>> > >> >>> The proposed text is > >> >>> > >> >>> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN > >> >>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a > >> >>> process > >> >>> aimed at 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy > >> >> issues > >> >>> related to the Internet, as required by the paragraph 71 of the > >> >> Tunis > >> >>> agenda. > >> >>> > >> >>> The IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of > >> >> the > >> >>> current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation". In > >> >>> particular, > >> >>> we would welcome information on a)any concrete steps taken so far, > >> >> like, > >> >>> any > >> >>> discussions and consultations that have been held with governments > >> >> and > >> >>> other > >> >>> stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, > >> >> and > >> >>> b) > >> >>> the plans for involving civil society in the process per the clear > >> >> mandate > >> >>> in paragraph 71. > >> >>> > >> >>> (ends) > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Parminder > >> >>> > >> >>> ________________________________________________ > >> >>> Parminder Jeet Singh > >> >>> IT for Change, Bangalore > >> >>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >> >>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >> >>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >> >>> www.ITforChange.net > >> >>> > >> >>>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:03 PM > >> >>>> To: Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> >>>> > >> >>>> At 12:36 PM +0530 1/10/07, Parminder wrote: > >> >>>>> > We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by > >> >> the > >> >>> UN > >> >>>>>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to > >> >> start a > >> >>>>>> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > >> >>> policy > >> >>>>>> issues related to the Internet. > >> >>>>> Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin > >> >>>>> consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed > >> >> from > >> >>>>> this... > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Yes. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> UN press release announcing set up of the IGF secretariat and > >> >> enhance > >> >>>> cooperation > >> >>>> . > >> >> Relevant > >> >>>> part: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> "On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to > >> >> ask > >> >>>> Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > >> >>>> enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues > >> >> related > >> >>>> to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General > >> >> to > >> >>>> start such a process. " > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The words suggested for the question in the letter reflected this. > >> >>>> (and also one reason I think just asking the simple question is > >> >>>> best... but as said, more is OK if that's what all want.) > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Adam > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> Parminder > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> ________________________________________________ > >> >>>>> Parminder Jeet Singh > >> >>>>> IT for Change, Bangalore > >> >>>>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >> >>>>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >> >>>>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >> >>>>> www.ITforChange.net > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>>>>> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > >> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM > >> >>>>>> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; > >> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, > >> >> please > >> >>>>>> Parminder: > >> >>>>>> Thank you for an extensive effort on this draft. Perhaps some > >> >> of > >> >>> the > >> >>>>>> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your > >> >>> overestimate > >> >>>> of > >> >>>>>> the amount of work required. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to > >> >> the > >> >>>>>> point. Something like, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> " Dear Nitin: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by > >> >> the UN > >> >>>>>> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to > >> >> start a > >> >>>>>> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public > >> >>> policy > >> >>>>>> issues related to the Internet. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and > >> >> news > >> >>> of > >> >>>>>> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced > >> >> cooperation." > >> >>> What > >> >>>>>> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated > >> >> for > >> >>>>>> civil society in them? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>> > >> >>>>>> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for > >> >> them to > >> >>>>>> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on > >> >> 30th > >> >>> last > >> >>>>>> to do > >> >>>>>> a draft in 3-4 days. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in > >> >> the > >> >>>> body > >> >>>>>> of > >> >>>>>> this email below. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> A couple of points about the draft. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing > >> >> the > >> >>>>>> case and > >> >>>>>> making a formal claim to know the present position against > >> >> clear > >> >>>>>> commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS > >> >> process. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced > >> >> cooperation' > >> >>>>>> (EC) as > >> >>>>>> THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 > >> >> and 61 > >> >>> of > >> >>>>>> Tunis > >> >>>>>> agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets > >> >>> discussed > >> >>>>>> in > >> >>>>>> more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter > >> >>> option. > >> >>>>>> Tunis > >> >>>>>> agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of > >> >>> opinions > >> >>>>>> on > >> >>>>>> this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our > >> >> 'public > >> >>>>>> policy' > >> >>>>>> eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the > >> >> opening > >> >>> para > >> >>>>>> 69 > >> >>>>>> that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a > >> >> somewhat > >> >>>>>> exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however > >> >> is > >> >>> more > >> >>>>>> multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk > >> >> about > >> >>>>> > different > >> >>>>>> public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and > >> >> gTLDs > >> >>>>>> (64).. > >> >>>>>> Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of > >> >>> public > >> >>>>>> policy > >> >>>>>> also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a > >> >> slightly > >> >>>>>> improved > >> >>>>>> GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as > >> >> all > >> >>> that > >> >>>>>> was > >> >>>>>> ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy > >> >> space or > >> >>>>>> process > >> >>>>>> .. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Parminder > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> (draft below, and also enclosed as attachment) > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Nitin Desai > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Dear Mr Desai, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate > >> >> you > >> >>>> for > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum > >> >>> (IGF). > >> >>>> A > >> >>>>>> good > >> >>>>>> amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, > >> >> and > >> >>>>>> that of > >> >>>>>> your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial > >> >>>>>> mould-setting > >> >>>>>> exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties > >> >> approached it > >> >>>>>> positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the > >> >> stage > >> >>> for > >> >>>> a > >> >>>>>> new > >> >>>>>> multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed > >> >>>>>> path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the > >> >> Internet, > >> >>> but > >> >>>>>> in > >> >>>>>> general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global > >> >>>>>> governance. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive > >> >> to > >> >>> all, > >> >>>>>> which > >> >>>>>> gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy > >> >> issues > >> >>>> related > >> >>>>>> to > >> >>>>>> the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as > >> >> constituencies > >> >>> for > >> >>>>>> needed > >> >>>>>> change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high > >> >> enough > >> >>>>>> degree of > >> >>>>>> consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on > >> >> its > >> >>> own > >> >>>> - > >> >>>>>> for > >> >>>>>> instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, > >> >>>>>> incorporating > >> >>>>>> agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all > >> >>>>>> stakeholders, > >> >>>>>> civil society groups, business and the governments. However, > >> >> the > >> >>> fact > >> >>>>>> remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least > >> >> after > >> >>>>>> they > >> >>>>>> reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the > >> >> IGF, > >> >>>>>> require > >> >>>>>> inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public > >> >>> policy > >> >>>>>> making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post > >> >> WSIS > >> >>>> period > >> >>>>>> that > >> >>>>>> continues to cause concern to us. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many > >> >>> cross-cutting > >> >>>>>> international public policy issues that require attention and > >> >> are > >> >>> not > >> >>>>>> adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 > >> >> of > >> >>> Tunis > >> >>>>>> agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the 'need to > >> >>> initiate, > >> >>>>>> and > >> >>>>>> reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and > >> >>> multilateral > >> >>>>>> process, with the participation of governments, private > >> >> sector, > >> >>> civil > >> >>>>>> society and international organizations . (p 61). The Tunis > >> >> agenda > >> >>>>>> also > >> >>>>>> expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates > >> >> this > >> >>>>>> development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent > >> >> and > >> >>>> mandate > >> >>>>>> of > >> >>>>>> the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to > >> >> proceed > >> >>>> with > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, > >> >> and > >> >>>>>> processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is > >> >> quite > >> >>>>>> evident. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays > >> >> out > >> >>>>>> such a > >> >>>>>> clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the > >> >> UN > >> >>>>>> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the > >> >> end > >> >>> of > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > >> >>>>>> respective > >> >>>>>> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with > >> >> legal > >> >>>>>> process, > >> >>>>>> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations > >> >> should > >> >>>>>> commence > >> >>>>>> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all > >> >> stakeholders, > >> >>>>>> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. > >> >> The > >> >>>>>> same > >> >>>>>> relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual > >> >>>>>> performance > >> >>>>>> reports. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, > >> >> much > >> >>> less > >> >>>>> > action, on the broader issue of developing public policy > >> >> principles > >> >>>>>> and > >> >>>>>> processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly > >> >>>>>> mandated > >> >>>>>> issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards > >> >> enhanced > >> >>>>>> cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, > >> >> as > >> >>> well > >> >>>>>> as a > >> >>>>>> stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of > >> >> the > >> >>>> WSIS > >> >>>>>> and > >> >>>>>> post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of > >> >> these > >> >>>>>> issues, in > >> >>>>>> terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be > >> >>> taken. > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society > >> >> in the > >> >>>>>> envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public > >> >> policy > >> >>>>>> processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts > >> >> of > >> >>> the > >> >>>>>> Tunis > >> >>>>>> agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We > >> >> note > >> >>> with > >> >>>>>> concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced > >> >> cooperation' > >> >>>> as > >> >>>>>> a > >> >>>>>> government-only process. This is completely at variance with > >> >> the > >> >>>>>> overall > >> >>>>>> envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p > >> >> 60 > >> >>> and > >> >>>>>> 61) as > >> >>>>>> well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced > >> >> cooperation' > >> >>> (p > >> >>>>>> 71). > >> >>>>>> We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may > >> >> be > >> >>>>>> required by > >> >>>>>> you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure > >> >>> incorporation > >> >>>>>> of > >> >>>>>> public interest in the development of the most powerful > >> >> technologies > >> >>>> of > >> >>>>>> our > >> >>>>>> times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social > >> >> change. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thanking you. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Sincerely > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > -----Original Message----- > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update > >> >> on > >> >>>>>> > >enhanced cooperation? And working on > >> >> statements/contributions to > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. > >> >>> Enhanced > >> >>>>>> > cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was > >> >>>> supposed > >> >>>>>> to > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a > >> >> critical > >> >>> point > >> >>>>>> of > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > contention between EU and USA. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > There are (legitimate) worries about governments being > >> >> passive > >> >>>>>> watchers > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop > >> >> is > >> >>> one > >> >>>>>> of > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > the few areas where state politics can intersect with > >> >> post-WSIS > >> >>>>>> Forum > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us > >> >> face to > >> >>>>>> face > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of > >> >> doing > >> >>>>>> > anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need > >> >> to > >> >>> call > >> >>>>>> > their bluff > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for > >> >> them to > >> >>>>>> > initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to > >> >> be > >> >>>>>> said: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >a letter asking for > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like > >> >> to > >> >>> be > >> >>>>>> > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to > >> >> see if > >> >>>>>> > >they will also then ask the same questions might be > >> >> helpful. > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > For all list information and functions, see: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>>> > >> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> >>> > >> >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> >> Izumi Aizu << > >> >> > >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society > >> >> Kumon Center, Tama University > >> >> * * * * * > >> >> << Writing the Future of the History >> > >> >> www.anr.org > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> >> > >> >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > > >> > For all list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 13 06:53:51 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:23:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070113115354.29C7CC9456@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bill/ others Does this text work The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team, as well as to the hard work put in by the secretariat. We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process of 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The CS-IGC would appreciate an update on progress and news of the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In particular, we would very much welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, for instance, any discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. (ends) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:12 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > Hi Parminder, > > > On 1/13/07 5:37 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > The CS-IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of > the > > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In > particular, > > we would welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, > and > > (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the > clear > > mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > FWIW, as it would be easy to simply reply to this formulation that no > "concrete measures" have been taken, I'd suggested, > > In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any > discussions > and consultations that have been held with governments and other > stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and > b) > the plans for beginning to involve civil society in the process per the > clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > Per Michael's point about realistic expectations and the limits of > transparency, I wouldn't expect much of a substantive recap of the > conversations, but it'd be nice to at least have acknowledgement that > they've happened. If even that's impossible, I guess it clarifies the > meaning of CS' "involvement" in its "respective role." > > Whatever, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Jan 13 06:55:32 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:55:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at the February consultations (was: Re: http://igf2006.intgovforum.org/ ist down) In-Reply-To: <45A77977.3070501@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <45A77977.3070501@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45A8C8B4.4070103@Malcolm.id.au> Ralf Bendrath wrote [off-list]: > Hi Jeremy and Kieren, > > happy new year, first of all! > > Can you please fix the server? Or is there a more difficult (like > political) problem behind this? We are starting to plan for the February > consultations, and the wiki would be really helpful for that. Thanks for the note Ralf; I'm cc'ing the IGC list in case others have been trying the same URL and encountered the same difficulty. Also, I'd like to update them and you on some other important developments. First, the correct URL for the IGF 2006 Community Site has always been http://igf2006.info/. For a while we moved the site to a United Nations server and redirected the above URL to it, at the address you tried. However, the Secretariat didn't want to host the site any longer, so they have taken it down and it is back on the original server, still accessible at the above address. But there are some other things you ought to know in relation to the use of the site for the 2007 consultations: * There is a new site on the way, to be developed by a new Dynamic Coalition for Online Collaboration (which naturally you are all invited to participate in, so stay tuned for further details). You may recall a draft letter to the Secretariat about the IGF's Web sites... this was never sent, but has morphed into a draft manifesto for the Dynamic Coalition. * This may or may not use the same technology as igf2006.info. I am in discussion with the developers of Deme (http://groupspace.org/) who are soon to release a new and very impressive looking version of their Web-based platform for online deliberation. But, there are other alternatives too, that will need to be discussed by the new Dynamic Coalition. * The new site, in whatever form it takes, won't be ready for the February 2007 consultations. However, the IGF Secretariat has approved my application to become the IGF's contact with the Freenode IRC network (see http://freenode.net), which means that we have a new chat forum that is much more scalable than the one on the old Web site. I encourage you all to try it out. For details on how to access the #igf channel on the Freenode IRC network, see http://igf2006.info/wiki/RemoteParticipation. I'm running late with all of this because my wife has just given birth to our first child this week, and I've also been racing to finish Chapter 4 of my thesis (which, to digress, is well worth reading now that I've completed it, because it contains a section on tools for remote participation (see http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis/). Whether or not the IRC channel will be of any use depends on whether there will have been arrangements made for someone to have an Internet connection in Geneva on the 13th and to act as a go-between for remote participants - can Avri or Adam or anyone else in the know give us an update on this? If not, it is all for naught. Additionally, of course, it would be great if the IGF Secretariat would publicise the facility on the official Web site. But given that they haven't done that for igf2006.info or even for the official plenary at intgovforum.org mailing list, I'm holding out for a pig to go flapping past my window first. -- 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Sat Jan 13 14:35:40 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (michael_leibrandt at web.de) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:35:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: 20070113115354.29C7CC9456@smtp1.electricembers.net Message-ID: hi there, sorry for jumping into the letter discussion at this stage, but baring in mind the language a former un guy like nitin is used to, i would strongly suggest that - after the somewhat police inquiry type of wording in (a) and (b) - the letter should close with a positive and constructive sentence like "we would like to reasure you our continued willingness and readiness to substantially contribute to this important part of the inclusive wsis follow up process". michael ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Jan 13 16:03:22 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:03:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34F62D9E-4BE2-4282-8E3E-9C9BEF21C7C1@psg.com> hi, while i appreciate politeness in letters, and signing of with something polite is always a good thing regardless of whether one is addressing government types or simple people, i would like to caution against acting too much like the diplomats or in catering too much to their style. one of the things that is special about the IGF is that is is a coming together of many communities, each with their own style. i personally believe that the more we try to imitate the behavior patterns of the governments, the more we weaken our case. another problem i have with statements like these is the implicit indication that there is the possibility that there were conditions under which we would not continue to play constructively. certainly whenever i read something like this, i immediately see the opposing unstated threat. i think a simple terminating 'thank you' should be sufficient. a. On 13 jan 2007, at 14.35, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote: > hi there, > > sorry for jumping into the letter discussion at this stage, but > baring in mind > the language a former un guy like nitin is used to, i would > strongly suggest > that - after the somewhat police inquiry type of wording in (a) and > (b) - the > letter should close with a positive and constructive sentence like > > "we would like to reasure you our continued willingness and > readiness to > substantially contribute to this important part of the inclusive > wsis follow up > process". > > michael > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From remmyn at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 13 16:22:04 2007 From: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk (Remmy Nweke) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:22:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070113115354.29C7CC9456@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <177103.18919.qm@web23315.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Parminder and colleagues, Please allow me to make some observations. I would suggest that the para that started with "we are writing you ... is too worthy for a business letter and instead should read, "We refer to the UN Secretary-General's brief to your office to begin informal consultations on processes of 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related to the Internet." And please don't forget the closing salutation ... Yours sincerely/faithfully as the case may be .... Cheers Remmy Parminder wrote: Bill/ others Does this text work The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team, as well as to the hard work put in by the secretariat. We refare writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a process of 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The CS-IGC would appreciate an update on progress and news of the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In particular, we would very much welcome information on: (a) any concrete measures taken so far, for instance, any discussions and consultations that have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. (ends) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:12 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please > > Hi Parminder, > > > On 1/13/07 5:37 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > The CS-IGC would very much appreciate an update on progress and news of > the > > current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In > particular, > > we would welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, > and > > (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the > clear > > mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > FWIW, as it would be easy to simply reply to this formulation that no > "concrete measures" have been taken, I'd suggested, > > In particular, we would very much welcome information on a) any > discussions > and consultations that have been held with governments and other > stakeholders on the substance and modalities of enhanced cooperation, and > b) > the plans for beginning to involve civil society in the process per the > clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > Per Michael's point about realistic expectations and the limits of > transparency, I wouldn't expect much of a substantive recap of the > conversations, but it'd be nice to at least have acknowledgement that > they've happened. If even that's impossible, I guess it clarifies the > meaning of CS' "involvement" in its "respective role." > > Whatever, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance REMMY NWEKE Senior Reporter, IT & Telecom Head, ICT Desk Champion Newspapers Ltd 156/158 Oshodi-Apapa Expressway Isolo Industrial Layout, Ilasamaja P.O. Box 2276, Oshodi-Lagos Fax: 234-01-4526017, 4524421 GSM: 234-8023122558, 8033592762 Editor, ITREALMS Online www.itrealms.blogspot.com email: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk 'First Nigerian IT African Siemens Profile Award winner-2004' Second prize winner, ECA-AISI Media Award-05 'Two-time winner, African Siemens Profile Award IT Business Solution-2005' Highway Africa News Agency (HANA) Journalist of the Year - 2006 --------------------------------- Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. -------------- 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 Sat Jan 13 21:57:43 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:57:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please Message-ID: I second avri here, a polite but not too obsequious or formal closing is fine. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> avri at psg.com 1/13/2007 4:03 PM >>> hi, while i appreciate politeness in letters, and signing of with something polite is always a good thing regardless of whether one is addressing government types or simple people, i would like to caution against acting too much like the diplomats or in catering too much to their style. one of the things that is special about the IGF is that is is a coming together of many communities, each with their own style. i personally believe that the more we try to imitate the behavior patterns of the governments, the more we weaken our case. another problem i have with statements like these is the implicit indication that there is the possibility that there were conditions under which we would not continue to play constructively. certainly whenever i read something like this, i immediately see the opposing unstated threat. i think a simple terminating 'thank you' should be sufficient. a. On 13 jan 2007, at 14.35, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote: > hi there, > > sorry for jumping into the letter discussion at this stage, but > baring in mind > the language a former un guy like nitin is used to, i would > strongly suggest > that - after the somewhat police inquiry type of wording in (a) and > (b) - the > letter should close with a positive and constructive sentence like > > "we would like to reasure you our continued willingness and > readiness to > substantially contribute to this important part of the inclusive > wsis follow up > process". > > michael > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 14 11:55:05 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:55:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please Message-ID: See Michael's point, but I agree a simple thanks for this letter is enough. What we might do is include a comment about our "continued willingness and readiness to substantially contribute" etc in any contribution on the stock-taking exercise (if we're to make a contribution?) And I would also like us to say we support and encourage Mr Desai to continue as chair of the advisory group. Anyone have thoughts for a contribution to the stocktaking exercise? One comment from a MAG point of view -- it was nice to be able to accept all the workshop proposals for Athens. I don't think the MAG would have been good at deciding which to keep and which not. More time this year, should be able to design a better, clearer program. Without workshops, it starts to look very much like a dull conference. No more 3 hour panels. I thought the format generally worked, though moderators need more/better briefing. Keep IG for development. Access as a main theme. Capacity building as a theme rather than cross cutting. Revisit para 71 for missed issues. Internet resources ("ICANN") should be discussed. Openness, Security, Diversity are good themes. Emerging issues needs completely rethinking. Adam At 4:03 PM -0500 1/13/07, Avri Doria wrote: >hi, > >while i appreciate politeness in letters, and signing of with >something polite is always a good thing regardless of whether one is >addressing government types or simple people, i would like to >caution against acting too much like the diplomats or in catering >too much to their style. > >one of the things that is special about the IGF is that is is a >coming together of many communities, each with their own style. i >personally believe that the more we try to imitate the behavior >patterns of the governments, the more we weaken our case. > >another problem i have with statements like these is the implicit >indication that there is the possibility that there were conditions >under which we would not continue to play constructively. certainly >whenever i read something like this, i immediately see the opposing >unstated threat. > >i think a simple terminating 'thank you' should be sufficient. > >a. > > >On 13 jan 2007, at 14.35, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote: > >>hi there, >> >>sorry for jumping into the letter discussion at this stage, but >>baring in mind >>the language a former un guy like nitin is used to, i would strongly suggest >>that - after the somewhat police inquiry type of wording in (a) and (b) - the >>letter should close with a positive and constructive sentence like >> >>"we would like to reasure you our continued willingness and readiness to >>substantially contribute to this important part of the inclusive >>wsis follow up >>process". >> >>michael >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jan 14 15:00:48 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:00:48 +1100 Subject: [governance] Stocktaking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0cff01c73816$b1ce45f0$4a02a8c0@IAN> Generally agree with Adam's comments below, but from my distance a couple of observations. Agree the panels were not brilliant. Perhaps a commissioned experts paper circulated in advance on some of these, presented with brevity followed by a forum would give rise to more considered thought on issues as well as a higher level of interactivity. And particularly agree re emerging issues which was not well handled, and is where IGF is likely to be able to make the most difference. I didn't see any mature level of identification of what the emerging issues are, let alone any discussion of the role that IGF and its participants can play in addressing these. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 15 January 2007 03:55 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please See Michael's point, but I agree a simple thanks for this letter is enough. What we might do is include a comment about our "continued willingness and readiness to substantially contribute" etc in any contribution on the stock-taking exercise (if we're to make a contribution?) And I would also like us to say we support and encourage Mr Desai to continue as chair of the advisory group. Anyone have thoughts for a contribution to the stocktaking exercise? One comment from a MAG point of view -- it was nice to be able to accept all the workshop proposals for Athens. I don't think the MAG would have been good at deciding which to keep and which not. More time this year, should be able to design a better, clearer program. Without workshops, it starts to look very much like a dull conference. No more 3 hour panels. I thought the format generally worked, though moderators need more/better briefing. Keep IG for development. Access as a main theme. Capacity building as a theme rather than cross cutting. Revisit para 71 for missed issues. Internet resources ("ICANN") should be discussed. Openness, Security, Diversity are good themes. Emerging issues needs completely rethinking. Adam At 4:03 PM -0500 1/13/07, Avri Doria wrote: >hi, > >while i appreciate politeness in letters, and signing of with >something polite is always a good thing regardless of whether one is >addressing government types or simple people, i would like to >caution against acting too much like the diplomats or in catering >too much to their style. > >one of the things that is special about the IGF is that is is a >coming together of many communities, each with their own style. i >personally believe that the more we try to imitate the behavior >patterns of the governments, the more we weaken our case. > >another problem i have with statements like these is the implicit >indication that there is the possibility that there were conditions >under which we would not continue to play constructively. certainly >whenever i read something like this, i immediately see the opposing >unstated threat. > >i think a simple terminating 'thank you' should be sufficient. > >a. > > >On 13 jan 2007, at 14.35, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote: > >>hi there, >> >>sorry for jumping into the letter discussion at this stage, but >>baring in mind >>the language a former un guy like nitin is used to, i would strongly suggest >>that - after the somewhat police inquiry type of wording in (a) and (b) - the >>letter should close with a positive and constructive sentence like >> >>"we would like to reasure you our continued willingness and readiness to >>substantially contribute to this important part of the inclusive >>wsis follow up >>process". >> >>michael >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/625 - Release Date: 13/01/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/625 - Release Date: 13/01/2007 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Jan 14 21:52:40 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:52:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AAEC78.6050501@Malcolm.id.au> Adam Peake wrote: > Anyone have thoughts for a contribution to the stocktaking exercise? Mine are in a post I made a couple of months ago to the forum at http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=21.new#new - some edited highlights: * Fewer panelists in the main sessions. * Consolidation of similar-themed workshops. * Workshops and main sessions not to be held concurrently. * A plenary session for discussion of procedural and organisational issues. * Plenary sessions for discussion of the output of dynamic coalitions. * Seat plenary sessions in table groups with time for small group discussion. I also agree with the suggestion that briefing papers should be prepared by experts for circulation prior to each panel, to save time and ensure that everybody is on the same page. However there is a danger in this in that the written submissions and even the synthesis paper disappeared into a black hole last time, with no reference being made to them during the panels. This should not happen again. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jan 15 04:21:11 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:21:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: (message from Adam Peake on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:55:05 +0900) References: Message-ID: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > Keep IG for development. But then it needs to be made clear, much clearer than was done for Athens, that "development" isn't just something that needs to happen in the so-called third world countries. With respect to getting rid of the various kinds of barriers which particularly hinder people with disabilities from fully participating in the information society, the industrial countries are very much in need of "development"! Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 05:00:07 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 05:00:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> Dear Norbert and All, I will enthusiastically second - that people are developing all over the world and at all times. Ever will it be so. There is a concept of a critical average or base line, and we must be *very* attentive to countries, regions, and localities where very large numbers of persons face barriers, and of all sorts. Often, however, right around us there is great need and where there is need there is duty. And splendorous opportunity as well. With very best wishes, Linda M F. LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff Various affiliations with disability support and NGOs internationally; *Respectful Interfaces*, The Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.. On 1/15/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Adam Peake wrote: > > > Keep IG for development. > > But then it needs to be made clear, much clearer than was done for > Athens, that "development" isn't just something that needs to happen > in the so-called third world countries. With respect to getting rid > of the various kinds of barriers which particularly hinder people > with disabilities from fully participating in the information society, > the industrial countries are very much in need of "development"! > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 15 05:24:44 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:24:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree. We need the people with disabilities caucus to be more involved. Adam At 5:00 AM -0500 1/15/07, l.d.misek-falkoff wrote: >Dear Norbert and All, > >I will enthusiastically second - that people are >developing all over the world and at all times. >Ever will it be so. There is a concept of a >critical average or base line, and we must be >very attentive to countries, regions, and >localities where very large numbers of persons >face barriers, and of all sorts. Often, >however, right around us there is great need and >where there is need there is duty. And >splendorous opportunity as well. > >With very best wishes, Linda M F. LDMF. >Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff >Various affiliations with disability support and NGOs internationally; >*Respectful Interfaces*, The Communications >Coordination Committee for the U.N.. > > >On 1/15/07, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: > >Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > >> Keep IG for development. > >But then it needs to be made clear, much clearer than was done for >Athens, that "development" isn't just something that needs to happen >in the so-called third world countries.  With respect to getting rid >of the various kinds of barriers which particularly hinder people >with disabilities from fully participating in the information society, >the industrial countries are very much in need of "development"! > >Greetings, >Norbert. > > >-- >Norbert Bollow ><nb at bollow.ch>                    http://Norbert.ch >President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG >http://SIUG.ch >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 15 05:28:54 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:28:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens Message-ID: Private sector contribution to the stock taking exercise. I've not included the attachment, can grab it from Adam > >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:08:31 +0100 >Subject: Re: [igf_members] ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens > > >Dear colleagues, > >I am pleased to provide you with the attached >document, ICC BASIS feedback on IGF Athens (pdf. >9 pages), that communicates the reflections of >global business on the first IGF and >recommendations for the preparations, >substantive focus and format of the next IGF >which will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil >from 12 to 15 November 2007. > >This contribution has been prepared ahead of the >first stock-taking session of the IGF advisory >group and the open consultation which will take >place in Geneva from 12 to 13 February 2007. >This contribution has been submitted to the IGF >secretariat for posting on their website and is >available on the ICC website at: > >http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICCBASIS_input_on_IGF_Athens_Final_12_01_07.pdf > >Thank you in advance for your consideration of >the reflections and priorities of global >business on these important issues. > >Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > >Best regards, > >Ayesha > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jan 15 07:52:00 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:52:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] barriers (was Re: Action...) In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> (message from l.d.misek-falkoff on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 05:00:07 -0500) References: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070115125200.DDAAE544BD@quill.bollow.ch> l.d.misek-falkoff wrote: > people are developing all over the world and at all times. Ever > will it be so. There is a concept of a critical average or base > line, and we must be *very* attentive to countries, regions, and > localities where very large numbers of persons face barriers, and of > all sorts. This is very true - such countries, regions, and localities are likely to get caught in a poverty trap unless action is taken from outside these disadvantaged areas to make sure that at least some genuine opportunities for sustainable economic success are made available to people living in those areas. I strongly agree with Linda's exhortation to be "*very* attentive". It seems to me that very often the attention that is given is very one-sided on providing some tangible and intangible assets that are helpful for overcoming barriers and for having opportunities. For example education, internet access, capacity building for all kinds of governance, etc. All this is very good and valuable and needed. But I feel that very often not enough attention is paid to reducing the economic mechanisms through which many of these barriers come into being in the first place. Some of these barriers are even created intentionally by powerful companies, and the governments of the countries where these companies pay their taxes make compliance with these barriers a condition of "free trade agreements" and the like. > Often, however, right around us there is great need and > where there is need there is duty. And splendorous opportunity as > well. In this area I'd like to make a somewhat stronger statement: In the field of internet governance we have duties which go beyond reacting to "great needs". We also have a duty to be proactive. For example, as far as I know, all the significant technological barriers which hinder people with disabilities from fully participating in the information society could have been avoided by proactively evaluating proposed changes to the technology landscape concerning the likely impact on people with disabilities, and making appropriate adjustments. If the IGF fails to result in a strong realization of the importance of such proactive consideration of the needs of people with disabilities and countries with poor infrastructure conditions and weak educational systems (the so-called "third world" countries), then the IGF has in my opinion totally gone astray and become a series of conferences without any significant long-term relevance. I am currently somewhat pessimistic in regard to the chances of the IGF being able to avoid this fate. Consequently, because I don't see much reason to hope that something viable with long-term relevance will come out of the IGF, I'll focus my attention on trying to create an entity which can be influential in internet governance in a reasonable (proactive as well as reactive) way. This "entity" will be an open business alliance (of mainly European information tenchnology businesses) called the "Internet Freedom Governance Initiative". There are a few more details at http://IFGI.eu . Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 09:30:31 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:30:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] barriers (was Re: Action...) In-Reply-To: <20070115125200.DDAAE544BD@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> <20070115125200.DDAAE544BD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410701150630q73e3fa52m3b170635ce13e5c1@mail.gmail.com> Briefly for perhaps later expansion, I certainly agree with you Norbert - about poverty and about addressing barriers wherever they occur. An extended observation and support is that - indeed *duties* are usually associated with proactive recognition of *rights*, not just per se " *needs*." (The *rights/duties* analyses can pertain to those having the * rights* also having *duties*, or people having *duties* respecting others' * rights*. And etc) Good news is that massaging these messages towards *rights*-based analyses, among other points in your posts or derivable from them, pertains very much both to (a) foresight and planning in *policy*, and also to (b) resulting * deliverables* being more practical, affordable, explainable, understandable, maintainable, and friendly to evaluation and repair or revision down-line. Some responsive thoughts, open to correction or emendation, and sin ding best wishes and continuing new years greetings, LDMF. On 1/15/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > l.d.misek-falkoff wrote: > > > people are developing all over the world and at all times. Ever > > will it be so. There is a concept of a critical average or base > > line, and we must be *very* attentive to countries, regions, and > > localities where very large numbers of persons face barriers, and of > > all sorts. > > This is very true - such countries, regions, and localities are likely > to get caught in a poverty trap unless action is taken from outside > these disadvantaged areas to make sure that at least some genuine > opportunities for sustainable economic success are made available to > people living in those areas. > > I strongly agree with Linda's exhortation to be "*very* attentive". > > It seems to me that very often the attention that is given is very > one-sided on providing some tangible and intangible assets that are > helpful for overcoming barriers and for having opportunities. For > example education, internet access, capacity building for all kinds > of governance, etc. All this is very good and valuable and needed. > > But I feel that very often not enough attention is paid to reducing > the economic mechanisms through which many of these barriers come > into being in the first place. Some of these barriers are even > created intentionally by powerful companies, and the governments of > the countries where these companies pay their taxes make compliance > with these barriers a condition of "free trade agreements" and the > like. > > > Often, however, right around us there is great need and > > where there is need there is duty. And splendorous opportunity as > > well. > > In this area I'd like to make a somewhat stronger statement: In the > field of internet governance we have duties which go beyond reacting > to "great needs". We also have a duty to be proactive. For example, > as far as I know, all the significant technological barriers which > hinder people with disabilities from fully participating in the > information society could have been avoided by proactively evaluating > proposed changes to the technology landscape concerning the likely > impact on people with disabilities, and making appropriate > adjustments. > > If the IGF fails to result in a strong realization of the importance > of such proactive consideration of the needs of people with > disabilities and countries with poor infrastructure conditions and > weak educational systems (the so-called "third world" countries), > then the IGF has in my opinion totally gone astray and become a series > of conferences without any significant long-term relevance. I am > currently somewhat pessimistic in regard to the chances of the IGF > being able to avoid this fate. > > Consequently, because I don't see much reason to hope that something > viable with long-term relevance will come out of the IGF, I'll focus > my attention on trying to create an entity which can be influential in > internet governance in a reasonable (proactive as well as reactive) > way. This "entity" will be an open business alliance (of mainly > European information tenchnology businesses) called the "Internet > Freedom Governance Initiative". There are a few more details at > http://IFGI.eu . > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Jan 15 09:31:10 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:31:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AB902E.8000206@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Anyone have thoughts for a contribution to the stocktaking exercise? Here they are, just a few immediate ones. > One comment from a MAG point of view -- it was nice to be able to accept > all the workshop proposals for Athens. I don't think the MAG would have > been good at deciding which to keep and which not. More time this year, > should be able to design a better, clearer program. Without workshops, > it starts to look very much like a dull conference. And let's ensure there's time to discuss proposals by the coalitions. > No more 3 hour panels. ...but? I agree they'd be shorter though. I didn't like the idea of a journalist being the one to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't, based on, well, how spectacular that intervention would look to him. Or, if you want to have TV-oriented sessions, make them shorter and do not let them take over the entire four days. > I thought the format generally worked, though > moderators need more/better briefing. Especially, moderators should be given a hard threshold so that at least half of the panel is allotted to debate (meaning with the audience, not just among panelists). Too many workshops ended up being showcases for this or that institution or program, and then there'd be no time to say anything else. > Keep IG for development. ...as long as this doesn't mean that we can't discuss net neutrality, IPR, trusted computing and other themes that are mainly relevant to the geek community rather than to the development one :) > Access > as a main theme. Capacity building as a theme rather than cross > cutting. > Revisit para 71 for missed issues. This is really important. Where were IPR, consumer rights etc? > Internet resources > ("ICANN") should be discussed. On this specific point, we should be aware that there is going to be a hard contraposition (perhaps the hardest around) between those countries who really want ICANN discussed in Rio, and those countries that really do not want ICANN discussed in Rio, and want to discuss it in the "enhanced cooperation" process instead. I'm not sure that we'd want to marry either side too strongly; I'd personally be happy by restating that civil society wants to be involved in this wherever it happens, as we are now about to tell Nitin in writing. > Openness, Security, Diversity are good > themes. Emerging issues needs completely rethinking. Agree, but I don't like freedom seen as a subset of openness. If you expand the number of themes, then you need to add a specific theme on freedom and human rights, while focusing openness on, say, access to information, open standards, free software etc. Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 09:46:02 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 06:46:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please update on Nitin lette Message-ID: <20070115144602.77386.qmail@web50207.mail.yahoo.com> Hi people Can we have an updated version of the letter? Many things have been suggested. Will be good to get another look. When does it go to Nitin? Best Nnenna Adam Peake ha scritto: > Anyone have thoughts for a contribution to the stocktaking exercise? Here they are, just a few immediate ones. > One comment from a MAG point of view -- it was nice to be able to accept > all the workshop proposals for Athens. I don't think the MAG would have > been good at deciding which to keep and which not. More time this year, > should be able to design a better, clearer program. Without workshops, > it starts to look very much like a dull conference. And let's ensure there's time to discuss proposals by the coalitions. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From rishi at gipi.org.in Mon Jan 15 09:57:14 2007 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:27:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Avri, Izumi Just wanted to point out, the titile on the page is by mistake "Candidates for IGC Co-ordinators" however it should be " Candidates for Appeals Team" Also I would like to volunteer for the Appeals team. Thanks and regards Rishi Chawla India -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:28 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list all those nominations for Appeal Team. http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html And Jeremy took the first, thank you! Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? How about others? Please. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Jan 15 10:12:36 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:12:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <45AB902E.8000206@bertola.eu.org> References: <45AB902E.8000206@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <45AB99E4.5030104@wz-berlin.de> Hi, > ...but? I agree they'd be shorter though. I didn't like the idea of a > journalist being the one to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't, > based on, well, how spectacular that intervention would look to him. I like the idea to have sessions moderated by journalists who have no personal stake in the topic of the session and who are trained to ask tough questions. The downside of this format seem to be the cultural bias of the "hardtalk" approach and perhaps the dependence on the skills of the journalists. This kind of grilling isn't common in many political cultures, is it? > > Internet resources >> ("ICANN") should be discussed. > > On this specific point, we should be aware that there is going to be a > hard contraposition (perhaps the hardest around) between those countries > who really want ICANN discussed in Rio, and those countries that really > do not want ICANN discussed in Rio, and want to discuss it in the > "enhanced cooperation" process instead. > > I'm not sure that we'd want to marry either side too strongly; I'd > personally be happy by restating that civil society wants to be involved > in this wherever it happens, as we are now about to tell Nitin in writing. I don't think that Internet resources/ICANN should be discussed only in the "enhanced cooperation" process. First, no IG related topic should be excluded from the forum. The credibility of the forum depends on its openness and its neutrality. Second, the status of civil society is much more contested in the enhanced cooperation process than regarding the forum. We have good reasons to defend in our own right Internet resources as a topic in the forum. It doesn't mean we have to marry anyone. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Mon Jan 15 10:17:13 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:17:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, So far not too many people have been nominated for the Appeals Team. It can be self-nomination, but you can also nominate someone you think is the good candidate. We need at least 10 names. Please consider and send the nomination to the list as soon as possible! It is important for all of us. Thanks, izumi 2007/1/11, Izumi AIZU : > > Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list > all those nominations for Appeal Team. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html > > And Jeremy took the first, thank you! > Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? > > How about others? Please. > > izumi > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Jan 15 10:21:25 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:21:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AB9BF5.50106@wz-berlin.de> Hi, I would like to nominate Avri for the appeals team. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Jan 15 10:33:35 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:33:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. There are a number of points in the ICC doc on which it's easy to agree---assuming we basically wish the IGF to remain as it has become. If on the other hand there is still a desire for it to be more than a conference venue for some interesting conversations, per previously adopted caucus positions, then the ICC vision would seem to be a bit different. Given that the caucus lacks two of the ICC's facilitative attributes (paid staff, fairly consistent preferences among members) and our difficulties reaching agreement post-WSIS, it's not obvious that we could come up with a parallel contribution to the stock taking. But it would be good to hear from our coordinators and others as to whether there's interest in trying (which could end up being a first test of the charter's decision making procedures---might need the appeals team etc). If there is, presumably it'd need to be submitted at least a week prior to the event if there were to be any chance of it being read... Best, Bill On 1/15/07 11:28 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Private sector contribution to the stock taking > exercise. I've not included the attachment, can > grab it from > ens_Final_12_01_07.pdf> > > Adam > > > >> >> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:08:31 +0100 >> Subject: Re: [igf_members] ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I am pleased to provide you with the attached >> document, ICC BASIS feedback on IGF Athens (pdf. >> 9 pages), that communicates the reflections of >> global business on the first IGF and >> recommendations for the preparations, >> substantive focus and format of the next IGF >> which will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil >> from 12 to 15 November 2007. >> >> This contribution has been prepared ahead of the >> first stock-taking session of the IGF advisory >> group and the open consultation which will take >> place in Geneva from 12 to 13 February 2007. >> This contribution has been submitted to the IGF >> secretariat for posting on their website and is >> available on the ICC website at: >> >> > hens_Final_12_01_07.pdf>http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/I >> CCBASIS_input_on_IGF_Athens_Final_12_01_07.pdf >> >> Thank you in advance for your consideration of >> the reflections and priorities of global >> business on these important issues. >> >> Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Ayesha >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 10:40:49 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:40:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - Statement Message-ID: <20070115154049.10983.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> Particularly interested in fostering development with the use of ICT, I have civil society and grassroots participation as goal. Having been involved in the IGC through both phases of the WSIS, I believe that one challenge of the caucus will be to maintain an objective role in the issues that follow Tunis. In drafting the Charter, the role of the Appeals Team became fundamental to us in the maintenance of the nature of the IGC. So I do agree that accepting nomination to the Team involves dialogue, consultaiton, community values and no personal interests. My professional background is International Relations, Law and Policy processes. My region is Africa. My full name is Nnenna Nwakanma ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dave at isoc-mu.org Mon Jan 15 12:15:00 2007 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:15:00 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008a01c738c8$b0163ad0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> Dear Izumi, Please let us know the appeal team will comprise of how many members Thanks and best regards Dave _____ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 7:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! Dear list, So far not too many people have been nominated for the Appeals Team. It can be self-nomination, but you can also nominate someone you think is the good candidate. We need at least 10 names. Please consider and send the nomination to the list as soon as possible! It is important for all of us. Thanks, izumi 2007/1/11, Izumi AIZU < aizu at anr.org>: Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list all those nominations for Appeal Team. http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html And Jeremy took the first, thank you! Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? How about others? Please. izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Jan 15 12:43:32 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:43:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <45AB902E.8000206@bertola.eu.org> References: , <45AB902E.8000206@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <45ABD964.4149.1B56A2A2@anriette.apc.org> Hallo all I have more comments... but agree with Vittorio on this one in particular - the Openness panel tried to cover far too much. > > Openness, Security, Diversity are good > > themes. Emerging issues needs completely rethinking. > > Agree, but I don't like freedom seen as a subset of openness. If you > expand the number of themes, then you need to add a specific theme on > freedom and human rights, while focusing openness on, say, access to > information, open standards, free software etc. Anriette > > Ciao, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/626 - Release Date: > 1/14/2007 8:29 PM > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Mon Jan 15 12:56:10 2007 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:56:10 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] barriers (was Re: Action...) In-Reply-To: <20070115125200.DDAAE544BD@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> <20070115125200.DDAAE544BD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CBAC9@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Norbert, I can not more than agree with you and my hope is still with IGF and hope this list could form a statement on this issue, as I have earlier proposed. Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 15 januari 2007 13:52 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] barriers (was Re: Action...) l.d.misek-falkoff wrote: > people are developing all over the world and at all times. Ever will > it be so. There is a concept of a critical average or base line, and > we must be *very* attentive to countries, regions, and localities > where very large numbers of persons face barriers, and of all sorts. This is very true - such countries, regions, and localities are likely to get caught in a poverty trap unless action is taken from outside these disadvantaged areas to make sure that at least some genuine opportunities for sustainable economic success are made available to people living in those areas. I strongly agree with Linda's exhortation to be "*very* attentive". It seems to me that very often the attention that is given is very one-sided on providing some tangible and intangible assets that are helpful for overcoming barriers and for having opportunities. For example education, internet access, capacity building for all kinds of governance, etc. All this is very good and valuable and needed. But I feel that very often not enough attention is paid to reducing the economic mechanisms through which many of these barriers come into being in the first place. Some of these barriers are even created intentionally by powerful companies, and the governments of the countries where these companies pay their taxes make compliance with these barriers a condition of "free trade agreements" and the like. > Often, however, right around us there is great need and where there is > need there is duty. And splendorous opportunity as well. In this area I'd like to make a somewhat stronger statement: In the field of internet governance we have duties which go beyond reacting to "great needs". We also have a duty to be proactive. For example, as far as I know, all the significant technological barriers which hinder people with disabilities from fully participating in the information society could have been avoided by proactively evaluating proposed changes to the technology landscape concerning the likely impact on people with disabilities, and making appropriate adjustments. If the IGF fails to result in a strong realization of the importance of such proactive consideration of the needs of people with disabilities and countries with poor infrastructure conditions and weak educational systems (the so-called "third world" countries), then the IGF has in my opinion totally gone astray and become a series of conferences without any significant long-term relevance. I am currently somewhat pessimistic in regard to the chances of the IGF being able to avoid this fate. Consequently, because I don't see much reason to hope that something viable with long-term relevance will come out of the IGF, I'll focus my attention on trying to create an entity which can be influential in internet governance in a reasonable (proactive as well as reactive) way. This "entity" will be an open business alliance (of mainly European information tenchnology businesses) called the "Internet Freedom Governance Initiative". There are a few more details at http://IFGI.eu . Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Jan 15 13:41:05 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:41:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Disclaimer Message-ID: <45ABCAC1.9050500@bertola.eu.org> All, I've been warned in private that as soon as you type the haunted word ("ICANN") in a message to the list, some people start to question your motives. So I thought it better to disclaim my current IG-related positions, even if I can't see any conflict of interest among serving there and loosely coordinating the IGC, but you never know: - I am presently a member of a consulting committee to the Italian government. It is an unpaid, voluntary position; I've been selected for it as I am the only civil society person from Italy that follows both ICANN and the WSIS/IGF process. The Italian government might pay part of my expenses to attend IGF-related meetings (at least, we've asked them to support civil society participants including myself, and they did it for Athens). Around the IGF, I am also active in the Bill of Rights Coalition (still bootstrapping) and participating in other coalitions. - At ICANN, I am a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee, the group that represents the interests of individual Internet users. I am also representing that group in the ICANN Board, as a non-voting liaison. All of these are unpaid, voluntary positions. ICANN pays me the expenses to attend its meetings. - I am a Councillor of the Italian chapter of the Internet Society. It is an unpaid, voluntary position and I only get reimbursement of the expenses to attend physical meetings of its Council. - I am a member of the Policy Advisory Board of the .mobi TLD. Same conditions as the previous one. My current job is doing technical consultancies here and there, and being a partner in a small software company. I hope I didn't forget anything - anyway, questions welcome. Of course, other participants in the discussion might do the same, if they like. Regards, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Jan 15 14:43:48 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:43:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Disclaimer In-Reply-To: <45ABCAC1.9050500@bertola.eu.org> References: <45ABCAC1.9050500@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: hi, On 15 jan 2007, at 13.41, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > So I thought it better to disclaim my current IG-related positions, > even if I can't see any conflict of interest among serving there > and loosely coordinating the IGC, but you never know: i have come to believe that it is a good idea for those in leadership positions to make sure that all and sundry know about all of their intertwined interests - things that seem innocent in the light can look suspicious in the dark. i do not see it as a conflict of interest so much as a complex of interests that becomes irrelevant once it is transparent. so i don't interpret it as a disclaimer, but as a description of where you stand at the moment for all to see and know. and i don't think it should limit your ability to express yourself in your personal capacity. so thanks for doing this. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Jan 15 17:18:38 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:18:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Rishi, Yes, I was reminded about that and asked Avri to fix it. I guess she will modify it shortly. And thank you for your self-nomination. Please write up a short statement and post it to the list. best, izumi 2007/1/15, Rishi Chawla : > > Dear Avri, Izumi > > Just wanted to point out, the titile on the page is by mistake "Candidates > for IGC Co-ordinators" however it should be " Candidates for Appeals Team" > > Also I would like to volunteer for the Appeals team. > > Thanks and regards > > Rishi Chawla > India > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:28 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - > waiting for YOU! > > Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list > all those nominations for Appeal Team. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html > > And Jeremy took the first, thank you! > Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? > > How about others? Please. > > izumi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- 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 Jan 15 17:19:58 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:19:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: <008a01c738c8$b0163ad0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> References: <008a01c738c8$b0163ad0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> Message-ID: Dear Dave, The Appeals Team will be comprised by Five people. We set 10 nominations/volunteers to select from. You are highly encouraged to join the nomination. best, izumi 2007/1/16, Dave Kissoondoyal : > > Dear Izumi, > > > > Please let us know the appeal team will comprise of how many members > > > > Thanks and best regards > > > > Dave > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Izumi > AIZU > *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2007 7:17 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - > waiting for YOU! > > > > Dear list, > > So far not too many people have been nominated for the Appeals Team. > > It can be self-nomination, but you can also nominate someone > you think is the good candidate. We need at least 10 names. > > Please consider and send the nomination to the list as soon > as possible! It is important for all of us. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > 2007/1/11, Izumi AIZU < aizu at anr.org>: > > Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list > all those nominations for Appeal Team. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html > > And Jeremy took the first, thank you! > Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? > > How about others? Please. > > izumi > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Jan 15 19:51:34 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:51:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AC2196.8050706@Malcolm.id.au> Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > So far not too many people have been nominated for the Appeals Team. > > It can be self-nomination, but you can also nominate someone > you think is the good candidate. We need at least 10 names. I may as well throw my hat into the ring then. Some of you met me in Athens. I have been involved in IG since joining the boards of ISOC-AU in 2001 and the Western Australian Internet Association in 2000 (though I don't toe the ISOC party line on the IGF). I also chair a co-regulatory taskforce that drafted the Australian Internet Industry Spam Code last year, since registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority. I have completed four chapters of a PhD thesis on the IGF which is at http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis/, and before that I was a self-employed specialist IT lawyer and IT consultant. I'm managing another IT business on a part-time basis while I'm studying. I am about to launch, with some other interested parties, an Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, and have just finished off a draft Web site for it at http://igf2006.info/wiki/IGF-OCDC. I also run the http://igfwatch.org/ site. I've previously been on the committees of some other civil society Internet organisations including the Australian Public Access Network Association and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as well some more general IT associations such as the Society of Linux Professionals WA and the WA Society for Computers and the Law. Off the top of my head, a few of my beliefs are: * "Governments will never agree to it" is no excuse * DNS is not the most important IG issue * Transnational public policy issues are no longer the sole province of governments * Process is key, because it shapes expectations and power relations * A key factor in making the IGF more accessible is to make online participation equivalent to attendance in person * The structure of an Internet governance organisation should reflect the cultural values of the Internet My full resume is at http://www.malcolm.id.au/files/documents/personal/resume.pdf, but if anyone has any questions feel free to ask me. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Mon Jan 15 20:40:39 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:40:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: <45AC2196.8050706@Malcolm.id.au> References: <45AC2196.8050706@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy for taking the lead on this. I would encourage other nominees to also send their statements. It does not have to be "long", though Jeremy did a pretty good job. The Nomcom will not judge by the length per se, but the committment and other criteria we agreed. In any case, please send the statements to the list and Avri wil link them to the table she already prepared (with revised titles). thanks, izumi 2007/1/16, Jeremy Malcolm : > Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Dear list, > > > > So far not too many people have been nominated for the Appeals Team. > > > > It can be self-nomination, but you can also nominate someone > > you think is the good candidate. We need at least 10 names. > > I may as well throw my hat into the ring then. > > Some of you met me in Athens. I have been involved in IG since joining > the boards of ISOC-AU in 2001 and the Western Australian Internet > Association in 2000 (though I don't toe the ISOC party line on the IGF). > > I also chair a co-regulatory taskforce that drafted the Australian > Internet Industry Spam Code last year, since registered with the > Australian Communications and Media Authority. > > I have completed four chapters of a PhD thesis on the IGF which is at > http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis/, and before that I was a self-employed > specialist IT lawyer and IT consultant. I'm managing another IT > business on a part-time basis while I'm studying. > > I am about to launch, with some other interested parties, an Online > Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, and have just finished off a draft Web > site for it at http://igf2006.info/wiki/IGF-OCDC. I also run the > http://igfwatch.org/ site. > > I've previously been on the committees of some other civil society > Internet organisations including the Australian Public Access Network > Association and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as well some more > general IT associations such as the Society of Linux Professionals WA > and the WA Society for Computers and the Law. > > Off the top of my head, a few of my beliefs are: > > * "Governments will never agree to it" is no excuse > * DNS is not the most important IG issue > * Transnational public policy issues are no longer the sole province > of governments > * Process is key, because it shapes expectations and power relations > * A key factor in making the IGF more accessible is to make online > participation equivalent to attendance in person > * The structure of an Internet governance organisation should reflect > the cultural values of the Internet > > My full resume is at > http://www.malcolm.id.au/files/documents/personal/resume.pdf, but if > anyone has any questions feel free to ask me. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Mon Jan 15 21:05:25 2007 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:05:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: References: <45AC2196.8050706@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <45AC32E5.90307@umontreal.ca> Hi Everyone, Further to my self-nomination of a few days back: Another day, another Appeals team Nom statement from a Jeremy: - begin statement I work at the Media at mcgill research centre and am completing a PhD at the Université of Montréal. My research focuses on both Internet Governance issues and the role of Civil Society in Global Governance. I have been involved with the IGC since 2003 and hav tried earn my keep by taking on roles that help facilitate its day-to-day activities and its continued sustainable organizational development. At the same time, I have not been a particularly active player in the debates over its substantive policy positions- something that I think is important for the appeals team. I have a professional background working in online policy consultation in both Canada and the UK and would sit on the appeals team with an unambiguous mandate that the interests of the IGC come before any specific individual or policy agenda as well as a clear idea about the role played in establishing these interests by consultation and dialogue amongst the community. Region: North America Profession: Academic Membership affiliation in IGC: As individual Working Languages: English/ French - end statement Thanks Izumi, Nom Com and everyone else who took the time to prepare and read statements, Cheers, Jeremy Shtern Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks Jeremy for taking the lead on this. > > I would encourage other nominees to also send their statements. > It does not have to be "long", though Jeremy did a pretty good job. > The Nomcom will not judge by the length per se, but the committment > and other criteria we agreed. > > In any case, please send the statements to the list and Avri wil > link them to the table she already prepared (with revised titles). > > thanks, > > izumi > > 2007/1/16, Jeremy Malcolm : >> Izumi AIZU wrote: >> > Dear list, >> > >> > So far not too many people have been nominated for the Appeals Team. >> > >> > It can be self-nomination, but you can also nominate someone >> > you think is the good candidate. We need at least 10 names. >> >> I may as well throw my hat into the ring then. >> >> Some of you met me in Athens. I have been involved in IG since joining >> the boards of ISOC-AU in 2001 and the Western Australian Internet >> Association in 2000 (though I don't toe the ISOC party line on the IGF). >> >> I also chair a co-regulatory taskforce that drafted the Australian >> Internet Industry Spam Code last year, since registered with the >> Australian Communications and Media Authority. >> >> I have completed four chapters of a PhD thesis on the IGF which is at >> http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis/, and before that I was a self-employed >> specialist IT lawyer and IT consultant. I'm managing another IT >> business on a part-time basis while I'm studying. >> >> I am about to launch, with some other interested parties, an Online >> Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, and have just finished off a draft Web >> site for it at http://igf2006.info/wiki/IGF-OCDC. I also run the >> http://igfwatch.org/ site. >> >> I've previously been on the committees of some other civil society >> Internet organisations including the Australian Public Access Network >> Association and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as well some more >> general IT associations such as the Society of Linux Professionals WA >> and the WA Society for Computers and the Law. >> >> Off the top of my head, a few of my beliefs are: >> >> * "Governments will never agree to it" is no excuse >> * DNS is not the most important IG issue >> * Transnational public policy issues are no longer the sole province >> of governments >> * Process is key, because it shapes expectations and power relations >> * A key factor in making the IGF more accessible is to make online >> participation equivalent to attendance in person >> * The structure of an Internet governance organisation should reflect >> the cultural values of the Internet >> >> My full resume is at >> http://www.malcolm.id.au/files/documents/personal/resume.pdf, but if >> anyone has any questions feel free to ask me. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 16 01:20:54 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:20:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: SV: [governance] barriers (was Re: Action...) In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CBAC9@ensms02.iris.se> (message from =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?= on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:56:10 +0100) References: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> <20070115125200.DDAAE544BD@quill.bollow.ch> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CBAC9@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20070116062054.E7EB3561C4@quill.bollow.ch> Kicki Nordstr�m wrote: > I can not more than agree with you and my hope is still with IGF and > hope this list could form a statement on this issue, as I have > earlier proposed. Dear Kicki, this is certainly a very good idea. Maybe you can write a first draft for this statement? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 16 02:06:32 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:06:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <45AB902E.8000206@bertola.eu.org> References: <45AB902E.8000206@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>Anyone have thoughts for a contribution to the stocktaking exercise? > >Here they are, just a few immediate ones. > >>One comment from a MAG point of view -- it was nice to be able to >>accept all the workshop proposals for Athens. I don't think the >>MAG would have been good at deciding which to keep and which not. >>More time this year, should be able to design a better, clearer >>program. Without workshops, it starts to look very much like a dull >>conference. > >And let's ensure there's time to discuss proposals by the coalitions. Agreed. I would like to see them as an important element. (if the coalitions are actually doing something... if I announce a coalition and do nothing I don't merit a place or space more than any other person) >>No more 3 hour panels. > >...but? I agree they'd be shorter though. I didn't like the idea of >a journalist being the one to decide who gets to speak and who >doesn't, based on, well, how spectacular that intervention would >look to him. Or, if you want to have TV-oriented sessions, make them >shorter and do not let them take over the entire four days. Actually that wasn't quite how it happened. The questions were passed to 3 or 4 members of the MAG (usually a mix of stakeholders) and we tried to build them in piles on the same subject. Passed ones that were relevant to the topic then under discussion to the moderator, kept others back for later. We tried to move the moderator on if they got stuck, introduce new topics, etc. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. Not an easy style. Of course moderators had a lot of discretion, but they weren't filters in the way you seem to think. A good suggestion would be to try different formats. And as Jeanette mentions, "hard talk" is probably an awkward format for some cultures. And some moderators got very little briefing on issues or on what we expected (we being MAG.) Things would work better with more time and hindsight. >>I thought the format generally worked, though moderators need >>more/better briefing. > >Especially, moderators should be given a hard threshold so that at >least half of the panel is allotted to debate (meaning with the >audience, not just among panelists). Too many workshops ended up >being showcases for this or that institution or program, and then >there'd be no time to say anything else. > >> Keep IG for development. > >...as long as this doesn't mean that we can't discuss net >neutrality, IPR, trusted computing and other themes that are mainly >relevant to the geek community rather than to the development one :) Of course. A dark small room somewhere in the basement. Good connectivity, coke [drink], no aircon. I would like to keep the process as open to all discussions as possible. But some clearly want fewer workshops and less parallel sessions. Can't have open bottom up, and a controlled agenda. What's the answer? (BoFs?) There will be physical restrictions, as there were in Athens, the meeting space will be a fixed number of rooms in a hotel (I think the Brazilians have offered a hotel.) >>Access as a main theme. Capacity building as a theme rather than >>cross cutting. > >> Revisit para 71 for missed issues. > >This is really important. Where were IPR, consumer rights etc? I was thinking more of some of the principles. But I guess so, yes. > > Internet resources >>("ICANN") should be discussed. > >On this specific point, we should be aware that there is going to be >a hard contraposition (perhaps the hardest around) between those >countries who really want ICANN discussed in Rio, and those >countries that really do not want ICANN discussed in Rio, and want >to discuss it in the "enhanced cooperation" process instead. > >I'm not sure that we'd want to marry either side too strongly; I'd >personally be happy by restating that civil society wants to be >involved in this wherever it happens, as we are now about to tell >Nitin in writing. I understand workshops that discussed the root server, etc were overflowing (It would be good to know details of all the ICANN related workshops. Only the zone management workshop summary on the web, I thought more workshops than that, 3 or 4?) Seems a good indication that these are issues people are interested in. My concern is ICANN and related issues tend to suck the air from other discussions. Internet resources, the "narrow" Internet governance issues, shouldn't be ignored, but they also shouldn't dominate. Adam > > Openness, Security, Diversity are good >>themes. Emerging issues needs completely rethinking. > >Agree, but I don't like freedom seen as a subset of openness. If you >expand the number of themes, then you need to add a specific theme >on freedom and human rights, while focusing openness on, say, access >to information, open standards, free software etc. > >Ciao, >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 16 02:07:51 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:07:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Hi Adam, > >Thanks for bringing this to our attention. There are a number of points in >the ICC doc on which it's easy to agree---assuming we basically wish the IGF >to remain as it has become. If on the other hand there is still a desire for >it to be more than a conference venue for some interesting conversations, >per previously adopted caucus positions, then the ICC vision would seem to >be a bit different. Business (and many of us) do seem to take the view of IGF as an ICT policy shop. IG missing. Perhaps it would be helpful if this caucus could reaffirm what it think should be discussed (in addition to those policy issues that many seem interested in.) What is IG, why is it important, examples of issues it would be useful to address. Thanks, Adam >Given that the caucus lacks two of the ICC's facilitative attributes (paid >staff, fairly consistent preferences among members) and our difficulties >reaching agreement post-WSIS, it's not obvious that we could come up with a >parallel contribution to the stock taking. But it would be good to hear >from our coordinators and others as to whether there's interest in trying >(which could end up being a first test of the charter's decision making >procedures---might need the appeals team etc). If there is, presumably it'd >need to be submitted at least a week prior to the event if there were to be >any chance of it being read... > >Best, > >Bill > >On 1/15/07 11:28 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > >> Private sector contribution to the stock taking >> exercise. I've not included the attachment, can >> grab it from >> >>> ens_Final_12_01_07.pdf> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> >>> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:08:31 +0100 > >> Subject: Re: [igf_members] ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens >>> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Tue Jan 16 06:29:33 2007 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:29:33 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] barriers (was Re: Action...) In-Reply-To: <20070116062054.E7EB3561C4@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> <20070115125200.DDAAE544BD@quill.bollow.ch> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CBAC9@ensms02.iris.se> <20070116062054.E7EB3561C4@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CBC75@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Norbert, Yes, no problem, but I need to know the format you are using and also whom we are addressing with the statement! Could you give me further information? Kind regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 16 januari 2007 07:21 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] barriers (was Re: Action...) Kicki Nordström wrote: > I can not more than agree with you and my hope is still with IGF and > hope this list could form a statement on this issue, as I have earlier > proposed. Dear Kicki, this is certainly a very good idea. Maybe you can write a first draft for this statement? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 16 10:13:07 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:13:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] barriers (was Re: Action...) In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CBC75@ensms02.iris.se> (message from =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?= on Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:29:33 +0100) References: <20070115092111.999B74360C@quill.bollow.ch> <8cbfe7410701150200m2b3ede25r31f59ccdc11dd765@mail.gmail.com> <20070115125200.DDAAE544BD@quill.bollow.ch> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CBAC9@ensms02.iris.se> <20070116062054.E7EB3561C4@quill.bollow.ch> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CBC75@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20070116151307.9161A1CEA28@quill.bollow.ch> Kicki Nordstr�m wrote: > Yes, no problem, but I need to know the format you are using and > also whom we are addressing with the statement! Could you give me > further information? Right now, they're looking for input for the "taking stock and the way forward" session, and they're specifically looking for answers to these questions: - What worked well? - What worked less well? - Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? - Any other comments or suggestions? - Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions received and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a similar paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? I'd suggest that we work out a set of answers to this set of questions which reflects our "please make sure that the needs of people with disabilities will not get overlooked again" perspective, and then try to get endorsements for this submission from the Internet Governance Caucus and other organizations. We should submit the resulting statement (consisting of a set of answers to these five questions and a list of endorsing organisations) by 2 February, since according to http://intgovforum.org/ contributions received by that date will be "reflected" in a sythesis paper prepared by the Secretariat in preparation for the "taking stock and the way forward" session. I'd suggest that we use plain text format for our discussions of the text for the statement. The secretariat seems to like RTF format, and I don't see anything wrong with sending them the finished statement in that format when it's done, but for the purpose of discussion plain text is the easiest and most portable way to involve many people in creating a good statement. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Tue Jan 16 10:32:13 2007 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:32:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ragarding your web page http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html, as far as I know, Jeremy is from Australia and not North America! Jacques >Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list >all those nominations for Appeal Team. > >http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html > >And Jeremy took the first, thank you! >Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? > >How about others? Please. > >izumi > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 16 10:32:59 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:32:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45A25F34.8020001@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> <45A25F34.8020001@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: At 4:11 PM +0100 1/8/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >>it's just one month to Feb 13, the first IGF-07 consultation, >Thanks for reminding us. > >>- dynamic coalitions: how they work, what do we do with the outputs etc >> >Does anybody know if there will be some space and time for dynamic >coalitions to have meetings of their members and maybe even get some >work done? Like half a day or even a full day back-to-back with the >consultations? Sorry for the slow reply. As Ralf knows (he's already arranged a meeting for the privacy coalition), dynamic coalitions are very welcome to hold meetings. They will be possible on the 12th, also for 13th lunchtime . The secretariat will help arranging rooms. Note, space is always somewhat limited, so first come first served. Secretariat email address is . Intended to facilitate internal working meetings of the coalitions, not as an ad-hoc extension of the Feb 13th consultation to the 12th. Advisory group is enthusiastic to hear about progress from coalitions. I am not sure if a formal slot will be put aside in the agenda for coalitions, but that's one option. They will be encouraged to report. Also, send any reports to the secretariat (or me) and we can see what seems like the best way to integrate these contributions. Thanks, Adam >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Jan 16 10:52:56 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:52:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: <45AB9BF5.50106@wz-berlin.de> References: <45AB9BF5.50106@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <1563165F-B385-4DC3-82DD-63EFDCF6B5D4@psg.com> On 15 jan 2007, at 10.21, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, I would like to nominate Avri for the appeals team. > > jeanette Thanks Jeanette. Statement I am happy to stand as a candidate for the Appeals Team. I think that the more people willing to stand for the AT team, the better. I also hope, and expect, that the AT up being a team that rarely needs to do anything, since I expect that the ability to appeal will mostly obviate the need to appeal. If the Appeals Team is activated on any issue, I certainly commit myself to dialogue and consultation with the community on any issue under review. I also commit myself to tracking the activities of the IGC closely, so that I will be well informed on the activities of the IGC. In terms of employment, I am an itinerant researcher who works primarily on developing technology that can be used in remote communications challenged areas. I also make ends meet by taking various consultant contracts in industry when necessary. While I currently live in the US, I am affiliated with Luleå University in Sweden as a research consultant. Believing as I do that it is important for all who play a role in any organization to state any outside interests that may color their perception of issues, I think the following may be relevant: - I am a nomcom appointed member of the ICANN GNSO council. This group is responsible for discussing and recommending policy on gTLDs. As a member of the council, I also act as interim chair of the Task force concerned with registry contract renewal conditions and am a member of various working groups and task forces on issues such as policy for new TLDs, IDN policy and whois. - I am occasionally employed as a consultant to the secretariat of the IGF. This usually occurs around the time of public meetings of the IGF. - I serve as a member of the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) due to my role as chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Routing Research Group. This group reports to the IAB. - I am a member of the APC Women's Networking Support Program (apc wnsp) and a founding member of Nomadic Women's ICT Network (NWIN), a new NGO involved in creating ICT access and governance opportunities for nomadic populations. [If anyone believes I have left out something relevant, please point it out so i can add it to this interest statement.] Final note: While I ran the lottery to determine the membership of the IGC Nomcom and have been updating the candidates list, I have no involvement or knowledge, beyond what i read on the IGC list, of any of the nomcom's activities. 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Tue Jan 16 12:25:50 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:25:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - Statement In-Reply-To: <20070115154049.10983.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070115154049.10983.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45AD0A9E.9000509@panos-ao.org> I support Nnenna's nomination Ken Lohento www.cipaco.org www.panos-ao.org Nnenna a écrit : > Particularly interested in fostering development with the use of ICT, I have civil society and grassroots participation as goal. Having been involved in the IGC through both phases of the WSIS, I believe that one challenge of the caucus will be to maintain an objective role in the issues that follow Tunis. In drafting the Charter, the role of the Appeals Team became fundamental to us in the maintenance of the nature of the IGC. So I do agree that accepting nomination to the Team involves dialogue, consultaiton, community values and no personal interests. > > My professional background is International Relations, Law and Policy processes. My region is Africa. > > My full name is Nnenna Nwakanma > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for earth-friendly autos? > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 16 12:27:43 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:27:43 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D069@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear Bill bad news. Meeting in Dresden was much longer and took more time than expected so I am unable to come with a revised text. I am also still little bit confused what to add, what the cut and what the general environment of the article is. My proposal is that we meet on Wednesday afternoon, sitting together and discussing the options, going through the text page by page - if needed - and make a final decision. I am very sorry about that. One of the most painful expierences I had recently in publishing: But probably we misunderstood somewhere and have now difficulties to come together. We also should use the time to discuss all the other stuff: from IGF to GIGANET. I have no other obligation on Wednesday. As I said I will arrive about 2.00 p.m. in Geneva and will go straigth to my hotel "Arcade" on Cornavin Station. You can call me under *49-171-6324889. w ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Gesendet: Mo 15.01.2007 16:33 An: Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens Hi Adam, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. There are a number of points in the ICC doc on which it's easy to agree---assuming we basically wish the IGF to remain as it has become. If on the other hand there is still a desire for it to be more than a conference venue for some interesting conversations, per previously adopted caucus positions, then the ICC vision would seem to be a bit different. Given that the caucus lacks two of the ICC's facilitative attributes (paid staff, fairly consistent preferences among members) and our difficulties reaching agreement post-WSIS, it's not obvious that we could come up with a parallel contribution to the stock taking. But it would be good to hear from our coordinators and others as to whether there's interest in trying (which could end up being a first test of the charter's decision making procedures---might need the appeals team etc). If there is, presumably it'd need to be submitted at least a week prior to the event if there were to be any chance of it being read... Best, Bill On 1/15/07 11:28 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Private sector contribution to the stock taking > exercise. I've not included the attachment, can > grab it from > ens_Final_12_01_07.pdf> > > Adam > > > >> >> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:08:31 +0100 >> Subject: Re: [igf_members] ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I am pleased to provide you with the attached >> document, ICC BASIS feedback on IGF Athens (pdf. >> 9 pages), that communicates the reflections of >> global business on the first IGF and >> recommendations for the preparations, >> substantive focus and format of the next IGF >> which will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil >> from 12 to 15 November 2007. >> >> This contribution has been prepared ahead of the >> first stock-taking session of the IGF advisory >> group and the open consultation which will take >> place in Geneva from 12 to 13 February 2007. >> This contribution has been submitted to the IGF >> secretariat for posting on their website and is >> available on the ICC website at: >> >> > hens_Final_12_01_07.pdf>http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/I >> CCBASIS_input_on_IGF_Athens_Final_12_01_07.pdf >> >> Thank you in advance for your consideration of >> the reflections and priorities of global >> business on these important issues. >> >> Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Ayesha >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 16 12:33:47 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:33:47 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: ICC BASIS feedback document on IGF Athens References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D069@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D06C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry I posted a private message to Bill on the list. Please delete the previous message. w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 16 13:04:34 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:04:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: <1563165F-B385-4DC3-82DD-63EFDCF6B5D4@psg.com> References: <45AB9BF5.50106@wz-berlin.de> <1563165F-B385-4DC3-82DD-63EFDCF6B5D4@psg.com> Message-ID: I nominate Brice Ken Lohento for the the Appeal Team Nyangkwe On 1/16/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 15 jan 2007, at 10.21, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi, I would like to nominate Avri for the appeals team. > > > > jeanette > > > Thanks Jeanette. > > Statement > > > I am happy to stand as a candidate for the Appeals Team. I think > that the more people willing to stand for the AT team, the better. I > also hope, and expect, that the AT up being a team that rarely needs > to do anything, since I expect that the ability to appeal will mostly > obviate the need to appeal. > > If the Appeals Team is activated on any issue, I certainly commit > myself to dialogue and consultation with the community on any issue > under review. I also commit myself to tracking the activities of the > IGC closely, so that I will be well informed on the activities of the > IGC. > > In terms of employment, I am an itinerant researcher who works > primarily on developing technology that can be used in remote > communications challenged areas. I also make ends meet by taking > various consultant contracts in industry when necessary. While I > currently live in the US, I am affiliated with Luleå University in > Sweden as a research consultant. > > Believing as I do that it is important for all who play a role in any > organization to state any outside interests that may color their > perception of issues, I think the following may be relevant: > > - I am a nomcom appointed member of the ICANN GNSO council. This > group is responsible for discussing and recommending policy on > gTLDs. As a member of the council, I also act as interim chair of > the Task force concerned with registry contract renewal conditions > and am a member of various working groups and task forces on issues > such as policy for new TLDs, IDN policy and whois. > > - I am occasionally employed as a consultant to the secretariat of > the IGF. This usually occurs around the time of public meetings of > the IGF. > > - I serve as a member of the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) > due to my role as chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) > Routing Research Group. This group reports to the IAB. > > - I am a member of the APC Women's Networking Support Program (apc > wnsp) and a founding member of Nomadic Women's ICT Network (NWIN), a > new NGO involved in creating ICT access and governance opportunities > for nomadic populations. > > [If anyone believes I have left out something relevant, please point > it out so i can add it to this interest statement.] > > Final note: While I ran the lottery to determine the membership of > the IGC Nomcom and have been updating the candidates list, I have no > involvement or knowledge, beyond what i read on the IGC list, of any > of the nomcom's activities. > > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Jan 16 15:31:33 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:31:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] The .xxx domain rises again Message-ID: The backers of the controversial .xxx domain for adult Internet content have negotiated a new contract with ICANN. Chances are now good that it will finally succeed in gaining the approval of the ICANN Board. What are the implications of this probable resolution of the .xxx drama for the Internet and Internet governance? They are major. But no one seems to be talking about them. Read about it in the new Internet Governance Project paper, "Triple X, Internet Content Regulation and the ICANN Regime." http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/new-xxx-contract.pdf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 16:45:41 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:45:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] The .xxx domain rises again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8cbfe7410701161345u3123468oc00225561e95bdef@mail.gmail.com> Dear Milton, Thanks for this *heads-up,* and it would be great to hear the major issues you spot, even as synopsis. The "For All" part of ICT (4 all) certainly draws interest here. Best wishes, Linda. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff. On 1/16/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > The backers of the controversial .xxx domain for adult Internet content > have negotiated a new contract with ICANN. Chances are now good that it > will finally succeed in gaining the approval of the ICANN Board. > > What are the implications of this probable resolution of the .xxx drama > for > the Internet and Internet governance? They are major. But no one seems > to be talking about them. > > Read about it in the new Internet Governance Project paper, "Triple X, > Internet Content Regulation and the ICANN Regime." > http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/new-xxx-contract.pdf > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 16 22:19:09 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:19:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations to the Public Interest Registry .ORG Advisory Council Message-ID: >From Call for Nominations to the Public Interest Registry .ORG Advisory Council Posted by PIR on Jan 16, 2007 The .ORG Advisory Council has been a valuable global resource for the Public Interest Registry (PIR) management in the areas of policy, outreach, new services and support. The council continues to provide PIR with beneficial recommendations to improve registry operations and support the noncommercial .ORG community. Eight of the 21 Advisory Council seats are to be filled on April 2, 2007. Six seats are for three-year terms, one seat is a two-year term and one seat is a one-year term. We would like your help in soliciting the best possible nominees for the open seats. We are seeking individuals with significant Internet leadership experience within the nonprofit, nongovernmental organization (NGO) and domain name arenas who represent the broad and geographically diverse spectrum of the global noncommercial community. Interested individuals are encouraged to submit nominations, including self-nominations. A nomination statement of approximately 400 words should include details of the nominee's experience with the Internet, commitment to promoting the noncommercial use of the Internet, understanding of the technical or policy issues facing the .ORG registry, and perspectives regarding the needs of the .ORG community. A current biography and digital photograph also are requested. The council consists of 21 members selected by the PIR board of directors in accordance with the Charter of the Council [PDF] . New council members will be announced April 2, 2007. Nominations must be submitted by Wednesday March 14, 2007. Please submit nominations to . For additional information on the council, go to Advisory Council. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Wed Jan 17 02:52:55 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:52:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: References: <45AB9BF5.50106@wz-berlin.de> <1563165F-B385-4DC3-82DD-63EFDCF6B5D4@psg.com> Message-ID: <45ADD5D7.9050205@panos-ao.org> Thank you Nyangkwe. But I think Nnenna can do well in the Appeal Team as well if selected so let's support her. I support her self nomination Have a good day Ken Lohento Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit : > I nominate Brice Ken Lohento for the the Appeal Team > > Nyangkwe ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From patrick at vande-walle.eu Wed Jan 17 06:19:34 2007 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:19:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] The .xxx domain rises again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AE0646.1070105@vande-walle.eu> I agree with you, Milton. I raised the issue of two weeks ago in a blog post. Not only is it outside the scope and mission of ICANN to control the content. It also seems difficult, if not impossible, to effectively implement the required controls in the current state of the technology. How can a human being tell with 100% certainty that a picture does represent an under age kid ? Even less a computer program. Going into conjectures: - Either, this new agreement is a way for ICANN to wash its hands and pretend the issues raised by the GAC are being addressed and consider its job done, or - it could be a political willingness to program the failure of the new TLD by requiring impossible controls, and claim later that the rules have not be respected. Hypothesis 2 might explain why we did not yet hear any opposition from conservative groups yet. Patrick Vande Walle Milton Mueller wrote, On 16/01/2007 21:31: > The backers of the controversial .xxx domain for adult Internet content > have negotiated a new contract with ICANN. Chances are now good that it > will finally succeed in gaining the approval of the ICANN Board. > > What are the implications of this probable resolution of the .xxx drama > for > the Internet and Internet governance? They are major. But no one seems > to be talking about them. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Jan 17 08:55:22 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:55:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Next IGF consultations In-Reply-To: References: <45A25CCF.3050101@bertola.eu.org> <45A25F34.8020001@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45AE2ACA.9000002@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Adam Peake wrote: > As Ralf knows (he's already arranged a meeting for the privacy > coalition), dynamic coalitions are very welcome to hold meetings. They > will be possible on the 12th, also for 13th lunchtime . The > secretariat will help arranging rooms. FYI: Due to schedule conflicts among our members, the Privacy Coalition will already meet on Sunday afternoon, 11th (outside the UN). We plan to use the Monday to get a report written for the consultations on Tuesday. More on what, where and when soon. We're still working on it. > Note, space is always somewhat limited, so first come first served. > Secretariat email address is . Intended to facilitate > internal working meetings of the coalitions, not as an ad-hoc extension > of the Feb 13th consultation to the 12th. Important: People have to register with the IGF secretariat for the 12th in order to be able to enter the UN premises that day. 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 dave at isoc-mu.org Wed Jan 17 11:07:39 2007 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:07:39 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00b301c73a51$a08792f0$1a09090a@TLFMDOM.local> Dear Izumi, I would like to volunteer Thanks and best regards Dave Kissoondoyal, ACMI President - Internet Society of Mauritius Member - PIR .ORG Advisory Council Director of Information Technology Teleforma (Mauritius), Ltd +230 465-7474 Main Office +230 465-7171 Fax +230 465-7298 Direct Line +230 257-8703 Cell Phone 701-451-6530 US Dial Direct Line 10th Floor Cyber Tower 1 Ebene Cybercity Rose Hill Mauritius The information contained in this transmission, including any attachments hereto, is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender at the information provided and return any and all copies of this communication to the sender _____ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:20 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dave Kissoondoyal Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! Dear Dave, The Appeals Team will be comprised by Five people. We set 10 nominations/volunteers to select from. You are highly encouraged to join the nomination. best, izumi 2007/1/16, Dave Kissoondoyal : Dear Izumi, Please let us know the appeal team will comprise of how many members Thanks and best regards _____ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto: izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 7:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! Dear list, So far not too many people have been nominated for the Appeals Team. It can be self-nomination, but you can also nominate someone you think is the good candidate. We need at least 10 names. Please consider and send the nomination to the list as soon as possible! It is important for all of us. Thanks, izumi 2007/1/11, Izumi AIZU < aizu at anr.org >: Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list all those nominations for Appeal Team. http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html And Jeremy took the first, thank you! Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? How about others? Please. izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3608 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From christine at apdip.net Thu Jan 18 03:23:11 2007 From: christine at apdip.net (christine) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:23:11 +0700 Subject: [governance] Out Now - APDIP e-Note 11 - Pro-Poor Public Service Delivery with ICTs: Making local e-governance work towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals Message-ID: <012601c73ad9$e44ffcb0$8e0aa8c0@undp.or.th> APDIP e-Note 11 Pro-Poor Public Service Delivery with ICTs Making local e-governance work towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals By Lars Bestle, 2007 http://www.apdip.net/news/apdipenote11 e-Governance and e-government are increasingly being emphasized by governments, the private sector, civil society groups and development agencies as critical for strengthening good democratic governance. e-Governance for the poor or pro-poor e-governance assists governments in reaching the yet 'unreached' and contribute to poverty reduction in rural and remote areas. At the same time, this process also enables involvement and empowerment of marginalized groups through their participation in the political process. Despite the developmental potential, few governments in the Asia-Pacific region have planned for and implemented e-governance strategically directly targeting poor people. This APDIP e-Note introduces the concept of pro-poor e-governance, gives two examples of e-governance projects targeted at poor and vulnerable groups, and provides a comprehensive approach to pro-poor e-governance towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The approach is comprised of seven building blocks that include policy development, needs assessment, identification of high-impact applications, utilization of appropriate mix of technologies, public-private-civil society partnerships, capacity building and people's participation, and monitoring, evaluation and feedback. APDIP e-Notes are brief snapshots that present analyses of specific issues related to ICTs for sustainable human development in the Asia-Pacific region. This online series introduces readers to the who, what, where, why and how of a wide range of current issues related to ICTs such as Internet governance, ICTs and poverty reduction, e- governance, free and open source software, and many others. APDIP or the Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme is an initiative of the United Nations Development Programme that aims to promote the development and application of information and communications technology for sustainable human development in the Asia-Pacific region. Download APDIP e-Note 11 from http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/11.pdf All APDIP e-Notes are available at http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/ All APDIP e-Resources are available at http://www.apdip.net/elibrary/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 33293 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jan 18 08:48:57 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:48:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Interesting ICANN staff appointments Message-ID: Congratulations to all :-) Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Jan 18 09:20:10 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:20:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Interesting ICANN staff appointments References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D08C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> WOW w ________________________________ From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:48 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Interesting ICANN staff appointments Congratulations to all :-) Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 14:01:56 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:01:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] United Nations Global Audit of Web Accessibility Research (Ref No: HMZE-316-44354) In-Reply-To: <018f01c73ae3$6819ffb0$2101a8c0@frank4zpdqw2j8> References: <018f01c73ae3$6819ffb0$2101a8c0@frank4zpdqw2j8> Message-ID: <14732bc90701181101v1aa9589and19c0c0222b4b03f@mail.gmail.com> United Nations Global Audit of Web Accessibility research, conducted by Nomensa. To download the executive summary in PDF format click on http://www.nomensa.com/UN_global-audit-of-web-accessibility_executive-summary.pdf (PDF, 153KB) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 16:07:39 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:07:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] self-nomination statement Message-ID: So far the Internet Governance Caucus group process and the Governance list discussions have been amicable - an appeals team member will only be needed when they aren't. I've used listening and process skills when chairing the International Disability Caucus and several California boards, as well as when administering email lists. I have some UN experience developed during five years of work with the AdHoc Committee which led to the December 2006 adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I'm a full-time volunteer, have no financial interest, do have a strong bias towards transparency, level field, inclusion, access for all. In particular, developing connections by using email changed my life from fringe outsider to articulate spokesperson. I am the International Disability Alliance (ICT) Technical Expert, serve as a liaison between those disability interests and this work, read my email regularly. I attended both WSIS meetings, the Athens IGF, voted for the charter, have been a subscriber to this list for a while, have plans to go to Rio. Sylvia Caras, PhD Santa Cruz, California, USA www.peoplewho.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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 02:59:48 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:59:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Note on Appeals Team Nominations, with a query. Message-ID: <8cbfe7410701182359t4ea49818u3ed11abb2f1ba514@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, This is a note on the Appeals Team nominations, with a query. If the selection committee intends to include requests to be considered made November forward, will an amplified request for a statement of interests and preparedness be requested? Perhaps some email has been missed, so further information will be appreciated. Best wishes and sincere regards, Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. - 50th year in Computing, Information and Knowledge System Convenings and Practice in multi-stakeholder contexts.. - *The Respectul Interfaces Program* of the Communications Coordination Committee For the United Nations. - International Disability Caucus Steering Committee; Other affiliations available. - WSIS Geneva, Tunis; Internet Governance Forum, Athens; ongoing participation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kino at iris.se Fri Jan 19 03:04:24 2007 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:04:24 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] self-nomination statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CC4E9@ensms02.iris.se> Dear all, I fully support Sylvia Cara's nomination and hope she will be considered as the very important contributor to so many fields of concern, she has been working in. Sylvia has many interests and is well known to us in the disability field. Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Sylvia Caras [mailto:sylvia.caras at gmail.com] Skickat: den 18 januari 2007 22:08 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] self-nomination statement So far the Internet Governance Caucus group process and the Governance list discussions have been amicable - an appeals team member will only be needed when they aren't. I've used listening and process skills when chairing the International Disability Caucus and several California boards, as well as when administering email lists. I have some UN experience developed during five years of work with the AdHoc Committee which led to the December 2006 adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I'm a full-time volunteer, have no financial interest, do have a strong bias towards transparency, level field, inclusion, access for all. In particular, developing connections by using email changed my life from fringe outsider to articulate spokesperson. I am the International Disability Alliance (ICT) Technical Expert, serve as a liaison between those disability interests and this work, read my email regularly. I attended both WSIS meetings, the Athens IGF, voted for the charter, have been a subscriber to this list for a while, have plans to go to Rio. Sylvia Caras, PhD Santa Cruz, California, USA www.peoplewho.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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 03:19:06 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:19:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] self-nomination statement In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CC4E9@ensms02.iris.se> References: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F014CC4E9@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410701190019h7921fa92s7ad893671c0d0800@mail.gmail.com> We seem to be posting in a similar window of time - best wishes to all. I also support Sylvia's nomination, and note my prior application. It may be possible in the future where some but not total similarity in background occurs, that joint functions might be considered. This of course would and will depend on the wishes of applicants and selectors. Very best wishes, Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. On 1/19/07, Kicki Nordström wrote: > > Dear all, > > I fully support Sylvia Cara's nomination and hope she will be considered > as the very important contributor to so many fields of concern, she has been > working in. Sylvia has many interests and is well known to us in the > disability field. > > Warm regards > Kicki > > Kicki Nordström > World Blind Union (WBU) > Immediate Past President > Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues > c/o SRF > 122 88 Enskede > Sweden > Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 > Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 > Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 > E-mail: kino at iris.se > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: Sylvia Caras [mailto:sylvia.caras at gmail.com] > Skickat: den 18 januari 2007 22:08 > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Ämne: [governance] self-nomination statement > > So far the Internet Governance Caucus group process and the Governance > list discussions have been amicable - an appeals team member will only be > needed when they aren't. > > I've used listening and process skills when chairing the International > Disability Caucus and several California boards, as well as when > administering email lists. > > I have some UN experience developed during five years of work with the > AdHoc Committee which led to the December 2006 adoption of the Convention on > the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. > > I'm a full-time volunteer, have no financial interest, do have a strong > bias towards transparency, level field, inclusion, access for all. In > particular, developing connections by using email changed my life from > fringe outsider to articulate spokesperson. > > I am the International Disability Alliance (ICT) Technical Expert, serve > as a liaison between those disability interests and this work, read my email > regularly. > > I attended both WSIS meetings, the Athens IGF, voted for the charter, have > been a subscriber to this list for a while, have plans to go to Rio. > > Sylvia Caras, PhD > Santa Cruz, California, USA > www.peoplewho.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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 19 19:41:16 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:41:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Interesting ICANN staff appointments In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D08C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D08C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: What is also interesting is the non-announcement of At-Large Director yet which has been vacant but close to be appointed for weeks. izumi _____________________________ > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:48 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Interesting ICANN staff appointments > > > > Congratulations to all > :-) > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From remmyn at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 20 11:59:58 2007 From: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk (Remmy Nweke) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:59:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Interesting ICANN staff appointments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <162954.88114.qm@web23303.mail.ird.yahoo.com> May I join others in wishing new appointees on ICANN especially Kieren good tidings. Remmy Izumi AIZU wrote: What is also interesting is the non-announcement of At-Large Director yet which has been vacant but close to be appointed for weeks. izumi _____________________________ > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:48 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Interesting ICANN staff appointments > > > > Congratulations to all > :-) > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance --------------------------------- The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From muguet at mdpi.net Sat Jan 20 23:25:56 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:25:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Voeux de l'Internet 2007 Paris 23 Janvier 2007 Message-ID: <45B2EB54.3030702@mdpi.net> English / Français Hello Since this event is related to the Internet, Civil Society and politics, it would a pity if I does not post this announcement on this Internet Governance list, in regards to which, since the time of the WGIG formation, I consider myself as a mere observer, and not a member bound by the decision reached by the majority of the members of this group. Sorry for cross-posting, but I am aware that they are quite a few people on this list that are not subscribers of the plenary list. This message is mostly in French, since it is addressed mainly to people in France, but all WSIS Civil Society passing by in Paris are also invited. see http://voeuxinter.net It is a ceremony of the "Best Wishes of the Internet", we are very lucky to held this event in an historic location in the center of Paris. Tuesday 23, evening at the Invalides. Online registration is compulsory. Sorry, there is no English version for the site, ask for help with a french speaking person. This announcement is quite late since we had a a legal fight ( that we won ) against an entity that claimed to have the 'Voeux de l'Internet" trademark to forbid us to organize our event, but luckyly this entity had just trademarked the acronym !. Crazy Isn't ? There is an agreement so that the entity can withdraw its claim without damaging its reputation and I cannot say more. Since the site of the event is only in French, I am going to give more details in English now : In the "Political" category, we selected Ségolène Royal, the center left candidate ( currently leading in the polls for the presidential election in France ) as the recipient of the "e-toile d'or" ( a pun that I cannot translate in english ) i for a precise reason : the joint statement she signed with Richard Stallman. This joint statement includes the recognition of the four freedoms of Free Software, something, that to my knowledge, no politician likely to become president, in Europe has ever done, and also to pledge to apply the WSIS recommendation concerning access to scientific information. In the business category, we selected a free software entrepreneur Alexander Zapolsky who has been the key actor towards the creation by the government of a "Competitivity Consortium for Free Software". and now : My Best Wishes for a successfull year for all your advocacies in support of Freedom All the best Francis ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chers amis, Il nous est arrivé une histoire assez folle qui explique cette annonce relativement tardive des Voeux de l'Internet, ppur Mardi prochain dans la soirée ! En bref, une entitée prétendait avoir la marque "Voeux de l'Internet" et nous empécher de tenir l'évenement que Denis Marion et moi avons organisé depuis 2004. Il s'est trouvé que cette entité ne possedait en fait que les initiales, ce qui nous a sauvé ! et nous avons pu déposer la marque textuelle complète et organiser l'événement. Je vous passe les détails et la longue negociation avec cette entitée dont je ne peux vous réveler le nom : Voici le "communiqué officiel" ----------------- Suite à un imbroglio juridique, concernant la marque "Voeux de l'Internet", nous avons du attendre qu'un accord soit en passe d'être conclu avant de contacter des sponsors et ensuite d'annoncer publiquement l'événement. Suite à cet accord amiable, nous avons pris l'engagement de ne pas en diffuser en Les détails, et ni de faire de plus amples commentaires. Pour information et pour vous rassurer, TFT, l'association organisatrice au niveau événementiel, est titulaire de la marque "Voeux de l'Internet" comme vous pouvez le constater en interrogeant le site de l'INPI ou http://www.societe.com. On peut considérer, sauf événement exceptionnel extérieur, que cet épisode juridique est clos. -------------------------- La leçon générale de cette histoire est que la Société Civile ne va bient^ot plus pouvoir organiser un événement sans avoir à déposer la marque correspondante... c'est un délire due à la nouvelle Bulle 2.0, et c'est clairement un détournement des droits des marques, un droit commercial, qui se justifie, au niveau sociétal, que si on vends des chaussures ou des lessives. Toujours à cause de ces problèmes juridiques, nous n'avons eu le temps d'annoncer la première édition des Voeux Europe qui s'est tenu à Strasbourg en petit comité. Ce fut néamoins un test positif, et l'année prochaine, on fera une édition vraiment européenne, et pas seulement avec des députés europeens. Ces Voeux nous donnent aussi l'occasion de faire du lobbying auprès du Parlement, ce qui est utile. Si des personnes veulent organiser des voeux de l'Internet ailleurs en province, dans d'autres pays éuropéeens ou dans le monde, nous les y encourageons, car l'expérience de ces voeux, manifestation très modeste au départ, nous a montré que le pouvoir politique ( mais encore trop le secteur privé... ) tenait à ^etre distingué par des composantes de la Société Civile. Voici l'invitation en attaché en HTML. Si pour une raison ou pour une autre votre lecteur de courriel n'affichait pas correctement l'invitation allez directement sur le site. http://voeuxinter.net Détail IMPORTANT: pour l'inscription en ligne obligatoire, le code d'authentification est : WSIS-GOV A bient^ot j'espère pour nous souhaiter la bonne année, et une bonne année pour un internet libre, et pour une société de l'information libre ! Francis -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: From dave at isoc-mu.org Sun Jan 21 17:47:22 2007 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:47:22 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: <00b301c73a51$a08792f0$1a09090a@TLFMDOM.local> Message-ID: <00a801c73dae$1cfcc580$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> Dear Izumi, For my self nomination I would like to refer to my profile on the PIR.org site at http://www.pir.org/AboutPIR/CouncilMembers.aspx#dkissoondoyal I am an associate of the Chartered Management Institute of the United Kingdom. Although I am employed as the Information Technology Director at Teleforma Mauritius Ltd (a U.S. UPSTREAM offshore company in Mauritius), I am very much involved with the affairs of the Internet Society Chapter of Mauritius. In fact, I am the founder, President and Chairman of the Internet Society of Mauritius. My primary objective as President is the promotion of the Internet and associated technologies. Under my chairmanship, the Internet Society Chapter of Mauritius was nominated as one of the three finalists in 2002 and 2004 for the e-Achievers Award on the African continent. This award goes to an African institution or company that promotes e-enablement within Africa. I have always been involved in noncommercial and volunteer activities. I have been a member of Save the Children Mauritius and have held positions of Secretary, Treasurer and President (CEO). I also was nominated for my works in a noncommercial environment as one of the three finalists for Most Outstanding Young Person of the Year in 1996 and in 2003 for the Republic of Mauritius (by the Jeune Chambre Economique de L'ile Maurice, an affiliate of Junior Chamber International). I am very much involved in Internet Policies and have been one of the ambassadors of the Internet Society for the World Summit on the Information Society. Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal _____ From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Dave Kissoondoyal Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:08 PM To: 'Izumi AIZU'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! Dear Izumi, I would like to volunteer Thanks and best regards Dave Kissoondoyal, ACMI President - Internet Society of Mauritius Member - PIR .ORG Advisory Council Director of Information Technology Teleforma (Mauritius), Ltd +230 465-7474 Main Office +230 465-7171 Fax +230 465-7298 Direct Line +230 257-8703 Cell Phone 701-451-6530 US Dial Direct Line 10th Floor Cyber Tower 1 Ebene Cybercity Rose Hill Mauritius The information contained in this transmission, including any attachments hereto, is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender at the information provided and return any and all copies of this communication to the sender _____ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:20 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dave Kissoondoyal Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! Dear Dave, The Appeals Team will be comprised by Five people. We set 10 nominations/volunteers to select from. You are highly encouraged to join the nomination. best, izumi 2007/1/16, Dave Kissoondoyal : Dear Izumi, Please let us know the appeal team will comprise of how many members Thanks and best regards _____ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto: izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 7:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! Dear list, So far not too many people have been nominated for the Appeals Team. It can be self-nomination, but you can also nominate someone you think is the good candidate. We need at least 10 names. Please consider and send the nomination to the list as soon as possible! It is important for all of us. Thanks, izumi 2007/1/11, Izumi AIZU < aizu at anr.org >: Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the web page to list all those nominations for Appeal Team. http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html And Jeremy took the first, thank you! Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list shortly? How about others? Please. izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3608 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From aizu at anr.org Sun Jan 21 20:03:07 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:03:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Note on Appeals Team Nominations, with a query. In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410701182359t4ea49818u3ed11abb2f1ba514@mail.gmail.com> References: <8cbfe7410701182359t4ea49818u3ed11abb2f1ba514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry for this late response. I could not figure out what exactly you are asking. Does "requests to be considered made November" mean for the selection of Nomcom? Then I don't think that is the same as selection for Appeals Team, at least in theory. Of course, in practice, almost same statement can be used. In any case, please make explicit (self-) nomination asap. If my interpretation is wrong, please explain more. Thanks, izumi 2007/1/19, l. d. misek-falkoff : > Greetings, > > This is a note on the Appeals Team nominations, with a query. > > If the selection committee intends to include requests to be considered made > November forward, will an amplified request for a statement of interests and > preparedness be requested? > > Perhaps some email has been missed, so further information will be > appreciated. > > Best wishes and sincere regards, > Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. > - 50th year in Computing, Information and Knowledge System Convenings and > Practice in multi-stakeholder contexts.. > - *The Respectul Interfaces Program* of the Communications Coordination > Committee For the United Nations. > - International Disability Caucus Steering Committee; Other affiliations > available. > - WSIS Geneva, Tunis; Internet Governance Forum, Athens; ongoing > participation. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Sun Jan 21 20:05:17 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:05:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Note on Appeals Team Nominations, with a query. In-Reply-To: References: <8cbfe7410701182359t4ea49818u3ed11abb2f1ba514@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I guess, I made an mistale - I mean you are already self-nominated and Avri put your statement on the web, too. Sorry for my confusion ;-). izumi 2007/1/22, Izumi AIZU : > Sorry for this late response. > > I could not figure out what exactly you are asking. > > Does "requests to be considered made November" mean > for the selection of Nomcom? Then I don't think that is the same > as selection for Appeals Team, at least in theory. > Of course, in practice, almost same statement can be used. > > In any case, please make explicit (self-) nomination asap. > > If my interpretation is wrong, please explain more. > > Thanks, > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Jan 21 20:07:15 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:07:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call for Nomination to Appeal Team In-Reply-To: <20070121102415.3EF4D3DC005@mx03-blue.in.shared-server.net> References: <20070121102415.3EF4D3DC005@mx03-blue.in.shared-server.net> Message-ID: Dear Guru, Thank you for the nomination. And since you have not sent this to the list, I am ccing so that everyone will see it now. If Willie kindly accepts the nomination, then we now have 10 nominees, that is great, so that we can start the selection. best, izumi 2007/1/21, Guru at ITfC : > Dear Izumi San, > > I would like to nominate Willie Currie, Association for Progressive > Communications (APC) for the appeals team. > > Willie is the Communication and Information Policy Program Manager for APC. > He has been a counsellor on independant Communcation Authority of South > Africasa (ICASA) and also a special adviser to Dr. Pallo Jordan Minister for > Telecom and Broadcasting in President Mandela's cabinet, in which capacity > he coordinated telecom policy process that led to the white paper on telecom > policy. > > APC / Willie has been active participants in the WSIS and the IG processes. > Willie was a member of the 'Informal Coalition on Financing' which > highlighted issues related to the financing of Information Society at WSIS. > > Thanks, > Guru > _____________ > Gurumurthy K > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > www.ITforChange.net > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Jan 21 20:14:49 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:14:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Appeal Team Selection time line In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, We have now nine nominations on the website and one more is sent to the list, waiting for the statement by Willie, that will make ten nominations which was the minimum number for starting the selection. Please see the website below for details: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html For those nominees who have not made the statement, please send it to the list as soon as possible. The Nomcom would like to start the discussion for the selection to meet the deadline of Jan 31 for final announcement. Thank you for your participation and support to this important process, during the holiday period. izumi 2006/12/23, Izumi AIZU : > Dear all, > > Our NomCom team agreed to work with the following time line. > In essence, we like to finish this process by the end of January, > taking holidays into consideration, it is about one-month job. > > The biggest challenge for all of us is to make sure sufficient number > and quality of candidates will be pooled. This needs YOUR participation. > > With this, Happy Holiday! > > izumi > > 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal Team > - by Jan 8 > > 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 > > 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 > > 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 > > 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 > > 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 > > 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 22 05:29:12 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:29:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] new info: Taking stock and the way forward, Feb 13 meeting Message-ID: New on the IGF website: Taking stock and the way forward A stock-taking session open to all stakeholders will be held on 13 February 2007 at the Palais des Nations, United Nations Office in Geneva (Room XX).Meeting hours: 10:00-13:00 and 15:00-18:00 hours. The meeting will have interpretation into all UN languages and benefit from real-time transcription. The aim of the meeting is to take stock of the Athens meeting, assess what worked well and what worked less well and make suggestions with regard to the preparation of the meeting in Rio De Janeiro. All stakeholders are invited to send us their comments and views on the Athens meeting and make suggestions with regard to the preparation of the meeting in Rio de Janeiro by filling out our online form or downloading the form [rtf] and emailing it back to us at igf at unog.ch or posting their comments on our discussion section . All submissions will be posted on our contributions page . Contributions submitted by 2 February will be reflected in a synthesis paper prepared by the Secretariat that will be posted on this Web site prior to the consultations. The meeting is open to all WSIS accredited entities and individuals with proven expertise and experience in Internet Governance related issues. Stakeholders can register for the session by filling in the online registration form or by downloading the French or English registration form and emailing (igf at unog.ch) or faxing (+41 22 917 00 92) the form back to the Secretariat. 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 yasmeen at diplomacy.edu Mon Jan 22 10:51:24 2007 From: yasmeen at diplomacy.edu (Yasmeen Ariff) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:51:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Applications: Capacity Building Training Programme 2007 References: Message-ID: <061501c73e3d$2be23280$19a1a8c0@diplomacy.edu> Dear All We are pleased to announce the third cycle of our capacity buildng programme. Please circulate on your networks. Thanks Yasmeen Yasmeen Ariff Internet Governance Projects DiploFoundation 4th Floor, Regional Building Regional Road Msida MSD 13 MALTA Tel: +356 21 333323 Fax: +356 21 315574 http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig Call for Applications Capacity Building Training Programme 2007 DiploFoundation, in cooperation with various partners, is currently accepting applications for the 2007 Internet Governance Capacity Building Training Programme. This programme is designed to improve Internet Governance (IG) related knowledge and skills for participants mainly from developing countries and to facilitate community building among individuals with different national, cultural, and professional backgrounds. » What The programme offers 135 places for young professionals from diverse stakeholder backgrounds in IG related fields and is open to individuals from all around the world. Participants from developing countries are eligible to receive full scholarship support. A special bilingual Spanish-English speaking group will be formed as well. The programme includes an online training phase, a research phase, and capacity building fellowships awarded to a number of successful participants in the programme. Fellowship opportunities include internships with partner organisations and attendance at IG related meetings, including the Internet Governance Forum later in the year. » How The programme includes online learning and research phases that take place over eight months: a.. The learning phase consists of the Foundation Course (introductory materials and activities) and the Advanced Course (advanced materials, involvement of discussion facilitators and experts, introduction of advanced online communication and discussion tools). Learning activities take place in an online classroom and include the analysis of course materials, interactive group discussions using a variety of communication tools, assignments and exams; b.. The research phase involves supervised collaborative online work focused on IG policy issues of highest relevance to developing countries, and is closely linked to training activities. » Who The training programme seeks applications from the following categories of individuals from both developed and developing countries: a.. officials in government ministries and departments dealing with IG related issues (e.g., telecommunications, education, foreign affairs, justice); b.. postgraduate students and researchers in the IG field (e.g., in telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics, development studies); c.. civil society activists in the IG field; d.. journalists covering IG issues; e.. individuals in Internet-business fields (e.g., ISPs, software developers). » When The 8 month programme commences on 1 March 2007. The online training phase runs from March to July 2007, followed by a research phase from July to October 2007. Fellowships placements will be offered from July 2007 through to 2008, dependent on the timing of pertinent events and meetings. » Fee Applicants from developing countries: full scholarships are available for all selected applicants to cover course tuition. Applicants from developed countries: 2000 euros. » Requirements The applicants are required to have: a.. Basic awareness and interest in IG issues b.. Knowledge and/or experience of the multistakeholder approach in international affairs c.. Fluency in English d.. Good writing skills, ability to summarize information and focus on details e.. Frequent access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient) f.. Minimum of 8 hours commitment per week during the programme g.. Participation in online consultations (once a week at specified times) » Deadline The deadline for applications is 10 February 2007. » How to Apply For further information and to apply, please visit http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/igcbp/. Do not hesitate to contact us at ig at diplomacy.edu. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 04:50:06 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:50:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Updating on the Governance and Law Conference Message-ID: <220529.59644.qm@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> ??? CILS wrote: From: "CILS" To: Subject: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:39:45 +0100 We seek speakers and moderators for the Internet: Governance and the Law Conference scheduled 25-29 April 2007 at the Clinton Presidential Library and the University of Arkansas School of Law in Little Rock, Arkansas. Speakers and moderators have a 40% discount from the delegate fee. The delegate fee or the full conference is US $2,570. The reduced faculty fee is US $1,542, including 4 nights' accommodation, opening and closing dinners, cocktail reception, working breakfasts and coffee for delegates, CLE/CPD credits, and travel insurance. Should you or any of your colleagues have interest in serving on the faculty, please advise me, and we will provide further information. The Symposium is co-sponsored by the Clinton School of Public Service and the University of Arkansas William H. Bowen School of Law. Regards, Dennis Campbell Center for International Legal Studies PO Box 19 A5033 Salzburg, Austria Austria Fax 43 662 835171 US Fax 1 509 3560077 Email cils at cils.org --------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Tue Jan 23 06:19:23 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:19:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Updating on the Governance and Law Conference In-Reply-To: <220529.59644.qm@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> References: <220529.59644.qm@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200701231125.l0NBPcZr003498@mxr.isoc.bg> This was discussed in length some time ago. There will be a conference, but check the organizers - via Google. What you've (and me, and many others) have received is called 'spam' veni At 01:50 AM 1/23/2007 -0800, Nnenna wrote: >??? > >CILS wrote: >From: "CILS" >To: >Subject: >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:39:45 +0100 > >We seek speakers and moderators for the Internet: Governance and the Law >Conference scheduled 25-29 April 2007 at the Clinton Presidential Library >and the University of Arkansas School of Law in Little Rock, Arkansas. > >Speakers and moderators have a 40% discount from the delegate fee. The >delegate fee or the full conference is US $2,570. The reduced faculty fee >is US $1,542, including 4 nights' accommodation, opening and closing >dinners, cocktail reception, working breakfasts and coffee for delegates, >CLE/CPD credits, and travel insurance. Should you or any of your colleagues >have interest in serving on the faculty, please advise me, and we will >provide further information. The Symposium is co-sponsored by the Clinton >School of Public Service and the University of Arkansas William H. Bowen >School of Law. > >Regards, Dennis Campbell >Center for International Legal Studies >PO Box 19 >A5033 Salzburg, Austria >Austria Fax 43 662 835171 >US Fax 1 509 3560077 >Email cils at cils.org > > > > >Cheap Talk? >Check >out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. > > >Don't be flakey. >Get >Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and >always >stay connected to friends. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Jan 24 03:00:38 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:00:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition for the IGF Message-ID: <45B71226.9070205@Malcolm.id.au> At the inaugural meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Athens last year, a number of "dynamic coalitions" were formed between different stakeholders (governments, business, civil society) in order to advance joint aims on particular Internet-related issues. The Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition is the latest of these, aimed at providing the IGF community, including other dynamic coalitions, with online collaboration tools in order to help them carry out their tasks in the most efficient, effective and inclusive way possible. Amongst our particular projects are: * Developing the new Community Participation Site for the IGF (the http://igf2006.info for 2007 and beyond) * Providing best practice tools and techniques for participants in IGF processes to engage in group discussion, collaborative authoring and decision making * Considering how to unify dispersed sources of information using metadata (such as tags) * Further developing online sources of information about Net governance issues and institutions (not just the IGF) * Facilitating remote participation in future open IGF meetings, hopefully including the 13 February consultations. The coalition will evaluate the available collaboration tools and provide two-way support and advice on what technical solutions and approaches are best suited for multi-stakeholder discussions. Finding a permanent domain and hosting home for the coalition is one of its first topics for discussion, but for now its Web site is a wiki page at http://igf2006.info/wiki/IGF-OCDC, and its mailing list may be joined at http://igfwatch.org/wws/info/igf-ocdc. If you wish to participate, please log in at the wiki and add yourself or your organisation to the list of members there (creating an account for yourself if you don't have one), and also join the coalition's mailing list using the URL above. -- 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 rishi at gipi.org.in Wed Jan 24 11:34:26 2007 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:04:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] My nomination statement for IGC Appeals Team Message-ID: Hello all, Following is my statement and Bio-data for self nomination in the Appeals Team Thanks and regards Rishi Chawla ************************************************* Several of you might remember meeting me at the WSIS Geneva Prepcom or the WSIS Tunis or at the IG Conference of DIPLO in Malta. I am an ICT Consultant residing in New Delhi, India doing advocacy, policy, regulatory and legal assignments globally. I am well connected with the ICT Community in India (especially the industry, academia and the NGOs). My multidisciplinary qualifications and exposure has facilitated me in working on various assignments and projects related to development of Internet in India. I have worked on the Policy, legal and technical issues of the Internet. I am the Country Co-ordinator of the GIPI project (Global Internet Policy Initiative) which has the objective of improving Internet Penetration; especially in the developing countries, through Policy and Legal Reforms by involoving the stakeholders in India for Policy Consultations. I have been involved in the Internet policy reforms in India, especially concerning Legalising Internet Telephony, Opening up of the Wireless Internet etc. I been associated with Internet Advocacy and Research projects for ISOC, The ResPUBLICA, DIPLO Foundation, Malta, Center for Communications Law & Policy Research, Internews, APNIC, APC, Computer Society of India, APDIP, ISP Association of India, National Internet Exchange of India etc. In association with the APC (Association for Proressive Communications), I organised the first "ICT Policy Workshop for the Civil Society in the South Asia" I have been a founding member and director of National Internet Exchange of India and .IN ccTLD Registry. I have also represented on several committees on behalf of the Civil Society. I have been recently elected as Treasurer, Computer Society of India. Because of my analytical skills, technical knowledge and excellent communication skills I consider myself as an effective and efficient candidate for the IGC Appeals team. I do not come with a specific agenda or mind frame to the Appeals team. I am of the firm belief that any ICT policy and governance should be made through effective, transparent and unbiased consultations with the Community . I stronlgy advocate the representation of the Asian region in all the international policy making processes and that is true for Internet also. My motivation for nomination in IGC Appeals Team is also representing the point of view of the Asian Internet Community in the global policy development. You can read more about me at http://www.connect-world.com/Articles/2006/AP_I-11-RishiChawla.htm and also at www.wgig.org/docs/Bio-Chawla.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jan 25 06:17:43 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:17:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Workshop on The Contribution of Mobile Devices to Development Message-ID: Abi asked me to forward. Adam > >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:48:27 +0000 >From: Abi Jagun >Subject: Workshop on The Contribution of Mobile Devices to Development > > >Dear All: > >Apologies for cross-posting. Please circulate widely. > > >Workshop on Mobiles and Development: The Contribution of Mobile Devices >to Development >Wednesday 16 May 2007 > >Organised by the: >Development Informatics Group, >Institute for Development Policy and Management, >University of Manchester > > >According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), there are >now more mobile subscribers than fixed line subscribers, and mobile >teledensity rates continue to outstrip fixed teledensity in every region >of the world. ITU statistics show that global mobile subscribers >increased from approximately 740 million subscribers in 2000 to over 1.8 >billion subscribers, or 28 per cent of the world¹s population, by the >end of 2004. This translates into approximately one in three people >around the world have a mobile phone. Furthermore, with one million new >subscribers every day, it is estimated that almost four billion people >will have a mobile phone by the end of 2010. > >Rising figures of the uptake of mobile phones are indicative of the huge >potential mobile devices have in reaching significant portions of >erstwhile excluded populations. Could such devices also be used to >deliver development initiatives to these sets of people? This workshop >will bring together field evidence on the use of mobile devices in >delivering development objectives in a range of developing and >transitional countries. It will explore the application of mobile >devices to health, education, economic and social empowerment, human >rights, commerce etc. > >Interested presenters should in the first instance submit an abstract of >no more than 300 words to (electronic submissions) >abi.jagun at manchester.ac.uk. Please include "Mobiles and Development >Workshop" in the Subject field of your email. Paper submissions should >be sent to Abi Jagun, IDPM, School of Environment and Development, >Precinct Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9QH, UK. >Abstracts should be received no later than Friday 30 March 2007. > >Participants wishing to attend should complete and return the >registration form (MS Word) to the address above no later than Monday 30 >April 2007. Attendance is free of charge and some support for UK travel >costs may be available to presenters who are members of the Development >Studies Association: please contact Richard Heeks >(richard.heeks at manchester.ac.uk) in advance of the workshop. > > >For Registration Form please visit >http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/events/mobile.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 09:41:18 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:41:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron has invited you to open a Google mail account Message-ID: I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an invitation to create an account. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Nyangkwe Agien Aaron has invited you to open a free Gmail account. To accept this invitation and register for your account, visit http://mail.google.com/mail/a-a3a5d5c41a-e0e8277e00-ac66d55a66 Once you create your account, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron will be notified with your new email address so you can stay in touch with Gmail! If you haven't already heard about Gmail, it's a new search-based webmail service that offers: - Over 2,700 megabytes (two gigabytes) of free storage - Built-in Google search that instantly finds any message you want - Automatic arrangement of messages and related replies into "conversations" - Powerful spam protection using innovative Google technology - No large, annoying ads--just small text ads and related pages that are relevant to the content of your messages To learn more about Gmail before registering, visit: http://mail.google.com/mail/help/benefits.html And, to see how easy it can be to switch to a new email service, check out our new switch guide: http://mail.google.com/mail/help/switch/ We're still working every day to improve Gmail, so we might ask for your comments and suggestions periodically. We hope you'll like Gmail. We do. And, it's only going to get better. Thanks, The Gmail Team (If clicking the URLs in this message does not work, copy and paste them into the address bar of your browser). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Jan 25 10:09:55 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:09:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Statement for the Appeals Team? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D0D6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D0CF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D0D1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D0D6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Date: 2007/01/25 23:33 Subject: AW: Statement for the Appeals Team Wolfgang Kleinwächter I am a professor for Internet Policy & Regulation at the University of Aarhus in Denmark since 1998. Before that I had teaching positions at the University of Leipzig (until 1991), the University of Tampere (1992/1993) and the American Uniersity in Washington, D.C. (1993/1995). >From 1995 to 1998 I chaired the Interregional Information Society Initiative (IRISI) of the European Commission in Bruessel. Since 1998 I am deeply involved both in in ICANN and WSIS. I was a member of ICANN´s Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) and the Membership Information Task Force (MITF) between 1998 and 2000. In 2002 I co-created and co-chaired the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in WSIS. I was a member of the WSIS civil society Bureau (2002 - 2005). >From 2004 to 2005 I was a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). At the moment I am a member of ICANN´s Nominating Committee (NomCom) and a Special Advsider to the Chair of the Internet Governance Forum. I am also a member of the Panel of High Level expoerts of the Global Alliance for iCT & sdevelopment. I always worked towards a broader involvement of civil society and NGOs in global policy development, in particular with regard to the Internet. I am also a co-fopunder of the Global Internet Governance Academic network (GIGANET). Region: Europe Profession: Academic Membership affiliation in IGC: As individual Working Languages: English/ German ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jan 26 13:30:17 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:30:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] book: Hammer, Foucauldian Approach To International Law Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070126102813.04447c58@peoplewho.org> With International law essentially stuck within an older framework of outmoded statist approaches, and overly broad understanding of the significance of external actors such as international organizations; current interpretations are either rooted in a narrow attempt to demonstrate a functioning normative structure or interpret developments as reflective of some emerging and somewhat unwieldy ethical order. http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070125005498&newsLang=en ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 28 10:32:42 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:02:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070128153232.C166FE04D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi everybody I am sorry but I was offline for the last two week for some urgent professional and personal commitments .... The letter to Nitin stands as follows and is planned to be sent out tomorrow around this time. Anyone has nitin's email id ? Thanks. Parminder (starts) >From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus To Nitin Desai Special Advisor to the Secretary-General United Nations Dear Mr Desai Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of your advisory team, as well as to the hard work put in by the secretariat. We are writing to you with reference to the UN Secretary-General's brief to your office to begin informal consultations towards a process of 'enhanced cooperation' on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The CS-IGC would appreciate an update on progress and news of the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In particular, we would very much welcome information on (a) any concrete measures taken so far, e.g., any discussions and consultations that may have been held with governments and other stakeholders on the substance and modalities of 'enhanced cooperation', and, (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the clear mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. We would also like to express our commitment and desire to be involved in any such processes that may be underway or planned. Thank you. Sincerely Vittorio Bertola and Parminder Jeet Singh (On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus) (ends) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Mon Jan 29 02:38:16 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:38:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please In-Reply-To: <20070128153232.C166FE04D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070128153232.C166FE04D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45BDA468.5020302@panos-ao.org> > Anyone has nitin's email id ? Hi He should also have a UN address but here is one address he used recently. desaind at gmail.com KL Parminder a écrit : > Hi everybody > > I am sorry but I was offline for the last two week for some urgent > professional and personal commitments .... The letter to Nitin stands as > follows and is planned to be sent out tomorrow around this time. Anyone has > nitin's email id ? > > Thanks. Parminder > > (starts) > > >From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > To > > Nitin Desai > Special Advisor to the Secretary-General United Nations > > > Dear Mr Desai > > Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007! > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) would like to > congratulate you for the very successful first meeting of the Internet > Governance Forum. A good amount of the credit for this goes to your personal > leadership, and that of your advisory team, as well as to the hard work put > in by the secretariat. > > We are writing to you with reference to the UN Secretary-General's brief to > your office to begin informal consultations towards a process of 'enhanced > cooperation' on international public policy issues related to the Internet. > > The CS-IGC would appreciate an update on progress and news of the current > state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." In particular, we > would very much welcome information on > > (a) any concrete measures taken so far, e.g., any discussions and > consultations that may have been held with governments and other > stakeholders on the substance and modalities of 'enhanced cooperation', and, > > (b) the plans for involving civil society in the process as per the clear > mandate in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. > > We would also like to express our commitment and desire to be involved in > any such processes that may be underway or planned. > > > Thank you. > > Sincerely > > Vittorio Bertola > and > Parminder Jeet Singh > > (On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus) > > (ends) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Mon Jan 29 11:05:36 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:05:36 -0200 (BRST) Subject: [governance] Nomination to Appeal team Message-ID: <1199.196.209.43.228.1170086736.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Hi everyone I accept Guru's nomination for the Appeal Team. This is my statement: I have experience of dealing with adjudication issues from my work with the South African regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), where I led a complaints committee that dealt with telecom and internet related complaints. I understand the requirement to apply ones mind independently to any issue subject to appeal with due impartiality. Best Willie ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Jan 29 22:11:02 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:11:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Nomination to Appeal team In-Reply-To: <1199.196.209.43.228.1170086736.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> References: <1199.196.209.43.228.1170086736.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Willie for the statement. Now that we have all nominees put the statement, the Nomcom will try hard to reach the final selection. Many thanks to all, izumi 2007/1/30, wcurrie at apc.org : > Hi everyone > > I accept Guru's nomination for the Appeal Team. > > This is my statement: > > I have experience of dealing with adjudication issues from my work with > the South African regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of > South Africa (ICASA), where I led a complaints committee that dealt with > telecom and internet related complaints. I understand the requirement to > apply ones mind independently to any issue subject to appeal with due > impartiality. > > Best > Willie > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Jan 29 22:49:14 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:49:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Linda's statement Message-ID: Hi, As Avri is now on the road and has little time working on the web-site, I am fowarding the statement from Linda sent to me two days ago. Sorry for the delay ;-). Thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: l. d. misek-falkoff Date: 2007/01/28 13:53 Subject: Fwd: 01-27-07 vers. rr to correct hidden text inclusion, WORD combined with GMAIL. To: Izumi AIZU aizu at anr.org *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * *Application to Appeals Team * *representing Older WomEn in the field * *(here, continuosly since 1950's )*. *I. Foreground Application and re prior and present contexts. * I have the honor and pleasure to apply for the IGF Appeals Team or other functions in IGF as an older woman who has been a systems builder, professor, programmer and author, as well as user of computers for 50 years. In multi-disciplinary venues, emphasis has been on integrating / interconnecting / interfacing and when possible 'balancing' the interests of diverse stakeholders, or actors, in varied fora, which in addition to directly ICT activities has included the taking of formal appeals in legal and court contexts concerning cyber-interactions. This activity consistently involves acknowledging different sorts of interests of different sorts of (here) *netizens* and indeed cultures, groups, and individuals broadly, striving for clear conversations and a shared sense of fairness. My work at the United Nations is now gathered under the *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations (CCC/UN), of which I am an Officer and serve on the Board, while representing other organizations and causes as well at the U.N. I hope that having on the team a person present throughout the very interesting eras of computers coming into society over a half century will merge well with the varied types of expertise so valued in the IGF and civil society at large. I am very much interested in issues which arise when even though high interest, industry, and application of effort has culminated in decision making, there still may be issue-spotting opportunities through opportunities of "appeal," so that all voices are heard and where feasible decisions can be revisited and retuned both for justice and pragmatic progress. I hope that in addition to computing, education, and arts in background and foreground, my legal work in the appeal area from lower to highest courts especially regarding rights and duties in cyberspace will bring some different perspectives as well; I am still active in these fields on policy and practice bases. I have keen interest in human rights issues and e-activity including intersections of 'freedom of expression' with other actor concerns for example in contexts of 'online defamation' and other individual-and-group-impacting C*ybeTorts* inclusively. I participated on-site as well as online in WSIS (Geneva and Tunis) and IF-I Athens, where I both formally and informally presented on and discussed multi-stakeholder dialogue from the perspective of * The Respectful Interfaces Programme* at the U.N. As a side-note, my own difficulties navigating some of these physical territories for a person with mobility disabilities might even have a bearing on issues of inclusiveness and foresight so far as Rio and other future venues are concerned and such issues could rise to matters of appeal and review in the IGF. *II. Extended (More Detailed) Background for NOMCOM Committee.* In the 1950's computers were coming and as a society we had to adjust from multi-stakeholder perspectives. How would computers affect the Sciences and the Arts, and their interactions? In the 1960's, I completed joint doctorates in computing and humanities, published and participated within ARPANet contours, and innovated / invented methods of literary and linguistic studies, bridging at that time very diverse communities with varying goals and modes of access and anticipating text and document management in future legal, medical, and other fields of "IT" purpose driven applications. I also served as Research Associate in fields of Electronic Medical Record Management, forerunner of present systems so burgeoning today and presenting copious ethical issues as well as technical ones. *My Context Concordance to Paradise Lost* on 'inter-actor' Social Network basis was consulted in the setting up of now well known Bible Concordances. In the 1970's, I first taught computing in education, medicine, law, psychology, literature, and other fields at the college and university level. In industry I had and completed the assignment to design, code, implement, document, and maintain the first "markup tags" for GML, forerunner of HTML for web design; we also had versions of xml like systems; our purpose was to provide meanings-based as contrasted to local formatting-based tools for publication. In this period, I began to participate in legal fora involving computers and social impact, taking early internet related cases to the U.S. Supreme Court including in the new areas of *Cybertorts* (coinage) and varied issues on '*rights and duties'* in electronic domains, performing the legal and social research, writing and submitting collaboratively with others, and serving in community support groups for people going through courts – a multi-actor venue of renown. During the period my pain disabilities brought me into multiple communities of support online as well as in-person collaboration. In the 1990's, I was engaged in human rights areas of computer applications still as analyst, programmer, and educator And as the research assistant while in law school, for Blaine Sloan's 1991 seminal text *United Nations General Assembly Resolutions in Our Changing World* (Transnational Press) I worked through the legal department at U.N. Headquarters and now have returned there in civil society mode.* * In this new century I have served on the Steering Committee of the *International Disability Caucus for the Convention on Rights of Persons With Disabilities *(representing the "Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability" (CSPD) – as well as founding Persons with Pain Intl. (PWPI)), participated in WSIS (Geneva, Tunis) and IFG (Athens). I am documenting a half century in computing presently, the adventures, the waves of social and cultural advances and multiple issues of universal access and participation, and inviting others to submit mini chapters on their own experiences. I serve as Officer and Board Member of The Communications Coordination for the U.N., represent the U.S. Burn Support Organization, am appointed Communications Coordinator of the World Democracy Movement, and serve on Education, Disability, Rights, and Planning Committees at the U.N. in New York as well as continuing to liaise with other NGOs affiliated with the U.N. and elsewhere. I maintain a keen interest in human rights issues and ICT, and applications of traditional legal concepts and remedies to the realms of cyberspace, and at large, emphasizing inclusion and rich network principles and hands-on practice. *III. Selected Multi-Disciplinary Documentary-Addenda (with currently active URLS) **:* *A. *(historical review pro tem, email): linda @2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawoman.COM = contact email address re project being developed to encourage other women and people in general to interconnect, share their stories. Part of account only is re ldmf; other Parts are re, Others). Respectful_interfaces at gmail.com , ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com , and secretary at cccu.org are other e-addys. * * *B. Some referencing website URLS presently:* Early Professorial Mentoring: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED110094&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b800fa132 " *From Poetry to Politics: Vassar Freshmen Concord Watergate* ." Software Engineering and Systems Design: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800504&dl=ACM&coll=portal&CFID=11111111&CFTOKEN=2222222 " *The new field of "Software Linguistics": An early-bird view (itself has cites to other publications, ARPANet forward) **."* Chairing of Conferences, etc.: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800508 *"A unification of Halstead's Software Science counting rules for programs and English text, and a claim space approach to extensions Joint International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems". * * * http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=Portal&dl=Portal&CFID=12779189&CFTOKEN=57882922 *(LDMF Co-Chair). SCORE82: Software Metrics Intl. Conference. * Electronic Publication Field, Discourse and Text Analysis and Synthesis: http://comppile.tamucc.edu/RWPN/rwpn5.5pp14-27.pdf "*Computing Text Mark-Up and Speech Acts. Architecture of Publication tagging, early forecast of xml like user entry point systems" *. http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=1041391&idx=J958&type=issue&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&part=journal&WantType=Journals&title=ACM%20SIGLASH" * CONCORDIAD" verse documenting state of art of literary data processing, social perspectives, state(s) of the art(s).* http://www.springerlink.com/content/16x0m4j72l043kg8/ *LDM, Context Concordance to **Paradise** Lost **(social network, multi-actor network analysis). * Computing and Law / Society / Values: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-pct/2005-December/001054.html *CYBERTORTS AND JURISDICTION. * Artificial Intelligence, cited in content and for programming of publication markup systems: http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif/msg00029.html *John Sowa's Conceptual Structures, Addison Wesley, Scientific Series* . Decisional Research done at United Nations with Legal Department in Conjunction with Law School and seminal text of esteemed Professor Blaine Sloan, 35 years at the U.N.: http://www.transnationalpubs.com/showbook.cfm?bookid=10148 *United Nations General Assembly Resolutions in Our Changing World, Transnational Press **(ldmf among acknowledgments; follow ups in progress)*. Participation in Human Rights Treaty Meetings and Formulations in person and online: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc7sideevents.htm *Onsite and elsewhere in whole sequence of AdHoc and related Meetings, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; non-formal graphic archivalist, member Steering Committee of The International Disability Caucus, participant in various aspects of ACCESS issues *. http://www.cardfountain.com/ecards/photo-cards/index.php?pid=1065419-0&pu=1 *Poster, **Madrid** , **Spain **Resolution - International Disability Caucus Convening.* *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of The Communications Coordination Committee For the United Nations (NGO): http://www.google.com/search?q=%22respectful+Interfaces%22&num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&rls=HPIA,HPIA:2006-30,HPIA:en&filter=0 *Google 'moving target' - examples.* Rights-based and societal values based topics: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-pct/2005-December/001054.html *Example re Cyber-Torts.* General computer law reference illustration: http://mishpat.net/cyberlaw/archive/cyberlaw57.shtml *Professional cross-referencing.* RECOMMENDATIONS etc. re Internet Governance Bodies: http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml?slice_id=3e640adb2506b8421b3f31232657571b&sh_itm=74e13b9344ccc967de34c41711c1bfa7 *ICT Panel / Board **Candidacy illustration* . DATA BASE AND QUERY SYSTEMS, including "relational": * http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=Portal&dl=Portal&CFID=12779189&CFTOKEN=57882922 **"Data Base and Query Systems: New and Simple Ways to Gain Multiple Views of the Patterns in Text. *" WSIS-II / SMSI (Thus) Paper and In Person Presentation re importance of multi-stakeholder participation in all phases of ICT and broadly: http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/prompt/051115_18wsis.html *"The Joyous Imperatives of R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Both as a Theme and a Tool or Technology for Full Multi-Stakeholder Inclusion in Information and Communication Networks Both Now and in the Future. Highlighting the Key Roles of Persons with Disabilities in Collaborative Contexts World-Wide." * Present Planning and Organizational Functions: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag&id=10241 http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:JJCsG5toxVoJ:www.ngodpiexecom.org/conference06/prep_workshops.html+dpi+ngo+misek-falkoff&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 012707 CORR update LDMF Application to Appeals Team - vers. rr..doc Type: application/msword Size: 78848 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From iza at anr.org Tue Jan 30 01:29:35 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:29:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Linda's statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am glad that I was wrong - with Avri's extra effort, now all the statements are on the website: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html There are two additions, Linda's and Willie's and just a minor modification of Wolfgang's. Nomcom will be working hard to chatch up. Many thanks, especially to Avri! izumi 2007/1/30, Izumi AIZU : > > Hi, > > As Avri is now on the road and has little time working on the web-site, > I am fowarding the statement from Linda sent to me two days ago. > Sorry for the delay ;-). > > Thanks, > > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: l. d. misek-falkoff > Date: 2007/01/28 13:53 > Subject: Fwd: 01-27-07 vers. rr to correct hidden text inclusion, WORD > combined with GMAIL. > To: Izumi AIZU aizu at anr.org > > *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * > > * * > > > > *Application to Appeals Team * > > *representing Older WomEn in the field * > > *(here, continuosly since 1950's )*. > > > > *I. Foreground Application and re prior and present contexts. * > > > > I have the honor and pleasure to apply for the IGF Appeals Team or other > functions in IGF as an older woman who has been a systems builder, > professor, programmer and author, as well as user of computers for 50 years. > In multi-disciplinary venues, emphasis has been on integrating / > interconnecting / interfacing and when possible 'balancing' the interests > of diverse stakeholders, or actors, in varied fora, which in addition to > directly ICT activities has included the taking of formal appeals in legal > and court contexts concerning cyber-interactions. This activity consistently > involves acknowledging different sorts of interests of different sorts of > (here) *netizens* and indeed cultures, groups, and individuals broadly, > striving for clear conversations and a shared sense of fairness. > > My work at the United Nations is now gathered under the *Respectful > Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee for the > United Nations (CCC/UN), of which I am an Officer and serve on the Board, > while representing other organizations and causes as well at the U.N. > > I hope that having on the team a person present throughout the very > interesting eras of computers coming into society over a half century will > merge well with the varied types of expertise so valued in the IGF and civil > society at large. I am very much interested in issues which arise when even > though high interest, industry, and application of effort has culminated in > decision making, there still may be issue-spotting opportunities through > opportunities of "appeal," so that all voices are heard and where feasible > decisions can be revisited and retuned both for justice and > pragmatic progress. > > I hope that in addition to computing, education, and arts in background > and foreground, my legal work in the appeal area from lower to highest > courts especially regarding rights and duties in cyberspace will bring some > different perspectives as well; I am still active in these fields on policy > and practice bases. I have keen interest in human rights issues and > e-activity including intersections of 'freedom of expression' with other > actor concerns for example in contexts of 'online defamation' and other > individual-and-group-impacting C*ybeTorts* inclusively. > > I participated on-site as well as online in WSIS (Geneva and Tunis) and > IF-I Athens, where I both formally and informally presented on and discussed > multi-stakeholder dialogue from the perspective of * The Respectful > Interfaces Programme* at the U.N. As a side-note, my own difficulties > navigating some of these physical territories for a person with mobility > disabilities might even have a bearing on issues of inclusiveness and > foresight so far as Rio and other future venues are concerned and such > issues could rise to matters of appeal and review in the IGF. > > > > *II. Extended (More Detailed) Background for NOMCOM Committee.* > > > > In the 1950's computers were coming and as a society we had to adjust from > multi-stakeholder perspectives. How would computers affect the Sciences and > the Arts, and their interactions? > > In the 1960's, I completed joint doctorates in computing and humanities, > published and participated within ARPANet contours, and innovated / invented > methods of literary and linguistic studies, bridging at that time very > diverse communities with varying goals and modes of access and anticipating > text and document management in future legal, medical, and other fields of > "IT" purpose driven applications. I also served as Research Associate in > fields of Electronic Medical Record Management, forerunner of present > systems so burgeoning today and presenting copious ethical issues as well as > technical ones. *My Context Concordance to Paradise Lost* on 'inter-actor' > Social Network basis was consulted in the setting up of now well known Bible > Concordances. > > In the 1970's, I first taught computing in education, medicine, law, > psychology, literature, and other fields at the college and university > level. In industry I had and completed the assignment to design, code, > implement, document, and maintain the first "markup tags" for GML, > forerunner of HTML for web design; we also had versions of xml like systems; > our purpose was to provide meanings-based as contrasted to local > formatting-based tools for publication. > > In this period, I began to participate in legal fora involving computers > and social impact, taking early internet related cases to the U.S. Supreme > Court including in the new areas of *Cybertorts* (coinage) and varied > issues on '*rights and duties'* in electronic domains, performing the > legal and social research, writing and submitting collaboratively with > others, and serving in community support groups for people going through > courts – a multi-actor venue of renown. During the period my pain > disabilities brought me into multiple communities of support online as well > as in-person collaboration. > > In the 1990's, I was engaged in human rights areas of computer > applications still as analyst, programmer, and educator And as the > research assistant while in law school, for Blaine Sloan's 1991 seminal text > *United Nations General Assembly Resolutions in Our Changing World*(Transnational Press) I worked through the legal department at > U.N. Headquarters and now have returned there in civil society mode.* * > > In this new century I have served on the Steering Committee of the *International > Disability Caucus for the Convention on Rights of Persons With Disabilities > *(representing the "Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability" > (CSPD) – as well as founding Persons with Pain Intl. (PWPI)), > participated in WSIS (Geneva, Tunis) and IFG (Athens). I am documenting a > half century in computing presently, the adventures, the waves of social and > cultural advances and multiple issues of universal access and participation, > and inviting others to submit mini chapters on their own experiences. I > serve as Officer and Board Member of The Communications Coordination for the > U.N., represent the U.S. Burn Support Organization, am appointed > Communications Coordinator of the World Democracy Movement, and serve on > Education, Disability, Rights, and Planning Committees at the U.N. in New > York as well as continuing to liaise with other NGOs affiliated with the > U.N. and elsewhere. I maintain a keen interest in human rights issues and > ICT, and applications of traditional legal concepts and remedies to the > realms of cyberspace, and at large, emphasizing inclusion and rich network > principles and hands-on practice. > > > > *III. Selected Multi-Disciplinary Documentary-Addenda (with currently > active URLS) **:* > > > > *A. *(historical review pro tem, email): linda > @2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawoman.COM = contact email address re > project being developed to encourage other women and people in general to > interconnect, share their stories. Part of account only is re ldmf; other > Parts are re, Others). Respectful_interfaces at gmail.com , > ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com , and secretary at cccu.org are other e-addys. > > * * > > *B. Some referencing website URLS presently:* > > > > Early Professorial Mentoring: > > http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED110094&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b800fa132 > " *From Poetry to Politics: Vassar Freshmen Concord Watergate* ." > > > > Software Engineering and Systems Design: > > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800504&dl=ACM&coll=portal&CFID=11111111&CFTOKEN=2222222 > " *The new field of "Software Linguistics": An early-bird view (itself > has cites to other publications, ARPANet forward) **."* > > > > Chairing of Conferences, etc.: > > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800508 *"A unification of Halstead's > Software Science counting rules for programs and English text, and a claim > space approach to extensions Joint International Conference on Measurement > and Modeling of Computer Systems". * > > * * > > http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=Portal&dl=Portal&CFID=12779189&CFTOKEN=57882922 > *(LDMF Co-Chair). SCORE82: Software Metrics Intl. Conference. * > > > > Electronic Publication Field, Discourse and Text Analysis and Synthesis: > > http://comppile.tamucc.edu/RWPN/rwpn5.5pp14-27.pdf "*Computing Text > Mark-Up and Speech Acts. Architecture of Publication tagging, early forecast > of xml like user entry point systems" *. > > > > > http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=1041391&idx=J958&type=issue&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&part=journal&WantType=Journals&title=ACM%20SIGLASH" > * CONCORDIAD" verse documenting state of art of literary data processing, > social perspectives, state(s) of the art(s).* > > > > http://www.springerlink.com/content/16x0m4j72l043kg8/ *LDM, Context > Concordance to **Paradise** Lost **(social network, multi-actor network > analysis). * > > > > Computing and Law / Society / Values: > > http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-pct/2005-December/001054.html *CYBERTORTS > AND JURISDICTION. * > > > > Artificial Intelligence, cited in content and for programming of > publication markup systems: > > http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif/msg00029.html *John Sowa's Conceptual > Structures, Addison Wesley, Scientific Series* . > > > > Decisional Research done at United Nations with Legal Department in > Conjunction with Law School and seminal text of esteemed Professor Blaine > Sloan, 35 years at the U.N.: > > http://www.transnationalpubs.com/showbook.cfm?bookid=10148 *United Nations > General Assembly Resolutions in Our Changing World, Transnational Press **(ldmf > among acknowledgments; follow ups in progress)*. > > > > Participation in Human Rights Treaty Meetings and Formulations in person > and online: > > http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc7sideevents.htm *Onsite and > elsewhere in whole sequence of AdHoc and related Meetings, Convention on > the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; non-formal graphic archivalist, > member Steering Committee of The International Disability Caucus, > participant in various aspects of ACCESS issues *. > > > > http://www.cardfountain.com/ecards/photo-cards/index.php?pid=1065419-0&pu=1 > > > *Poster, **Madrid** , **Spain **Resolution - International Disability > Caucus Convening.* > > > > *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of The Communications Coordination > Committee For the United Nations (NGO): > > > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22respectful+Interfaces%22&num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&rls=HPIA,HPIA:2006-30,HPIA:en&filter=0 > *Google 'moving target' - examples.* > > > > Rights-based and societal values based topics: > > http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-pct/2005-December/001054.html *Example > re Cyber-Torts.* > > > > General computer law reference illustration: > > http://mishpat.net/cyberlaw/archive/cyberlaw57.shtml *Professional > cross-referencing.* > > > > RECOMMENDATIONS etc. re Internet Governance Bodies: > > > http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml?slice_id=3e640adb2506b8421b3f31232657571b&sh_itm=74e13b9344ccc967de34c41711c1bfa7 > *ICT Panel / Board **Candidacy illustration* . > > > > DATA BASE AND QUERY SYSTEMS, including "relational": > > * > http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=Portal&dl=Portal&CFID=12779189&CFTOKEN=57882922 > **"Data Base and Query Systems: New and Simple Ways to Gain Multiple Views > of the Patterns in Text. *" > > > > WSIS-II / SMSI (Thus) Paper and In Person Presentation re importance of > multi-stakeholder participation in all phases of ICT and broadly: > > http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/prompt/051115_18wsis.html > > *"The Joyous Imperatives of R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Both as a Theme and a Tool or > Technology for Full Multi-Stakeholder Inclusion in Information and > Communication Networks Both Now and in the Future. Highlighting the Key > Roles of Persons with Disabilities in Collaborative Contexts World-Wide." > * > > > > Present Planning and Organizational Functions: > > http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag&id=10241 > > > > > http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:JJCsG5toxVoJ:www.ngodpiexecom.org/conference06/prep_workshops.html+dpi+ngo+misek-falkoff&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12 > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 07:45:15 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:45:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination to Appeal team In-Reply-To: References: <1199.196.209.43.228.1170086736.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Message-ID: It was a good session with you Izumi. Our eyes are now open Nyangkwe On 1/30/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks Willie for the statement. > > Now that we have all nominees put the statement, the Nomcom > will try hard to reach the final selection. > > Many thanks to all, > > izumi > > > 2007/1/30, wcurrie at apc.org : > > Hi everyone > > > > I accept Guru's nomination for the Appeal Team. > > > > This is my statement: > > > > I have experience of dealing with adjudication issues from my work with > > the South African regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of > > South Africa (ICASA), where I led a complaints committee that dealt with > > telecom and internet related complaints. I understand the requirement to > > apply ones mind independently to any issue subject to appeal with due > > impartiality. > > > > Best > > Willie > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Parminder at ITforChange.net Tue Jan 30 09:04:47 2007 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:34:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter from Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Message-ID: <1170165887.45bf507f230b2@secure.symonds.net> forwarded ----- Forwarded message from Parminder ----- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:24:02 +0530 From: Parminder Reply-To: Parminder Subject: Letter from Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus To: desai at un.org Dear Mr Desai, Please find emclosed a letter from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC)addressed to your office. Best Regards Parminder Jeet Singh (on behalf of CS-IGC) ----- End forwarded message ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC letter to Nitin Desai.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 21100 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aizu at anr.org Tue Jan 30 10:38:28 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:38:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Extending the deadline for Appeals Team selection Message-ID: Dear list, Though we tried as much as possible, the Nomcom for Appeals Team will not be able to reach the selection of members by the original target date of Jan 31, that is tomorrow. In part due to the late arrival of the statements from the nominees, and also our lack of time to spend, we need more discussion among the Nomcom members to reach a good decision. Please allow us to extend the time line, to set the new deadline on Tuesday, Feb 6. Sorry for the delay, and I hope you all understand the situation. Taking this opportunity, we like to thank all those who took part, especially to Avri for her extra work for web-page updates. Many thanks, izumi, non-voting Nomcom Chair -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Jan 30 11:23:11 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:23:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF? Message-ID: Hi, Offhand I know of at least eight people who¹ve been active in the caucus and will be in Geneva for the IGF consultation Feb. 13. Maybe there are others from the list who will be here as well? While the caucus doesn¹t have an input document, it might be the case that the folks in attendance have some shared views worth expressing at the event. Is there any interest in meeting the evening prior to see whether that might be the case, or no? 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://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Jan 30 14:29:36 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:29:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, William Drake wrote: > Offhand I know of at least eight people who¹ve been active in the caucus and > will be in Geneva for the IGF consultation Feb. 13. Maybe there are others > from the list who will be here as well? While the caucus doesn¹t have an > input document, it might be the case that the folks in attendance have some > shared views worth expressing at the event. Is there any interest in > meeting the evening prior to see whether that might be the case, or no? I'll be in Geneva from Sat evening to wed evening. The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. We will write up a summary of our discussions and work since Athens on Monday. Details on Coalition meeting tomorrow - have been travelling... I am of course willing to meet the IGC members on Mopnday, too. Maybe at the UN first in order to have a more work-related atmosphere, before heading over to dinner and beers? Markus Kummer has reserved a room for CS folks on Monday, but would need to know who is coming (for badging). 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 rishi at gipi.org.in Tue Jan 30 15:51:58 2007 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:21:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Extending the deadline for Appeals Team selection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We all are with you and understand your problems. All the hard work put by the Nomcom is appreciated. Thanks and regards Rishi Chawla -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Extending the deadline for Appeals Team selection Dear list, Though we tried as much as possible, the Nomcom for Appeals Team will not be able to reach the selection of members by the original target date of Jan 31, that is tomorrow. In part due to the late arrival of the statements from the nominees, and also our lack of time to spend, we need more discussion among the Nomcom members to reach a good decision. Please allow us to extend the time line, to set the new deadline on Tuesday, Feb 6. Sorry for the delay, and I hope you all understand the situation. Taking this opportunity, we like to thank all those who took part, especially to Avri for her extra work for web-page updates. Many thanks, izumi, non-voting Nomcom Chair -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Tue Jan 30 16:31:22 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:31:22 +0800 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <965D6999-EA13-47DC-A8DB-CDBAABFF44C5@psg.com> On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. can you send the details on where/when this will be held? in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community wiki is the better option. i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to be in Geneva at the time. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Parminder at ITforChange.net Tue Jan 30 21:58:36 2007 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:28:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <965D6999-EA13-47DC-A8DB-CDBAABFF44C5@psg.com> References: <965D6999-EA13-47DC-A8DB-CDBAABFF44C5@psg.com> Message-ID: <1170212316.45c005dca950f@secure.symonds.net> I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views expressed on this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant make it to the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are able to agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC by IGC members participating in the meeting... so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what points will you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct of IGF meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format given at http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of what is being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed in a more open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a possible consensus document. Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Avri Doria : > > On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > > The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. > > can you send the details on where/when this will be held? > > in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ > where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am > willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community > wiki is the better option. > > i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to > be in Geneva at the time. > > thanks > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Parminder at ITforChange.net Tue Jan 30 22:39:55 2007 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:09:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at the stock taking meeitng of IGF In-Reply-To: <965D6999-EA13-47DC-A8DB-CDBAABFF44C5@psg.com> References: <965D6999-EA13-47DC-A8DB-CDBAABFF44C5@psg.com> Message-ID: <1170214795.45c00f8bb7f8d@secure.symonds.net> I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views expressed on this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting of IGF. while we cant make it to the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are able to agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC by IGC members participating in the meeting... so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what points will you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct of IGF meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format given at http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of what is being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed in a more open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a consensus document, if possible . Parminder > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Jan 31 06:46:56 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:46:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Briefing and informal consultation on the Commission on Science and Technology for Development - 13 Feb. 2007 Message-ID: <200701311146.l0VBkP5p019361@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Taking the occasion of the IGF related meeting in next February, note that an informal consultation meeting will be organised on the up coming developments of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. This meeting will take place on 13 February 2007, between 13:30 and 15:00. Room to be confirmed. The meeting will include an up date from the CSTD Secretariat on its next May 2007 session and the WSIS-related cluster of events (14-25 May 2007). It will also include an informal consultation on the multi-year work programme and the methods of work of the CSTD. We will keep you up dated with further details about this meeting. Lastly, note that you can now find on line the final unedited summary of the CSTD Panel held in Paris on 6-8 November 2006, including the recommendations of this panel, on the UNCTAD website: http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/dite_pcbb_stdev0045_en.pdf. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 12:38:42 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:38:42 -0500 Subject: Intervention Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting Message-ID: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: >From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving *Dialogue * While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and enterprise models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the board is very important. The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: ** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking, and *T*ransfer. * These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to guard against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" end-products and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target audience" marketing strategies. And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * inclusiveness* present here. P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more events will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves ! ). Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N. (NGO). On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views expressed > on > this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant make > it to > the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are able > to > agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC > by IGC > members participating in the meeting... > > so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what points > will > you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct of > IGF > meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format > given at > http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of what > is > being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed in > a more > open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a > possible > consensus document. > > Parminder > > www.ITforChange.net > IT for Change > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > Quoting Avri Doria : > > > > > On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > > > > The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. > > > > can you send the details on where/when this will be held? > > > > in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ > > where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am > > willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community > > wiki is the better option. > > > > i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to > > be in Geneva at the time. > > > > thanks > > a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 17:33:44 2007 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:33:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Appeals Team Nomination - web page now open - waiting for YOU! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070111223344.27401.qmail@web34313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> -IMAPbase: 1641915757 0000000001 X-UID: 1 Content-Length: 1971 I am Nominating MS Nneka NNENA. Voted in Charter/2006 coordinator vote. Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Nurses Across the Borders --- Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks to Avri's always clean work, we now have the > web page to list > all those nominations for Appeal Team. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2007-AT.html > > And Jeremy took the first, thank you! > Jeremy, could you send the "statement" to the list > shortly? > > How about others? Please. > > izumi > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Executive President/CEO Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA 350, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A Tel:+234-1-812-8649, +234-1-818-6494,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile) FAX:+234-1-493-7203 Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.4t.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.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-unsubscr