From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Jun 30 18:06:30 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:06:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Privacy: thematic workshop proposal for Rio submitted Message-ID: <4686D3E6.6010703@zedat.fu-berlin.de> FYI: This workshop proposal was just submitted to the IGF secretariat on behalf of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy (the online submission system seems to be working again). Best, Ralf Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. "Protection of privacy as a component of cybersecurity" Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. Organizers: Ralf Bendrath, Dynamic Coalition on Privacy / University of Bremen Bertrand de La Chapelle, Dynamic Coalition on Privacy / French Government The organizers are members (Ralf Bendrath being a facilitator) of the IGF dynamic coalition on privacy, which is the context in which this workshop proposal was discussed and prepared. Tne Privacy Coalition consists of more than 60 members from all stakeholder groups and all world regions. We will make sure that the final program and list of presenters reflects this diversity. We submit this workshop proposal as a thematic workshop on behalf of the dynamic coalition on privacy. Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? "Security" will be a main theme of the IGF in 2007, and "privacy" will be an important subset of this. Privacy and security are often seen as conflicting goals, and in fact, a number of measures aimed at enhancing security have weakened privacy protections in the last years. This workshop will try to reconcile these two goals, by * addressing the privacy implications of some current security measures and technologies, * discussing the object of security (the state, the corporation or other corporate actor, the citizen or consumer, the technical infrastructure) and the link to individual privacy, * explaining and exploring ways to develop privacy-enhancing security measures and technologies, and * addressing the global public policy implications of this. Question 4: Describe the workshop’s conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. The proposed workshop thems is in line with the substantive parts of the Tunis agenda, especially with * paragraph 39 ("confidence and security in the use of ICTs by strengthening the trust framework"), * paragraph 42 ("measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression"), and * paragraph 46 ("ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data"). Procedurally, the workshop is in line with paragraph 72 a), b), c), d), f), g), h), i), and k) of the Tunis Agenda, as both internet governance and privacy governance have further developed and increased in complexity in recent times. Therefore, both require a connected multi-stakeholder dialogue. Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are planning to invite. We are still working on this. The broad membership of the dynamic coalition on privacy will ensure that the list of panelists encompasses relevant actors in the field as well as a diversity of opinions. Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? See answer to question 5. Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. Ralf Bendrath has organized a number of conferences and workshops on issues related to privacy and security on the internet, including the two privacy workshops at the IGF in 2006. Bertrand de La Chapelle has a background in government service, business, and civil society, and has organized a number of workshops on multi-stakerholderism during the WSIS process. He also co-organized a workshop of the dynamic coalition in Genva in February 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Jun 30 18:07:29 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:07:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rio workshop proposal on "Internet Identity Management" Message-ID: <4686D421.4050204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> FYI, this is what I have also submitted on my own. It of course builds on the work of the privacy coalition, but is "only" an open workshop proposal. Best, Ralf Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. "Internet Identity Management" Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. Ralf Bendrath, Dynamic Coalition on Privacy / University of Bremen The organizer is a facilitator of the IGF dynamic coalition on privacy. The Privacy Coalition consists of more than 60 members from all stakeholder groups and all world regions. The organizer will work with other stakeholders and make sure that the final program and list of presenters reflect this diversity. The organizer submits this workshop proposal as an open workshop. Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? 2007 is by many considered as the year when internet identity management is finally becoming "the next big thing". A diversity of actors is heavily working on products and standards for online authentication and identity management, including companies like Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle, free software and open standards groups like Eclipse and the Identity Gang, and standards bodies like the W3C, ISO, the IETF, and the ITU. Governments and international bodies like the EU and the OECD are also working on this in the context of e-government or cyber-security. While these technologies are being developed and rolled out, and policies being developed, a public debate on the large-scale implications of internet identity management and identification is largely missing. Critical aspects here include, but are not limited to: online privacy, internet zoning and neutrality, security. The IGF is an important venue for advancing this debate, because the emerging identity standards are global standards, and the IGF has a mandate to address emerging issues and the related public policy aspects. Question 4: Describe the workshop’s conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. The proposed workshop is in line with the Tunis agenda, especially with * paragraph 39 ("confidence and security in the use of ICTs by strengthening the trust framework"), * paragraph 42 ("measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression"), * paragraph 46 ("ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data"), * paragraph 72g ("emerging issues"). Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are planning to invite. The list is not finalized yet, I am still working on this. Contacts have been made with relevant actors in this field, including representatives from Microsoft, Credentica, the Burton Group, Verisign, the EU PRIME Project, the Identity Commons Working Group, and the Council of Europe. Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? See answer to question 5. Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. I have organized a number of conferences and workshops on issues related to privacy and security on the internet, including the two privacy workshops at the IGF in 2006. On internet identity management, I have organized panels and workshops at three international conference within the last 6 months (23C3, CFP, ID Workshop in Bremen), as well as the workshops of the dynamic coalition on privacy that discussed internet identity in February and May 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 30 23:49:55 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:49:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop proposal on Public Policy In-Reply-To: <4686D421.4050204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4686D421.4050204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473700@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Continuing the "parade of the workshop proposals," I present you with the "Public Policy" multi-stakeholder marching band, absent Sergeant Pepper, with Bernard Benhamou and Ayesha Hassan twirling the batons, Michael Leibrandt playing the tuba, Milton Mueller blowing his horn, Parminder Singh beating his drum, Ian Peter on fife, Paul Twomey and a supporting cast of GAC members dancing around the issues... == ”Public Policy” for the Internet: What is it? Who should make it? Do we need principles? 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. This workshop deals with three closely related themes: a. What is "public policy" on the Internet? Can we reliably identify when Internet governance issues become "public policy" issues, and can these be isolated and extracted from “day-to-day technical and operational matters? b. When do we need global as opposed to national policies for the Internet? Is the claim that states have a “sovereign right” to make policy for the Internet compatible with the global scope of the Internet and the generally non-territorial reach of networked computers? Do national states adequately represent all aspects of the public interest at the global level? c. What was intended by the Tunis Agenda's call for the "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources”? What kind of “globally applicable principles” could be applied to the Internet resources? How would such principles improve and guide Internet governance? In what venue would such principles be developed and adopted? 2. Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. Organizers: Internet Governance Project (civil society/academic); France (tbc, governmental. Due to the recent change in Presidential administration in France, co-sponsorship needs to be confirmed); Ian Peter (private sector); Afilias (private sector) 3. Why do you think the proposed theme is important? The problem of what constitutes a “public policy issue” and which stakeholder group should be pre-eminent in the definition of public policy for the internet has been a source of debate and contention for five years, and is mentioned repeatedly in the Tunis Agenda. This Workshop provides a platform for encouraging broader understanding of the contested notion of “Public Policy” and “Public Policy Principles” for the Internet and how they are related to technical coordination and administration. 4. Describe the workshop’s conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. The Tunis Agenda distinguished between "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between “public policy” and "day-to-day technical and operational matters." (35, 69) The Tunis Agenda claimed that “policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States” (35a) and recognizes "the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders." The Tunis Agenda also called for "the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.” (70) Within this conceptual framework, Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, which deals specifically with the IGF, mandates the IGF to “discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance.” 5. Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panelists you are planning to invite. Bernard Benhamou, Government of France (government) Ian Peter, Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd (private sector) Dr. Milton Mueller, Internet Governance Project (civil society/academic) Ayesha Hassan, International Chamber of Commerce (private sector) Michael Leibrandt, former representative of Germany in ICANN-GAC Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change and co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus KIM Jong-ho, South Korean Ministry of Information and Communications (government) ICANN Board member or CEO (international organization) 6. Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? France and other European governments have supported the idea of developing globally applicable public policy principles. We have approached European governmental representatives. Many times ICANN has been accused of making public policy despite not being a government. ICANN often claims to only do technical coordination, not policy. We have contacted and invited an ICANN representative. Civil society actors have often contested the claim that governments should be exclusively in charge of public policy for the Internet. We have asked two prominent civil society persons to participate. Private sector actors have tended to view the call for public policy with concern, fearing more governmental regulation and intervention. We have invited two speakers from the private sector. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/882 - Release Date: 6/30/2007 3:10 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Fri Jun 1 00:06:07 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:06:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and IGF In-Reply-To: <209A8763-F81D-4A2D-95F9-D4251770E974@ras.eu.org> References: <20070531075514.4F59DE04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <209A8763-F81D-4A2D-95F9-D4251770E974@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <465F9B2F.9050203@ipjustice.org> A number of IGF Dynamic Coalitions and groups like APC and this caucus asked at the IGF Consultations that Human Rights be considered a cross-cutting issue in Rio. Council of Europe also backed this request citing the need for a people-centric view of the Internet. But China blocked our proposal. So the only cross-cutting issue will again be capacity building. Robin Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi Wolfgang and all, > > Although some may see this approach as pragmatic and 'workable' - > which remains to be proved -, there is definitely something wrong in > simply considering human rights as a negotiable criteria for trade > (or other economic activity). > And making a parallel with IPR and WTO/trade is hardly relevant since > in this case goods and services (and IPRs on them) are considered, > not the fundamental requirements of democracy. > Not to mention that, even with IPR/WTO only, the approach shows a > rather narrow understanding of human rights... > To come back to the proposal of having human rights as a cross- > cutting theme for IGF2, I fully support this, specially since it was > already proposed before IGF1, not only as a discussion theme, but > also as a structure (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ > hris-igfagenda310306-en.html). But is IGF anything else than an > annual conference... ? > > Meryem > -- > Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org > IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire > 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > Tel. +33(0)144749239 > > Le 31 mai 07 à 13:23, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > > > >> With regard to Human Rights and Internet Governance: We had recently >> a discussion, which included also Andrew McLaughlin from Google, to >> approach the issue from a new perspective. >> >> Within the WTO Doha Round the ignorance of Intellectual Property >> Rights is seen as a trade barrier. Countries which want to join the >> WTO have to guarantee IPRs. The question could be raised whether the >> ignorance of Human Rights can constitute also a trade barrier? >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Gesendet: Do 31.05.2007 13:00 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] igc at igf - process issues in making a >> statement on the behalf of IGC >> >> >> >> Jeanette and I tried to coordinate these types of >> statements for a couple of years, I thought what >> Parminder said was fine. >> >> The caucus needs to react and sometimes comments >> will be made about issues that haven't been >> discussed fully, and sometimes things will get >> said that don't have full support. >> >> (During the final WSIS prepcoms the chair started >> to invite observers to contribute more freely and >> it was embarrassing when we were offered a >> speaking slot and had nothing prepared to say. We >> had been demanding the right to speak and then >> had nothing agreed to say. Talking to broadly >> agreed points is fine.) >> >> And civil society asking for Human Rights as a >> cross cutting theme is so uncontroversial in >> itself that it doesn't matter (I mean it's almost >> expected, when the meeting hears Human Rights >> from the lips for civil society representative >> it's a bit like someone from business saying >> profits are good, or the US govt reminding >> everyone that proprietary software can also be >> very good [for companies with powerful >> lobbyists], bears/woods, pope/catholic etc). >> >> Unfortunately, during the meeting on the 24th >> (the new open session) when Robin suggested >> human rights be added as an additional >> cross-cutting theme China jumped in quickly and >> pushed back saying HR was covered in enough >> separate fora, not necessary etc. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> Since McTim and Robert Guerra have raised >>> questions about the validity and legitimacy of >>> the process by which the second statement >>> (mostly on process) was read at the IGF >>> consultations on the behalf of IGC, I have the >>> following explanation to offer. >>> >>> First of all, I don¹t think this is the first >>> time that a statement has been hurriedly >>> prepared during or on the eve of a meeting and >>> presented on the behalf of the IGC. I wonder if >>> the two contesting parties in the present >>> instance too have been a part of such an >>> exercise at some time. In this context it is >>> important to note that these statements on most >>> of these earlier occasions were made without any >>> legal basis, while the one made in Geneva had a >>> statutory basis in the relevant parts of the IGC >>> charter quoted earlier by Avri and others. >>> >>> Now the question is whether it adhered to the >>> relevant provisions of the charter. I will >>> describe the sequence of events for members to >>> make their judgment. On 21st Adam noted in an >>> email to the list that we are missing the >>> opportunity to comment on process issues, and >>> that he had expected me to prepare a statement. >>> Bill wondered in response to Adam¹s email if >>> there was any time at all to prepare a statement >>> at that point. Avri in response quoted the >>> charter provisions with the opinion that these >>> could still be used for a statement. Bill then >>> wrote asking me if I could still draft a >>> statement as per provisions etc. I replied to >>> the original email of Adam¹s that I hadn¹t >>> prepared a second statement on OEprocess¹ (apart >>> form the one on 4 themes which was already >>> adopted) because of certain apprehensions that >>> some process issues were connected to some tacit >>> understandings when the substantive main themes >>> related statement was agreed to, and I was >>> unsure about possibility of caucus¹s consensus >>> on some important process issues (see my email >>> dt 22nd). However, I said I will put together >>> some points on process which, to quote my email, >>> OEin my understanding seem to have wide >>> acceptance in the caucus¹ and present it to the >>> evening CS plenary and the next morning IGC >>> meeting for reactions. (One must note that in >>> the second OEprocess¹ statement there were really >>> none of any OEpet¹ issues that I may been pushing >>> for in my individual capacity, and therefore >>> there could have been no great personal interest >>> in my pushing this statement. I was only doing >>> my co-coordinator duty on the requests by caucus >>> members that a OEprocess¹ statement too should be >>> attempted.) >>> >>> Robert, you have said in your email dt 23rd that >>> if only we would have at least checked online, >>> at least you and others who are often/ mostly >>> online could have responded. But then all the >>> above exchanges on the IGC list about attempting >>> a quick statement on behalf of the IGC took >>> place 2 full days prior to the statement being >>> prepared, and if you indeed were against such >>> last minute preparation of any statement as a >>> valid and legitimate OEprocess¹ (and not >>> necessarily with reference to its substantive >>> content) as McTim¹s and your objection seem to >>> be about, my simple question to you is, why >>> didnt you come in on 21st and 22nd to the list >>> and object to the process of attempting any such >>> statement.. As per your convictions stated now, >>> you should at that point have said, no, this is >>> not a proper process in your viewS.. Why come in >>> with your views post facto, when the OEevent¹ and >>> the exchanges took place in your full view over >>> two full days? I really hope you will answer >>> this simple question. >>> >>> Back to the process of adoption of our >>> statement, after the above exchange on the IGC >>> list, we presented the issue of making a >>> statement at the CS plenary on the evening of >>> 22nd , which is in accordance with our mission >>> statement in our charter OES.to provide a >>> mechanism for coordination of advocacy to >>> enhance the utilization and influence of Civil >>> Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy >>> processes¹ and objective 4 OEProvide outreach to >>> other CS groups who have an interest or a stake >>> in some aspect of Internet governance polices¹. >>> >>> It is at that meeting that the suggestion for >>> including Human Rights as a cross-cutting theme >>> for the IGF-2 came from Robin Gross (a caucus >>> member), and there was general agreement for it. >>> (this is the only substantive issue that McTim, >>> on a specific inquiry from Bill, was able to >>> point as something he objected to in our >>> statement). After this meeting, I reached my >>> hotel room very late, and only on the early >>> morning of 23rd, the day of IGF consultations >>> could I prepare a draft statement, drawing on >>> the approved Feb statement, adding a point or >>> two which in my understanding represented >>> OEassumed general thinking of the caucus¹ (IGC >>> charter), including the point of HR as a cross >>> cutting theme. In this matter, apart from the >>> fact pointed out by Bill that we have always >>> endorsed HR as a key issues and principle, it >>> may be noted that our vision statement mentions >>> OEthe realization of internationally agreed human >>> rights¹ right at the start. I posted the draft >>> at 830 AM Geneva time on the IGC list. As per >>> point 5 of the section on statements during >>> meeting in our charter, an important criterion >>> for such statements is that they reflect vision, >>> objectives etc as per our charter. Here we had a >>> direct copy-paste from the first line of our >>> vision statement. >>> >>> The statement was read out to the 17 members >>> present in the morning IGC meeting, and those >>> present were asked not only to give their view >>> on the content of the statement, but also, >>> whether the statement in their opinion >>> represented the OEassumed general thinking of the >>> caucus¹ as per point 2 and 5 of the section on >>> statements at meeting of the charter. And there >>> was a general agreement that it did. >>> >>> So,McTim, you are wrong when you say per your email dt 23rd that >>> >>> ³I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it >>> did, we would have explicitly mentioned/included >>> it in our statement.² >>> >>> Of course, the statement itself is for external >>> consumption that it will be stupid to include >>> these kinds of internal issues in the statement >>> itself. However, when I put the draft on the IGC >>> list on 23rd morning before the meeting, I did >>> say that >>> >>> ³If there is a good amount of consensus among >>> those present, with a shared acceptance that >>> this draft reflects positions that are generally >>> understood to have been accepted/ endorsed by >>> the caucus (emphasis added now), it will form a >>> spoken input into the consultation on the behalf >>> of the IG caucus.² >>> >>> So, point 2 of the referred section of the >>> charter was always on our mind, and we made sure >>> it passed that criterion both subjectively, as >>> well as with reference to the view of all those >>> present. >>> >>> I will be happy to provide any other clarification if necessary. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 02:22:55 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:22:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> Dear Karl, dear all, Thanks for the interest and remarks. I'll try some answers to the key comments that require clarification on my part. Apologies for not addressing all comments here. Will come back to them later if needed. 1) For Karl (on individuals,people and stakeholders) Avri Doria had pointed me long ago to a post of yours regarding the notion of "stakeholders" and I have intended for a long time to contact you on that, to express how much I agree on the importance of individuals. Your very well formulated post is a perfect opportunity to clarify things. Let it be said loud and clear here : individuals are indeed stakeholders, not only organizations. Better, they *are* the stakeholders, and organizations are only, as you mention, the "aggregates" they choose to present their views in processes. Therefore my reference to stakeholders does include you and McTim, and me too by the way when I participated in the WSIS on a personal basis. As you formulated yourself : "Every person who uses the internet has a stake in the internet". I would even go further to take Parminder's remarks on a previous thread : people who do not use the Internet today are also stakeholders regarding its evolution and usage, because its governance may impact them. In rough terms, a stakeholder is an individual or organization that has a concern or interest in an issue, that has an impact on it or is impacted by it. How they can all be involved in the discussions is a process question, not a principle question : the question is How, not whether. The founding principle/spirit of a multi-stakeholder governance process is therefore something like : "Any person has the right to participate in the governance of the issues of interest or concern to him/her. Specific processes established to facilitate the elaboration, adoption or implementation of regimes must guarantee transparency, inclusion and diversity." This concept is central to what we all have the responsibility to create. It certainly deserves a thorough discussion beyond this post. But, to alleviate your legitimate fears that the notion of stakeholder is understood at the conceptual level as meaning only organizations and not individuals, I would like to underline that : - the Internet Governance Caucus has only individual members, as described in its Charter : "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." If, as I mentionned, the IGCaucus is used to designate / propose members of a MAG, then individuals like youself are clearly engaged; - the IGF itself, in Athens and for the open consultations, in large part thanks to Vittorio's insistence and I believe your own remarks, allowed people to register in their personal capacity, which, to my knowledge is an absolute first for anything connected to the UN - and shoud be preserved as much as possible. I stop on this post to address the other issues, but understand this is just a stage in the discussion and am willing to engage. I suggest we start a separate thread on this notion of stakeholders. Long overdue and critical. 2) For Mike (Gurstein) As I've had the opportunity to mention in other posts, participants in multi-stakeholder processes do not and should not "represent" people or organizations in the traditional sense of representative democracy, meaning taking decisions in their place. They represent viewpoints, the diversity of viewpoints. The purpose of a multi-stakeholder deliberation, in my view, is to make sure that all facets of a given issue (technical, social, economic and policy) are taken into account in the discussion from the onset, before rushing towards the drafting of a "solution". As we can witness in the ICANN whois debate, involvement of all categories of actors is critical to understand completely an issue. Therefore, the question should never be : "how many divisions ?" (ie how many members does this person "represent"). Because we do not talk about voting here, but about thorough examination of issues, discussion, democracy through deliberation. And therefore the right question is : does this person help understand a specific dimension of the issue or the position and interests of a given group of actors, does this person contribute constructively to a better common understanding ? The primary goal is consensus building in the analysis of an issue, not weighted voting. The question is participation, not representation. A single individual with good ideas is much more important to these processes than the "representative" of an organization claiming millions of members who have never heard of the positions he/she is taking publicly in a given process. The right question in your comments is : how to ensure outreach (reporting / information on what is happening to the "outside") and reduce the barrier to engagement (remote participation, online tools, travel support, etc...). But on that I share Milton's remarks : "getting people involved in something is far more complex than inviting them" and "the infrastructure for mass participation is always built by a small dedicated group that labors inthe wilderness for years, sometimes decades, before anyone pays attention." At the end of the day, this is what these discussions are about : building an infrastructure for Internet Governance, a set of principles or protocols that allow an heterogeneous set of governance structures (national, private, etc..) to interoperate and behave as an integrated seamless whole. This is only the beggining and we are all trying to find the founding principles. But representation (in the sense of voting and elections) is probably not the good basis for this new paradigm, however preseent this model is to us. 3) For Milton (on International organizations) The comments above may clarify a bit how the notion of stakeholders apply to international organizations and what concerns "representation". Unfortunately, I need to go catch a flight and cannot elaborate now on the issue of organizations, but will come back to it when I can. Anyway, you already have enough prose of mine for the moment .... :-) Best Bertrand On 5/31/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > I tend to feel rather uncomfortable with your formulation because it > doesn't seem to include people. > > For example, your formulation excludes me. > > As you know, I do not believe that any aggregation - whether we call it > a corporation, a government, a "stakeholder", an NGO, or "civil society" > - ought not to have automatic recognition as being anything more than a > convenient means for people to aggregate their individual opinions and > views. > > It is always useful to hear the opinions expressed via these aggregates. > And it is true that many, perhaps most, people will chose (usually > through inaction) to let some aggregate express an opinion on their > behalf. > > But when it comes down making choices and measuring "consensus" (or some > other more concrete measure), in other words when it comes to counting > noses, we ought to count real noses on real people and not some > hypothetical and arbitrary notion that these aggregations actually speak > with authority. > > I see further risk in that this kind of creation of a "multi-stakeholder > system" will ossify very quickly into a kind of internet caste system. > > Do we really want the governance of the internet to resemble a medieval > feudal society in which people have rank and authority based on what > groups they are in? > > --karl-- > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Fri Jun 1 02:25:48 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:25:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C5FCEA3-0015-450C-8973-32397DAA1E16@maxwell.syr.edu> Milton, I would beg to differ. While Intergovernmental organizations are "run by governments", they are in many ways different from governments, not only because what they do is the result of usually complex consensuses about what they are supposed to achieve and how, but also because their secretariats reflect an often unique view of issues that is somewhere in the middle of other stakeholders, since one of their responsibilities to is to take into account the views of those stakeholders. When "intergovernmental organizations" participate as such, it is usually through their secretariats. Assuming that individual governments can represent them would not be very realistic. Regards, John On May 31, 2007, at 10:13 PM, Milton Mueller wrote: > Bertrand, > I agree with many of the things you said here, but would take issue > with the idea that "international organizations" are stakeholders > in the same sense as business, civil society and government. If by > international Organizations (IOs) you mean IGOs (intergovernmental > orgs) they are , first, a very small group of organizations > (compare the number of IOs to the number of businesses or NGOs > worldwide). Second, they are accountable to and agents of > governments. So we need to avoid a double representation of > governments in any "balanced" MS structure. > > Certainly, IOs have specialized expertise which needs to be > utilized, but their representation can come from the governmental > side of the house. > >>>> ca at rits.org.br 5/31/2007 10:42:42 AM >>> > Good, Bertrand! Let us restart this process on new ground. > > --c.a. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As several remarks have mentioned, the key issue is not so much >> bureau or >> not bureau (ie the name itself ) but the composition of any truly >> multi-stakeholder group and its role. Some common sense elements >> could be >> taken into account in the discussion : >> >> 1) On the composition : >> >> - it should be a single body : separating the constituencies >> would be >> detrimental to fruitful interaction and lead to silo approaches >> preventing >> consensus; a step backwards in the process; >> - three categories of actors come naturally to mind : governments, >> civil society and business sector; and the corresponding members >> of the >> group should ideally be designated by their respective >> constituencies; >> - a fourth category covering "organizations" could be of interest, >> allowing participation of actors like ITU, ICANN, W3C, IETF, >> etc...This >> would actually be in line with para 29 of the TAIS that says : "The >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >> transparent >> and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the >> private >> sector, civil society and international organizations." >> - an equal number for each of the four groups is a rather natural >> balance; appropriate justifications would be needed for any other >> proportions; >> - there is an interest in maintaining a small overall number of >> members to allow good interaction : based upon experience, a >> maximum of >> about 40 members seems a reasonable amount; >> - as for governments, a minimum of five is necessary to allow >> traditional geographical diversity; but more than 10 would >> explode the >> number of members if the 1 to 4 ratio is applied; >> - previous, current and future host countries on a given year >> could be >> given some special rights, either as natural representative for >> their own >> region or in addition to a group of five for instance; >> - as for civil society, and in spite of all its limitations :-), >> the >> Internet Governance Caucus seems like the only sufficiently >> legitimate, >> diverse and structured group (ie with explicit procedures) to be >> able to >> designate MAG members. >> >> As for the organizations mentioned as a fourth category, >> irrespective of >> their competence on the substance, their expertise as conference >> and events >> organizers could also be useful in preparing the annual IGF >> meetings; the >> diversity of their working processes could also be useful in future >> discussions on methodology (see for instance the W3C process >> document). >> >> 2) On the role of multi-stakeholder groups >> >> In general terms, the above generic mechanism could be used for a >> diversity >> of functions and various groups could be formed in the future >> according to >> this formula, with variable sizes. >> >> The important element is that multi-stakeholder groups are not and >> cannot be >> decision-making bodies, let alone negociating structures on behalf >> of a >> larger community. First of all because the non-membership nature >> of the IGF >> (as reminded by Nitin Desai) is a natural obstacle; secondly >> because they >> have a more useful role to play. Their main role should be to >> facilitate >> processes, to help consensus emerge from thorough discussions and >> to advise >> and support the secretariat in formalizing zones of agreement among >> stakeholders. >> >> One of the main objection to using the term "bureau" is related to >> the >> above >> : it evokes too much the decision-making groups in traditional >> intergovernmental institutions. Like with the emergence of terms like >> "dynamic coalitions", participants in the IGF have a common >> interest in >> finding innovative terminology that allows to get everybody's mind >> out of >> their respective boxes. >> >> Hope it helps steer the discussion in a fruitful direction, useful >> for all. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: >> 30/5/2007 15:03 > > -- > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Carlos A. Afonso > diretor de planejamento > Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits > http://www.rits.org.br > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 1 02:59:30 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:59:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Thu, 31 May 2007 18:29:53 +0300) References: <20070531123314.CF467E05D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <465EDEB8.4090000@rits.org.br> <5B9A6279-5354-47AC-AD41-59CB8F6E95C7@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <20070601065931.0F1B957B28@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On 5/31/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > > > > If we don't have a position on the topic, then we should ... I would > > ask that the list/caucus agree to a position before the next IGF > > consultation in sept. > > > > That gives us PLENTY of time to discuss the topic and develop. I hope > > a consensus position on the topic can be formulated. > > > > I personally, am not supportive of a WSIS type Civil Society Bureau > > (CSB) being created for the IGF as it exists now. > > > > Nor am I. Please let's adopt a clear positively-formulated position on this. For example something like "It is the position of the Civil Society Caucus that whenever advisory or decision-making functions with regard to the Internet Governance Forum are performed by a group of three or more people, that group should have multistakeholder composition, with the representatives of civil society working directly together with those of other stakeholders." Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 1 03:28:39 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:28:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <465F7748.1090700@Malcolm.id.au> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:32:56 +0800) References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F7748.1090700@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070601072839.F37B657B28@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > 1) On the composition : > > > > * it should be a single body : separating the constituencies would > > be detrimental to fruitful interaction and lead to silo approaches > > preventing consensus; a step backwards in the process; > > My view is that practicality requires some degree of separation between > them, because each of the stakeholder groups is accustomed to making > decisions in quite different ways and it is going to take some time (and > trust) before these will begin to converge. I strongly disagree with Jeremy's conclusion: Precisely because the ways of thinking and decision-making traditions differ between the categories of stakeholders, genuine cooperation and trust can develop only in the "single body" model. Of course such multistakeholder bodies should not be given tight deadlines to produce decisions or other deliverables shortly after formation - learning to effectively work together takes time. But taking this time is greatly preferable to having a separate-bureaus structure where you can wait forever before decision-making practices "will begin to converge." 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 wzb.eu Fri Jun 1 03:53:35 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:53:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <20070601072839.F37B657B28@quill.bollow.ch> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F7748.1090700@Malcolm.id.au> <20070601072839.F37B657B28@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <465FD07F.7090208@wzb.eu> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> 1) On the composition : >>> >>> * it should be a single body : separating the constituencies would >>> be detrimental to fruitful interaction and lead to silo approaches >>> preventing consensus; a step backwards in the process; >> My view is that practicality requires some degree of separation between >> them, because each of the stakeholder groups is accustomed to making >> decisions in quite different ways and it is going to take some time (and >> trust) before these will begin to converge. > > I strongly disagree with Jeremy's conclusion: Precisely because > the ways of thinking and decision-making traditions differ between > the categories of stakeholders, genuine cooperation and trust can > develop only in the "single body" model. In my view, the various groups should form one single body but that the recruiting mechanisms to that body will be different. It seems naive to think that governments would ever adopt the same selecting mechanisms we use. I also don't believe that it is possible to reflect the major groups of governments with 5 geographical seats. jeanette > > Of course such multistakeholder bodies should not be given tight > deadlines to produce decisions or other deliverables shortly after > formation - learning to effectively work together takes time. But > taking this time is greatly preferable to having a separate-bureaus > structure where you can wait forever before decision-making practices > "will begin to converge." > > 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 1 03:58:12 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:58:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <465FD07F.7090208@wzb.eu> (message from Jeanette Hofmann on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:53:35 +0200) References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F7748.1090700@Malcolm.id.au> <20070601072839.F37B657B28@quill.bollow.ch> <465FD07F.7090208@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070601075812.E5B8858207@quill.bollow.ch> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > In my view, the various groups should form one single body but that the > recruiting mechanisms to that body will be different. It seems naive to > think that governments would ever adopt the same selecting mechanisms we > use. I also don't believe that it is possible to reflect the major > groups of governments with 5 geographical seats. I strongly agree with all of this. 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Jun 1 04:07:53 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:07:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and IGF In-Reply-To: <465F9B2F.9050203@ipjustice.org> References: <20070531075514.4F59DE04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <209A8763-F81D-4A2D-95F9-D4251770E974@ras.eu.org> <465F9B2F.9050203@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <2629D769-EA5C-4D02-89BA-08DAF800DA2D@ras.eu.org> So, what interesting information can we infer from this situation? Not that China (and certainly many others) doesn't want any discussion on human rights: this is not new and wouldn't surprise anyone. What is interesting to note is that one government can block (in diplomatic terms: saying that "HR are covered in enough separate fora", as Adam reported) a proposal supported by many CS groups, by an intergovernmental organization, and probably by other stakeholders too. Now the question is: what is the progress made in process by IGF, multistakeholderism and "consensus decision making" with respect to "classical" intergovernmental fora like, e.g. UN WSIS or other UN process ? Putting HR as a cross-cutting on the agenda is a good case, and the one we have here at hand, but it would be interesting to analyse other cases. e.g. the MAG or a multistakeholder bureau:) Ah, and may I remind everyone that this would perfectly fit the 1st discussion theme ("The Changing Institutionalization of Internet Governance) of the next GigaNet symposium, which CFP has been circulated on this list... Best, Meryem Le 1 juin 07 à 06:06, Robin Gross a écrit : > A number of IGF Dynamic Coalitions and groups like APC and this > caucus asked at the IGF Consultations that Human Rights be > considered a cross-cutting issue in Rio. Council of Europe also > backed this request citing the need for a people-centric view of > the Internet. But China blocked our proposal. So the only cross- > cutting issue will again be capacity building. > > Robin > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Hi Wolfgang and all, >> >> Although some may see this approach as pragmatic and 'workable' - >> which remains to be proved -, there is definitely something wrong >> in simply considering human rights as a negotiable criteria for >> trade (or other economic activity). >> And making a parallel with IPR and WTO/trade is hardly relevant >> since in this case goods and services (and IPRs on them) are >> considered, not the fundamental requirements of democracy. >> Not to mention that, even with IPR/WTO only, the approach shows a >> rather narrow understanding of human rights... >> To come back to the proposal of having human rights as a cross- >> cutting theme for IGF2, I fully support this, specially since it >> was already proposed before IGF1, not only as a discussion theme, >> but also as a structure (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr- >> wsis/ hris-igfagenda310306-en.html). But is IGF anything else than >> an annual conference... ? >> >> Meryem >> -- >> Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org >> IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire >> 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris >> Tel. +33(0)144749239 >> >> Le 31 mai 07 à 13:23, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : >> >> >> >>> With regard to Human Rights and Internet Governance: We had >>> recently a discussion, which included also Andrew McLaughlin >>> from Google, to approach the issue from a new perspective. >>> >>> Within the WTO Doha Round the ignorance of Intellectual Property >>> Rights is seen as a trade barrier. Countries which want to join >>> the WTO have to guarantee IPRs. The question could be raised >>> whether the ignorance of Human Rights can constitute also a >>> trade barrier? >>> >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>> Gesendet: Do 31.05.2007 13:00 >>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] igc at igf - process issues in making a >>> statement on the behalf of IGC >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeanette and I tried to coordinate these types of >>> statements for a couple of years, I thought what >>> Parminder said was fine. >>> >>> The caucus needs to react and sometimes comments >>> will be made about issues that haven't been >>> discussed fully, and sometimes things will get >>> said that don't have full support. >>> >>> (During the final WSIS prepcoms the chair started >>> to invite observers to contribute more freely and >>> it was embarrassing when we were offered a >>> speaking slot and had nothing prepared to say. We >>> had been demanding the right to speak and then >>> had nothing agreed to say. Talking to broadly >>> agreed points is fine.) >>> >>> And civil society asking for Human Rights as a >>> cross cutting theme is so uncontroversial in >>> itself that it doesn't matter (I mean it's almost >>> expected, when the meeting hears Human Rights >>> from the lips for civil society representative >>> it's a bit like someone from business saying >>> profits are good, or the US govt reminding >>> everyone that proprietary software can also be >>> very good [for companies with powerful >>> lobbyists], bears/woods, pope/catholic etc). >>> >>> Unfortunately, during the meeting on the 24th >>> (the new open session) when Robin suggested >>> human rights be added as an additional >>> cross-cutting theme China jumped in quickly and >>> pushed back saying HR was covered in enough >>> separate fora, not necessary etc. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> Since McTim and Robert Guerra have raised >>>> questions about the validity and legitimacy of >>>> the process by which the second statement >>>> (mostly on process) was read at the IGF >>>> consultations on the behalf of IGC, I have the >>>> following explanation to offer. >>>> >>>> First of all, I don¹t think this is the first >>>> time that a statement has been hurriedly >>>> prepared during or on the eve of a meeting and >>>> presented on the behalf of the IGC. I wonder if >>>> the two contesting parties in the present >>>> instance too have been a part of such an >>>> exercise at some time. In this context it is >>>> important to note that these statements on most >>>> of these earlier occasions were made without any >>>> legal basis, while the one made in Geneva had a >>>> statutory basis in the relevant parts of the IGC >>>> charter quoted earlier by Avri and others. >>>> >>>> Now the question is whether it adhered to the >>>> relevant provisions of the charter. I will >>>> describe the sequence of events for members to >>>> make their judgment. On 21st Adam noted in an >>>> email to the list that we are missing the >>>> opportunity to comment on process issues, and >>>> that he had expected me to prepare a statement. >>>> Bill wondered in response to Adam¹s email if >>>> there was any time at all to prepare a statement >>>> at that point. Avri in response quoted the >>>> charter provisions with the opinion that these >>>> could still be used for a statement. Bill then >>>> wrote asking me if I could still draft a >>>> statement as per provisions etc. I replied to >>>> the original email of Adam¹s that I hadn¹t >>>> prepared a second statement on OEprocess¹ (apart >>>> form the one on 4 themes which was already >>>> adopted) because of certain apprehensions that >>>> some process issues were connected to some tacit >>>> understandings when the substantive main themes >>>> related statement was agreed to, and I was >>>> unsure about possibility of caucus¹s consensus >>>> on some important process issues (see my email >>>> dt 22nd). However, I said I will put together >>>> some points on process which, to quote my email, >>>> OEin my understanding seem to have wide >>>> acceptance in the caucus¹ and present it to the >>>> evening CS plenary and the next morning IGC >>>> meeting for reactions. (One must note that in >>>> the second OEprocess¹ statement there were really >>>> none of any OEpet¹ issues that I may been pushing >>>> for in my individual capacity, and therefore >>>> there could have been no great personal interest >>>> in my pushing this statement. I was only doing >>>> my co-coordinator duty on the requests by caucus >>>> members that a OEprocess¹ statement too should be >>>> attempted.) >>>> >>>> Robert, you have said in your email dt 23rd that >>>> if only we would have at least checked online, >>>> at least you and others who are often/ mostly >>>> online could have responded. But then all the >>>> above exchanges on the IGC list about attempting >>>> a quick statement on behalf of the IGC took >>>> place 2 full days prior to the statement being >>>> prepared, and if you indeed were against such >>>> last minute preparation of any statement as a >>>> valid and legitimate OEprocess¹ (and not >>>> necessarily with reference to its substantive >>>> content) as McTim¹s and your objection seem to >>>> be about, my simple question to you is, why >>>> didnt you come in on 21st and 22nd to the list >>>> and object to the process of attempting any such >>>> statement.. As per your convictions stated now, >>>> you should at that point have said, no, this is >>>> not a proper process in your viewS.. Why come in >>>> with your views post facto, when the OEevent¹ and >>>> the exchanges took place in your full view over >>>> two full days? I really hope you will answer >>>> this simple question. >>>> >>>> Back to the process of adoption of our >>>> statement, after the above exchange on the IGC >>>> list, we presented the issue of making a >>>> statement at the CS plenary on the evening of >>>> 22nd , which is in accordance with our mission >>>> statement in our charter OES.to provide a >>>> mechanism for coordination of advocacy to >>>> enhance the utilization and influence of Civil >>>> Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy >>>> processes¹ and objective 4 OEProvide outreach to >>>> other CS groups who have an interest or a stake >>>> in some aspect of Internet governance polices¹. >>>> >>>> It is at that meeting that the suggestion for >>>> including Human Rights as a cross-cutting theme >>>> for the IGF-2 came from Robin Gross (a caucus >>>> member), and there was general agreement for it. >>>> (this is the only substantive issue that McTim, >>>> on a specific inquiry from Bill, was able to >>>> point as something he objected to in our >>>> statement). After this meeting, I reached my >>>> hotel room very late, and only on the early >>>> morning of 23rd, the day of IGF consultations >>>> could I prepare a draft statement, drawing on >>>> the approved Feb statement, adding a point or >>>> two which in my understanding represented >>>> OEassumed general thinking of the caucus¹ (IGC >>>> charter), including the point of HR as a cross >>>> cutting theme. In this matter, apart from the >>>> fact pointed out by Bill that we have always >>>> endorsed HR as a key issues and principle, it >>>> may be noted that our vision statement mentions >>>> OEthe realization of internationally agreed human >>>> rights¹ right at the start. I posted the draft >>>> at 830 AM Geneva time on the IGC list. As per >>>> point 5 of the section on statements during >>>> meeting in our charter, an important criterion >>>> for such statements is that they reflect vision, >>>> objectives etc as per our charter. Here we had a >>>> direct copy-paste from the first line of our >>>> vision statement. >>>> >>>> The statement was read out to the 17 members >>>> present in the morning IGC meeting, and those >>>> present were asked not only to give their view >>>> on the content of the statement, but also, >>>> whether the statement in their opinion >>>> represented the OEassumed general thinking of the >>>> caucus¹ as per point 2 and 5 of the section on >>>> statements at meeting of the charter. And there >>>> was a general agreement that it did. >>>> >>>> So,McTim, you are wrong when you say per your email dt 23rd that >>>> >>>> ³I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it >>>> did, we would have explicitly mentioned/included >>>> it in our statement.² >>>> >>>> Of course, the statement itself is for external >>>> consumption that it will be stupid to include >>>> these kinds of internal issues in the statement >>>> itself. However, when I put the draft on the IGC >>>> list on 23rd morning before the meeting, I did >>>> say that >>>> >>>> ³If there is a good amount of consensus among >>>> those present, with a shared acceptance that >>>> this draft reflects positions that are generally >>>> understood to have been accepted/ endorsed by >>>> the caucus (emphasis added now), it will form a >>>> spoken input into the consultation on the behalf >>>> of the IG caucus.² >>>> >>>> So, point 2 of the referred section of the >>>> charter was always on our mind, and we made sure >>>> it passed that criterion both subjectively, as >>>> well as with reference to the view of all those >>>> present. >>>> >>>> I will be happy to provide any other clarification if necessary. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Jun 1 04:29:22 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:29:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <920267600-1180651935-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-857459286-@bwe053-cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Hi, A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might come > into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of civil society > activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position that no single government > should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion was accompanied by four FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably the forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but were not the main voice. Snip > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources will be > accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of the withdrawl of > funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the hegemonic bloc. (I should > point out that I am using the notion of hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term > to indicate where power lies in the arena of internet governance and not in > any pejorative way - as a simple statement of fact, if you will) A number I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? My sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this could be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > of questions arise from this scenario: 1. why don't the developing countries > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there mouth is > and put some real financial resources into the IGF secretariat so it can get > the job done properly and see off the threat of withdrawal of funds from the This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes when the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have excuses, they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the others had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would not be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here regard as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and Norwegians ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if contributions were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been paying. Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit breaks down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > hegemonic bloc. 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that their > interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. They don't spell > out what particular aspect of critical internet resources they wish to address > and there are quite a few to choose from such as the whois debate. As a result > the hegemonic bloc correctly reads their proposal as yet another attempt to > get control of ICANN and acts accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and Snip Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's been expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the same time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role of the GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a better option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how the respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? I propose we > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining it cc to > the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the substantive I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think this merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state interests (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of strong opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice the reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the WTO, WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, which IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, and are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the technical/admin environment? > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa and > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to distance IGF > Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and perhaps other OECD > countries as potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of > substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think we should > engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the > Rio iGF asap. And we should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues > includng Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet resource issue > in a reasonable manner. There is only a month to get this together and given > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. Willie > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level of a higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. But as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of course, he was in prison when he wrote this.. Cheers, BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Jun 1 04:36:10 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:36:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 8:22 AM +0200 6/1/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >The founding principle/spirit of a multi-stakeholder governance process is >therefore something like : "Any person has the right to participate in the >governance of the issues of interest or concern to him/her. Specific >processes established to facilitate the elaboration, adoption or >implementation of regimes must guarantee transparency, inclusion and >diversity." > >... > >I stop on this post to address the other issues, but understand this is >just a stage in the discussion and am willing to engage. I suggest we >start a separate thread on this notion of stakeholders. Long overdue and >critical. > >... > >As I've had the opportunity to mention in other posts, participants in >multi-stakeholder processes do not and should not "represent" people or >organizations in the traditional sense of representative democracy, >meaning taking decisions in their place. They represent viewpoints, the >diversity of viewpoints. The purpose of a multi-stakeholder deliberation, >in my view, is to make sure that all facets of a given issue (technical, >social, economic and policy) are taken into account in the discussion from >the onset, before rushing towards the drafting of a "solution". As we can >witness in the ICANN whois debate, involvement of all categories of actors >is critical to understand completely an issue. > >Therefore, the question should never be : "how many divisions ?" (ie how >many members does this person "represent"). Because we do not talk about >voting here, but about thorough examination of issues, discussion, >democracy through deliberation. And therefore the right question is : does >this person help understand a specific dimension of the issue or the >position and interests of a given group of actors, does this person >contribute constructively to a better common understanding ? The primary >goal is consensus building in the analysis of an issue, not weighted >voting. The question is participation, not representation. A single >individual with good ideas is much more important to these processes than >the "representative" of an organization claiming millions of members who >have never heard of the positions he/she is taking publicly in a given >process. Bertrand, As a (still) newcomer to the Internet Governance community, I'm trying to digest these ideas so as to create clarity in my own understanding. I understand that "multi-stakeholder" systems are in some sense a new beast in the governance world (though some international organizations would seem to present an initial precedent to refer to). Nevertheless, I am concerned about the fundamental incommensurability between "voting/representation" models and "multi-stakeholder/consensus" models in your ideas, and I am interested in considering whether this disconnect can somehow be connected. The metaphor that comes to my mind is the "wave-particle duality" issue that emerged in 19th-century Newtonian physics and was resolved in quantum physics. In the case of ICANN, for example, there are voting systems combined into what are presented as "multi-stakeholder" groups, such as the GNSO Council with six stakeholder constituencies each with well-defined fixed voting power. There is well-known criticism of this setup that I need not reiterate. The GNSO Whois Working Group is more purely a consensus-driven process, where voting has been actively discouraged, which is probably a more compelling model than the Council. And so far as I know, ICANN has no genuine representational voting system, given that even the Board is not set up with any sort of widespread elections by a represented population. It's a private organization, after all, even with all of the supporting and advisory groups it has created around itself. If the idea of a multi-stakeholder/consensus structure is to genuinely abandon the idea of voting, a real issue is how do you really define consensus? Ultimately, there must be some quantitative measure if "degrees" of consensus are somehow intended to be considered, as they are in the Whois Working Group, though perhaps that is simply to identify priorities as to where to focus attention. Consensus in your ideal (non-voting) vision ultimately seems to entail a binary proposition, like being pregnant: either it's true or it's false for any single issue, but there is no "in-between" or "degree of closeness" for consensus without stepping into the world of quantitative (i.e., voting-type) measurements. A problem with a "pure consensus" model of governance is that there will inevitably be residual disagreement on certain issues (not all conflicts between individual and collective interests, or competing interests in general, can ultimately be guaranteed to be resolvable), and decisions may simply have to be made even in the absence of consensus, so how does one make such decisions? It isn't fair to say "just don't decide" because that *is* a decision in its own right (in the policy profession we are taught to regard "status quo" as an explicit policy choice to be considered equally among all other policy options). While I am not about to suggest that it is *impossible* to resolve this conundrum, I must say that I feel that the initial attempts are not successful in "squaring the circle" just yet. I'm sorry that I can't contribute a more positive suggestion as to how this resolution could be achieved, but for now I only see the obstacles. It may be that a true resolution is not possible, and perhaps only some sort of hybrid model will get closer to the goal, where consensus is used where it makes sense, and voting is used where it makes sense. But then, the voting part *has* to involve some sort of genuine representational process, and with 6 billion stakeholders on the planet that representational process must be fairly weighty in nature and magnitude. (And of course with 6 billion stakeholders, not "every" stakeholder can participate in a consensus process, even if "any" stakeholder can do so. How many participants is "enough" in a consensus process? How do you know that you've covered all the diverse bases you can, or that a synthesis of participating interests is indeed generally fair?) Another possible strategy is to identify consensus where it is possible, and then pass on the remaining disputes to an external representational process. Narrow policy scope to gain narrow consensus, and recuse from the sticky policy issues that can only be decided with a fair representational process. Maybe it's okay to "pass the buck" in such circumstances. Consensus as a first priority, representation as a fall-back. If you have more detail regarding your ideas for resolving this duality into an integrated synthesis, I for one would be tremendously interested to hear them. It seems to me that what you are calling for is nothing short of a "quantum revolution" out of the world of "Newtonian" governance models. Not a small proposition at all. If it is resolvable, it will likely take time and perhaps some genius level of inspiration, perhaps collaboration will help. In the meantime, we have pressing issues that need to be *decided* in a *finite* time frame (like: yesterday...), and I'm not sure that the multi-stakeholder/consensus process is up to the task in practical terms across the full range of applications. And I'm not sure that the status quo in all cases is an acceptable policy choice, or that we can wait for the conceptual breakthrough that will make everything work miraculously. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Fri Jun 1 05:31:21 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 02:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <26209.193.194.63.129.1180690281.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Bertrand, What I don't understand from this below is first of all, given your initial statement why should participants categorized at all (your three "estates" as it were... > As I've had the opportunity to mention in other posts, participants in > multi-stakeholder processes do not and should not "represent" people or > organizations in the traditional sense of representative democracy, > meaning taking decisions in their place. They represent viewpoints, the > > diversity of viewpoints. And secondly if there is some substantive value in having categories i.e. "to make sure that all facets of a given issue are taken into account" as indicated below, how does one avoid my issues of "representation, accountability and inclusion" as the means of ensuring precisely this requirement i.e. as the means to avoiding the situation where all facets of a given issue are NOT taken into account for some (identifiable) reason--lack of resources, physical coercion, lack of information etc.etc. > The purpose of a multi-stakeholder deliberation, in my view, is > to make sure that all facets of a given issue (technical, social, economic > and policy) are taken into account in the discussion from the onset, > before rushing towards the drafting of a "solution". And finally, as those who have been following recent discussions concerning the use of rhetoric in US politics (Lakoff et al) it is difficult to dispute I think that there is a direct connection between the ways in which an issue is framed for debate (i.e. how in your term the issue comes to be "understood" and the ultimate decision that is made concerning the issue. Which brings us I think full circle back to issues of representation, accountability and inclusion. That is, if decisions are to be made by "consensus" then how those decisions are formed (the issue questions are presented) and who has the opportunity/means to participate in that consensus is of critical significance. > As we can witness in the ICANN whois debate, involvement of all > categories of actors is critical to understand completely an issue. > Therefore, the question should never be : "how many divisions ?" (ie how > many members does this person "represent"). Because we do not talk about > voting here, but about thorough examination of issues, discussion, > democracy > through deliberation. And therefore the right question is : does this > person > help understand a specific dimension of the issue or the position and > interests of a given group of actors, does this person contribute > constructively to a better common understanding ? The primary goal is > consensus building in the analysis of an issue, not weighted voting. The > question is participation, not representation. A single individual with > good > ideas is much more important to these processes than the "representative" > of > an organization claiming millions of members who have never heard of the > positions he/she is taking publicly in a given process. > I think pace Milton below that the issue is more than simply "outreach" which implies a process of a group reaching out towards others for additional participation with the implicit assumption that the group/structure reaching out has already reached a firm ground of legitimacy and substance. The issues that I have been pointing to--representativeness, accountability and inclusion--go rather beyond the capacity of an "outreach" strategy to resolve since many of those whose presence and participation is to my mind crucial for the civil society "category" to have legitimacy will very likely expect (demand) alternative forms of representativeness, accountability and inclusion beyond those that are currently practiced within the CS "category". And I think that Milton's comments concerning the inclusion of the high school glee club is a major red herring. The issue is not managing "mass participation" but rather ensuring appropriate structures for appropriate participation (hmmm... getting us back to issues of representation, I guess. > The right question in your comments is : how to ensure outreach (reporting > /information on what is happening to the "outside") and reduce the barrier > to engagement (remote participation, online tools, travel support,etc...). > But on that I share Milton's remarks : "getting people involved in > something is far more complex than inviting them" and "the infrastructure > for mass participation is always built by a small dedicated group that > labors in the wilderness for years, sometimes decades, before anyone pays > attention." ... > But representation (in the sense of voting and elections) is probably not > the good basis for this new paradigm, however preseent this model is to > us. Best, Mike Gurstein > > > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > !DSPAM:2676,465fc10615221501910795! > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jun 1 05:33:18 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:33:18 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F7748.1090700@Malcolm.id.au> <20070601072839.F37B657B28@quill.bollow.ch> <465FD07F.7090208@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4AA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list, While I agree in principle with a certain form of a multistakeholder group, steering the process through the troubled waters (and I disagree with any idea to have seperate individual stakeholder groups) I would prefere to have a system where such a group is as transparent as possible and has "an open door" policy which would avoid that such a group becomes isolated and/or a source of mistrust by excluded groups, constituencies or individuals. There is no need to have another "Politbureau". The practice which has evolved in Geneva with open consultations and meetings of the IGF-AG (partly open to interested parties without speaking rights) is a useful practice which challenges also members of such a body to communicate permanently with the "rest of the world". I also disagree with proposals to "negotiate" a final text. Looking into the reality such an effort will either produce nothing more than blabla or leads to a heated controversial debates which can provoke a new cold Internet war. The idea I try to advertise is to generate - bottom up - a final document which is written by the participants themselves (something like "users generated content"). If each workshop and plenary produce one, two or three "messages" (which can reflect also controversial positions) this would constitute an interesting final document, a summary of the substance of the debate with some concrete recommendations to other institutions/organisations which have a policy development and decision making capacity, like ITU, ICANN, IETF or UNESCO (or national governments, private sector companies or NGOs). Such a document would have as many authors as there are workshops and plenaries. This would not, like Bill argued in the Geneva meeting, a transfer of negotiations into the workshops. It would like the chair´s conclusion, which is also a non negotiated text. There should be some guidelines to the various chairs how such a "message" from the workshop/plenary should look like. Maxmimum of ten lines, clear points, pro & con etc. 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Jun 1 06:19:32 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:19:32 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4AA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F7748.1090700@Malcolm.id.au> <20070601072839.F37B657B28@quill.bollow.ch> <465FD07F.7090208@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4AA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <465FF2B4.9060506@Malcolm.id.au> Kleinwächter wrote: > The practice which has evolved in Geneva with open consultations and > meetings of the IGF-AG (partly open to interested parties without > speaking rights) Really? I thought they were only open to observers from intergovernmental organisations (until the most recent meeting). Am I wrong? If I am, how, when and by whom was the openness of these meetings to observers made known? And why doesn't it extend to the advisory group's mailing list? -- 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 07:55:46 2007 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 07:55:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is done is done - A recommended course forward In-Reply-To: <4B16ECC9-9E10-40E6-B7EF-68190FEC4566@privaterra.info> References: <4B16ECC9-9E10-40E6-B7EF-68190FEC4566@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <6d6172890706010455r2f0c97cat3cb055c3b2c0521a@mail.gmail.com> Robert, you sound like Mr. Muguet spoke of the bureau on behalf of IGC: was that the case? if so, how is this possible? Mawaki On 5/31/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > > The bureau proposal was raised, by Francis Muget who is subscribed to > the list but not too active a participant. > > Both Francis and I were members of the former WSIS Civil Society > Bureau (CSB). Francis was then, and still is now a strong believer in > the structure and the benefits it might bring. I , and many others on > this list, strongly disagree that such a structure would be > beneficial . It fact, for many of us, it would not recognize the > novel structure and evolution of IG discussions at the IGF. > > My personal view is that a bureau is a construct that does replicate > well into the current IGF discussions. It would be a step backwards , > at least for CS. Worse still, it might likely play into many govts > efforts to use key civil society players as pawns for their own agenda. > > The rough consensus view for days, if not weeks proceeding the IGF > consultation made it quite clear that the caucus position was not > supportive of a bureau type structure. That position should of held. > Clearly it did not. This is most unfortunate. The lesson is clear, we > are not following well known models of consultation, engagement and > policy development processes used in other IG related spaces such as > the ones McTim mentions . > > This caucus / list perhaps needs to revisit if in fact we are > following our so cherished bottom-up approach when we take positions > and/or make statements at key physical meetings. What is done, is > done. As a recommended course forward might I suggest that key > positions and issues - be decided and discussed in advance of future > consultations. Positions identified as key and/or strategic would be > firm, and not subject to change during the physical meeting proper. > > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > On 31-May-07, at 9:18 AM, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > > > Where did the Bureau ëideaí come from ??? > > > > If the ëbureau ideaí did not come from the IGC [Internet > > Governance Caucus], > > {Obviously by all accounts it *was-not* Paraminder, the idea was > > circulating > > ëbeforeí Paraminder made clarifications.} > > > > Then from whom was the idea interjected ??? > > > > - > > > > ëALLí (All of whom were present) of had came for a reason (a > > purpose). > > > > Paraminder, did a fine job of both: advocating and defending the > > positions > > discussed on this list. > > > > - > > > > Tell us, WHO injected the idea, because ëSomeoneí in the room did. > > > > [Hummm? ñ sympathetic ITU personnel perhaps Ö very very intresting] > > > > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 1 09:08:12 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:08:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: John: We don't necessarily differ. I agree that IGOs should be involved and represented, I simply believe that their representation should be counted as part of the "government" slice of the MS pie. There are of course differences in the views of IGO secretariats and their constituent governments, but we are still dealing with governments. >>> John Mathiason 6/1/2007 2:25 AM >>> Milton, I would beg to differ. While Intergovernmental organizations are "run by governments", they are in many ways different from governments, not only because what they do is the result of usually complex consensuses about what they are supposed to achieve and how, but also because their secretariats reflect an often unique view of issues that is somewhere in the middle of other stakeholders, since one of their responsibilities to is to take into account the views of those stakeholders. When "intergovernmental organizations" participate as such, it is usually through their secretariats. Assuming that individual governments can represent them would not be very realistic. Regards, John On May 31, 2007, at 10:13 PM, Milton Mueller wrote: > Bertrand, > I agree with many of the things you said here, but would take issue > with the idea that "international organizations" are stakeholders > in the same sense as business, civil society and government. If by > international Organizations (IOs) you mean IGOs (intergovernmental > orgs) they are , first, a very small group of organizations > (compare the number of IOs to the number of businesses or NGOs > worldwide). Second, they are accountable to and agents of > governments. So we need to avoid a double representation of > governments in any "balanced" MS structure. > > Certainly, IOs have specialized expertise which needs to be > utilized, but their representation can come from the governmental > side of the house. > >>>> ca at rits.org.br 5/31/2007 10:42:42 AM >>> > Good, Bertrand! Let us restart this process on new ground. > > --c.a. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As several remarks have mentioned, the key issue is not so much >> bureau or >> not bureau (ie the name itself ) but the composition of any truly >> multi-stakeholder group and its role. Some common sense elements >> could be >> taken into account in the discussion : >> >> 1) On the composition : >> >> - it should be a single body : separating the constituencies >> would be >> detrimental to fruitful interaction and lead to silo approaches >> preventing >> consensus; a step backwards in the process; >> - three categories of actors come naturally to mind : governments, >> civil society and business sector; and the corresponding members >> of the >> group should ideally be designated by their respective >> constituencies; >> - a fourth category covering "organizations" could be of interest, >> allowing participation of actors like ITU, ICANN, W3C, IETF, >> etc...This >> would actually be in line with para 29 of the TAIS that says : "The >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >> transparent >> and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the >> private >> sector, civil society and international organizations." >> - an equal number for each of the four groups is a rather natural >> balance; appropriate justifications would be needed for any other >> proportions; >> - there is an interest in maintaining a small overall number of >> members to allow good interaction : based upon experience, a >> maximum of >> about 40 members seems a reasonable amount; >> - as for governments, a minimum of five is necessary to allow >> traditional geographical diversity; but more than 10 would >> explode the >> number of members if the 1 to 4 ratio is applied; >> - previous, current and future host countries on a given year >> could be >> given some special rights, either as natural representative for >> their own >> region or in addition to a group of five for instance; >> - as for civil society, and in spite of all its limitations :-), >> the >> Internet Governance Caucus seems like the only sufficiently >> legitimate, >> diverse and structured group (ie with explicit procedures) to be >> able to >> designate MAG members. >> >> As for the organizations mentioned as a fourth category, >> irrespective of >> their competence on the substance, their expertise as conference >> and events >> organizers could also be useful in preparing the annual IGF >> meetings; the >> diversity of their working processes could also be useful in future >> discussions on methodology (see for instance the W3C process >> document). >> >> 2) On the role of multi-stakeholder groups >> >> In general terms, the above generic mechanism could be used for a >> diversity >> of functions and various groups could be formed in the future >> according to >> this formula, with variable sizes. >> >> The important element is that multi-stakeholder groups are not and >> cannot be >> decision-making bodies, let alone negociating structures on behalf >> of a >> larger community. First of all because the non-membership nature >> of the IGF >> (as reminded by Nitin Desai) is a natural obstacle; secondly >> because they >> have a more useful role to play. Their main role should be to >> facilitate >> processes, to help consensus emerge from thorough discussions and >> to advise >> and support the secretariat in formalizing zones of agreement among >> stakeholders. >> >> One of the main objection to using the term "bureau" is related to >> the >> above >> : it evokes too much the decision-making groups in traditional >> intergovernmental institutions. Like with the emergence of terms like >> "dynamic coalitions", participants in the IGF have a common >> interest in >> finding innovative terminology that allows to get everybody's mind >> out of >> their respective boxes. >> >> Hope it helps steer the discussion in a fruitful direction, useful >> for all. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: >> 30/5/2007 15:03 > > -- > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Carlos A. Afonso > diretor de planejamento > Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits > http://www.rits.org.br > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 1 09:55:03 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:55:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410706010655n296f56bbheaff2df91abcfb7e@mail.gmail.com> Greetings Dear Colleagues, and this is a specific note resonating with the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 6/1/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Dear Karl, dear all, > > Thanks for the interest and remarks. I'll try some answers to the key > comments that require clarification on my part. Apologies for not > addressing > all comments here. Will come back to them later if needed. > > 1) For Karl (on individuals,people and stakeholders) > > Avri Doria had pointed me long ago to a post of yours regarding the notion > of "stakeholders" and I have intended for a long time to contact you on > that, to express how much I agree on the importance of individuals. Your > very well formulated post is a perfect opportunity to clarify things. > > Let it be said loud and clear here : individuals are indeed stakeholders, > not only organizations. Better, they *are* the stakeholders, and > organizations are only, as you mention, the "aggregates" they choose to > present their views in processes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next, LDMF present comment: re who is or should be 'on board': : The above is very useful across many contexts. And, reserving comment on concepts such as "multi-stakeholder," "net neutrality," and other current interesting concepts regarding who is or should be 'at the table,' whether for local discussions or wide CyberInclusiveness, kindly accept here the following post from a different list. "Excellent forum discussion, and/but let us please bear in mind that "net neutrality" cannot really exist unless add: individuals in] specific populations are not excluded, such as those with different processing options - very notably persons with disabilities impacting access, origination, and equality, and perhaps the more-young and more-older, for whom hard and soft e-bridges may prove a boon. Perhaps this is but "preaching to the choir here" as i*nclusion* principles are axiomatic for many, but there can be slippage in any domain - hence this sidebar. Thanking All and extending very best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. For I.D. here: *Respectful Interfaces* Communications Coordination Committee for The U.N. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From michael_leibrandt at web.de Fri Jun 1 10:02:00 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:02:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: <1645756355@web.de> Milton and others, The question is if this "cutting into slices" actually keeps up with the changes we face in the Web 2.0 world. Actually, the big chunks itself become multistakeholder groups. Different from the industrial age, more and more people play multiple, cross-constituency roles, especially with regard to the traditional distinction between who is on the supply side of the economy and who is on the demand side. I have seen civil society people acting as camouflaged business lobbyists. I have seen private sector people who enjoy so much freedom that they could best be described as civil society characters. Inclusive democratic governments usually don't have their own stakes, but come up with positions that are a mixture of national/regional civil society and private sector positions. International organisations at least partially open up to non-governmental actors; even the ITU positions - taking into account the sector members voice - are no longer pristine governmental. So we no longer have three distinct stakeholder groups - or "categories of actors", as Bertrand better describes it. The logical result is that in all non-negotiating fora, were there are no legal issues around accountability, liability etc, we're back to individuals. Instead of counting heads we should open up our minds and start nominating/supporting capable people even if they formally belong to what in the old days might have been seen as the "wrong" constituency. Michael, Berlin ***this is a private internet users statement and must not be mistaken as a statement from any public or commercial entity *** _______________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 1 10:31:09 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:31:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <920267600-1180651935-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-857459286-@bwe053-cell00.b isx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <465F3AEA.1000203@cavebear.com> <920267600-1180651935-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-857459286-@bwe053-cell00.b isx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more >properly be discussing the programme: Couldn't agree more. We are wasting time and opportunities. Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is needed. We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF. There is no agenda. There are no speakers. There is a call for workshops, but we do not know on what subjects. We have been told some workshops will be linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these linked "sub-theme" workshops. Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas for workshops, these are things we do well. On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the one who wanted the IGF. Other stakeholders took it as a compromise, IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from happening. They aren't going to move where want on process. Our egalitarian vision isn't really shared. And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look at Openness in particular, btw is now being parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we were at the end of the Tunis Summit. I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners. These are 200-300 person meeting rooms. Quite large. And free (no fee.) No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC anyone?) >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's 'messages from the >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What >other issues are there which could be matched with specific >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome >that could be contained in a 'message'? What's wrong with just better reporting. Can giganet provide rapporteurs? They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to encourage more dynamic coalitions. >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy >war with the US, with Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil >society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we should communicate >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable >manner. I would turn this around. If we are going to make a proposal on process, begin by working with the other stakeholders. Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder. Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least to the EU governments? If not, we'll be wasting our time sending anything to the Secretary General. We might even do ourselves harm by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary General proposes isn't what we asked for. >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. Agree. Thanks, Adam >Willie > >Sent via ... deleted :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Jun 1 10:59:51 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:59:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <465F30BA.4090708@wzb.eu> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <465F30BA.4090708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <46603467.5050602@bertola.eu> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > We don't know how long the caucus can credibly claim to represent civil > society organizations and individuals in this field. Certainly there are > NGOs involved in the ICT area that have never even heard of the IGC. > And we all have seen people abandoning mailing lists and favor of other > ones. In this sense I share Karl's concern that we could ossify a > composition of clans or stakeholder groups that made sense only for a > short while. I think that we have to use different instruments for different purposes. When it comes to substantial discussions, consensus building among individuals is the way to go. The border between stakeholder groups and sub-groups is blurred and not easily distinguished, but in the end, the principle is that almost everyone has to agree, so it doesn't really matter in which box you'd end up: a box-less system works fine. I see the charter that we gave to the IGC as a model of how this kind of discussions can happen; of course we still have to test it under harder conditions, and in more diverse groups, but it might be worth a try. Constituencies are a useful tool when it comes to representation. Since you cannot rely on traditional instruments - and believe me, ideas of one-head-one-vote among one billion of Internet users are and will be utopian for some time; even if you could solve the issues about authentication, identification and registration of voters, still there is no global public opinion, awareness, or education sufficient to foster informed and meaningful voting - you can approximate them by pre-allocating the representation of different groups... in the IGF, it could be 1/3 governments, 1/3 private sector and 1/3 civil society (pending discussion on the possible "fourth stakeholder", the techies). You rightfully point out that this structure is prone to capture and ossification - so there must be an external authority (the UN SG?) to review that structure regularly. But in the end, this structure would only be used to form a "steering group", that would have certain powers of check and balance over the work done in consensus-based groups, but would not determine consensus on its own; this would remove some heat from struggles about its composition. Separately, there is the issue of civil society representation; I think that our Charter could be a good model to go, and while it's true that there's lots of civil society that haven't joined the discussion yet, as long as we maintain its openness and inclusiveness it can be said that they just have to join and get their share of participatory rights. And of course, this could be reviewed in the future if there were the need to do so. Such structure is welcoming to individuals as well, and given that in this small sized and manageable group there is ample opportunity to verify identities and promote informed voting, we could actually use one-head-one-vote methods to pick our representatives. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 1 11:21:15 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:21:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Proposal: 10 stakeholder categories In-Reply-To: (Mueller@syr.edu) References: Message-ID: <20070601152116.123E558207@quill.bollow.ch> How about extending the number of recognized stakeholder categories to ten? I'd suggest something like the following: 1) Governments of industrialized nations 2) Governments of developing countries 3) Inter-governmental organizations 4) Civil society organizations focused on technical concerns 5) Civil society organizations focused on fundamental rights 6) Civil society organizations focused on development concerns 7) ISPs 8) Software vendors and IT consulting businesses 9) Other businesses 10) People who choose to participate in internet governance discussions as individuals, without representing the interests of any organization or recognizing any organization as representing their interests. With this set-up, the understanding of "multistakeholder" as giving equal weight to each of the three main categories "government", "civil society" and "business" is preserved, while recognizing the fundamental differences with regard to internet governance which exist within each of these broad categories. Of course, some organizations fall into more than one category. For example, the Swiss Internet User Group works on technical concerns and also in the area of fundamental rights. Therefore, if I was a candidate for the MAG or whatever, I would indicate that I'd represent stakeholder category 4 with weight 0.5 and stakeholder category 5 with weight 0.5 The goal of this proposed refinement of the system of stakeholder categories is to make it easier to select a MAG and other multistakeholder groups with truly balanced diversity. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Jun 1 11:25:02 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:25:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46603A4E.8080203@cavebear.com> To Bertrand and Robin: Bertrand: Thanks for the very well articulated note on individuals and "stakeholders". My concern remains, however, that even though individuals may in our context be recognized as "stakeholders" the use of that term easily permits people to be forgotten in other contexts or be subordinated to those corporate or aggregate bodies that claim to be "stakeholders" on an economic basis. The reason why I find the term "stakeholder" to be corrosive is that it opens the door to Orwell's fearful sentence: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I very much agree with you that thinking and developing answers and policies works best if all points of view are represented by people (ultimately it is always a person who does the articulating or representing) and that a synoptic view is more important at that stage than universal representation. At a later stage, when a choice is made whether to adopt the answer or policy, then a broad based counting of opinions is more important. Nevertheless, those who are excluded will often resist or resent an answer simply because they weren't part of its making. To Robin: With regard to your note that mentioned the resistance of China: I detected a hint of a crossover between issues. I've been pressing the position that of using people, not legal fictions or artificial aggregations, ought to be the basic unit of interest and benefit for internet governance. What you and Mereyem have mentioned tends to go towards the issue of human rights. These are, of course related but the coloration is a bit different. I am not sure that China or other countries that resist externally imposed definitions of "human rights" would not be so uncomfortable with the proposition that when a "stakeholder" votes, that that vote be weighed on the basis of the number of people who can be garnered to support that vote. To be more concrete, let's image a hypothetical body of internet governance. Imagine that it has various "stakeholders" but that when it comes time to measure consensus or take votes that each stakeholder's vote is measured by the number of people who sign that stakeholder's vote. Thus the IP industry vote would be measured by the number of people they can get to back their point of view. The same would hold for other aggregates - the size of their vote is proportional to the number of people who back their vote. Would that kind of formulation less likely to trigger China's defensive mechanisms? I could imagine that, due to China's immense population, that they actually might find such a formulation attractive. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 1 11:35:50 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:35:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: Yes, I think we agree on this, and this has always been Karl Auerbach's position. It is basically the IETF model, with the important differences that there are much stronger incentives to cooperate on standards than on policy tradeoffs involving distributional issues, and that the stakeholders are much more diverse and the parameters of discussion much broader. The other main issue is: what are the incentives of certain actors, let's say govts especially, to take off their govt hat and become a "mere individual"? If George Bush showed up at an IGF in his cowboy boots and jeans could he anyway avoid the trappings of official state sponsorship? >>> Michael Leibrandt 6/1/2007 10:02:00 AM >>> So we no longer have three distinct stakeholder groups - or "categories of actors", as Bertrand better describes it. The logical result is that in all non-negotiating fora, were there are no legal issues around accountability, liability etc, we're back to individuals. Instead of counting heads we should open up our minds and start nominating/supporting capable people even if they formally belong to what in the old days might have been seen as the "wrong" constituency. Michael, Berlin ***this is a private internet users statement and must not be mistaken as a statement from any public or commercial entity *** _______________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Fri Jun 1 11:41:09 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:41:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <465F3AEA.1000203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: I tend to agree with Adam, too. However, I also think the process/structure question is important and worth to discuss, I don't think it's a waste of time, but substantive discussion on issues and contents/programs/speakers are of equal, if not more, importance for us. Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and proceed both? Or am I naiive that we first need to resolve the process in order to proceed to the substance? I don't think so. izumi 2007/6/1, Adam Peake : > At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > > > > > > >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is > >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more > >properly be discussing the programme: > > > Couldn't agree more. We are wasting time and opportunities. > > Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another > couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is > needed. > > We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF. There is no agenda. > There are no speakers. There is a call for workshops, but we do not > know on what subjects. We have been told some workshops will be > linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these > linked "sub-theme" workshops. > > Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we > should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical > Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of > "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas > for workshops, these are things we do well. > > On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the > one who wanted the IGF. Other stakeholders took it as a compromise, > IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from > happening. They aren't going to move where want on process. Our > egalitarian vision isn't really shared. > > And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil > society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look > at Openness in particular, btw is now being > parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working > groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF > itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we > were at the end of the Tunis Summit. > > I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate > discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop > proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners. These are > 200-300 person meeting rooms. Quite large. And free (no fee.) > > No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet > Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC > anyone?) > > > >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly > >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of > >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's 'messages from the > >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What > >other issues are there which could be matched with specific > >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome > >that could be contained in a 'message'? > > > What's wrong with just better reporting. Can giganet provide > rapporteurs? They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not > use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to > encourage more dynamic coalitions. > > > >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN > >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on > >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with > >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings > >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy > >war with the US, with Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as > >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of > >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think > >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil > >society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we should communicate > >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A > >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how > >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable > >manner. > > > I would turn this around. If we are going to make a proposal on > process, begin by working with the other stakeholders. > Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder. > > Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least > to the EU governments? If not, we'll be wasting our time sending > anything to the Secretary General. We might even do ourselves harm > by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary > General proposes isn't what we asked for. > > > >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the > >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > > Agree. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >Willie > > > >Sent via ... deleted :-) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 karl at cavebear.com Fri Jun 1 11:49:22 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:49:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> I have much the same concern as you do about "consensus" - I do not see it as a stable or viable approach. It is a mechanism that is both too subjective, open to manipulation by the one who measures consensus, and can result with the losers feeling unfairly treated and resentful. One of the reasons that internet governance has latched onto the idea of "consensus" is that in the IETF it worked (well, it used to work when working groups could fit around a single table, it is not working so well now.) But the IETF deals with topics that have the nice property that when the power is applied they either work or they emit smoke. (Really - I recently saw smoke come out of a VoIP phone due to a flaw in power-over-ethernet specifications.) But we are not dealing with the kinds of issues that the IETF is. And the IETF has the benefit of a degree of homogeneity - we (IETF) are mainly a bunch of geeky engineers who like Monty Python. What I'm suggesting is that the idea of making decisions by "consensus" ought not to be extrapolated from the IETF onto internet governance where the measure of a proposed solution is far more subjective and the interests affected are much more diverse. Can you imagine the kind of political instability that what could have happened in the US had the 2000 or 2004 elections been measured by "consensus" rather than counted votes? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jun 1 11:51:12 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:51:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal: 10 stakeholder categories In-Reply-To: <20070601152116.123E558207@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070601152116.123E558207@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <46604070.3090906@wzb.eu> Sorry for this but I found the analogy so very tempting: In "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins," Jorge Luis Borges describes "a certain Chinese Encyclopedia," the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided into: 1. those that belong to the Emperor, 2. embalmed ones, 3. those that are trained, 4. suckling pigs, 5. mermaids, 6. fabulous ones, 7. stray dogs, 8. those included in the present classification, 9. those that tremble as if they were mad, 10. innumerable ones, 11. those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, 12. others, 13. those that have just broken a flower vase, 14. those that from a long way off look like flies. Norbert Bollow schrieb: > How about extending the number of recognized stakeholder categories > to ten? > > I'd suggest something like the following: > > 1) Governments of industrialized nations > 2) Governments of developing countries > 3) Inter-governmental organizations > > 4) Civil society organizations focused on technical concerns > 5) Civil society organizations focused on fundamental rights > 6) Civil society organizations focused on development concerns > > 7) ISPs > 8) Software vendors and IT consulting businesses > 9) Other businesses > > 10) People who choose to participate in internet governance > discussions as individuals, without representing the interests > of any organization or recognizing any organization as representing > their interests. > > With this set-up, the understanding of "multistakeholder" as giving > equal weight to each of the three main categories "government", > "civil society" and "business" is preserved, while recognizing the > fundamental differences with regard to internet governance which exist > within each of these broad categories. > > Of course, some organizations fall into more than one category. For > example, the Swiss Internet User Group works on technical concerns > and also in the area of fundamental rights. Therefore, if I was a > candidate for the MAG or whatever, I would indicate that I'd represent > stakeholder category 4 with weight 0.5 and stakeholder category 5 with > weight 0.5 > > The goal of this proposed refinement of the system of stakeholder > categories is to make it easier to select a MAG and other > multistakeholder groups with truly balanced diversity. > > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jun 1 12:04:44 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:04:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... Message-ID: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society would have achieved this?! 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 12:07:42 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:07:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposal: 10 stakeholder categories In-Reply-To: <46604070.3090906@wzb.eu> References: <20070601152116.123E558207@quill.bollow.ch> <46604070.3090906@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410706010907n7522d26al18df8bb9c0754933@mail.gmail.com> Fantastic-sharing, and rises above so many proffered ontologies. Sidebar: Doesn't Number 14 cover them all? And up one level on the 'Tree of Everything', where do animals "fit in?" And etc. Appreciatively, with very best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing*, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, and etc. On 6/1/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Sorry for this but I found the analogy so very tempting: > > In "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins," Jorge Luis Borges > describes "a certain Chinese Encyclopedia," the Celestial Emporium of > Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided > into: > > 1. those that belong to the Emperor, > 2. embalmed ones, > 3. those that are trained, > 4. suckling pigs, > 5. mermaids, > 6. fabulous ones, > 7. stray dogs, > 8. those included in the present classification, > 9. those that tremble as if they were mad, > 10. innumerable ones, > 11. those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, > 12. others, > 13. those that have just broken a flower vase, > 14. those that from a long way off look like flies. > > > > > > > Norbert Bollow schrieb: > > How about extending the number of recognized stakeholder categories > > to ten? > > > > I'd suggest something like the following: > > > > 1) Governments of industrialized nations > > 2) Governments of developing countries > > 3) Inter-governmental organizations > > > > 4) Civil society organizations focused on technical concerns > > 5) Civil society organizations focused on fundamental rights > > 6) Civil society organizations focused on development concerns > > > > 7) ISPs > > 8) Software vendors and IT consulting businesses > > 9) Other businesses > > > > 10) People who choose to participate in internet governance > > discussions as individuals, without representing the interests > > of any organization or recognizing any organization as representing > > their interests. > > > > With this set-up, the understanding of "multistakeholder" as giving > > equal weight to each of the three main categories "government", > > "civil society" and "business" is preserved, while recognizing the > > fundamental differences with regard to internet governance which exist > > within each of these broad categories. > > > > Of course, some organizations fall into more than one category. For > > example, the Swiss Internet User Group works on technical concerns > > and also in the area of fundamental rights. Therefore, if I was a > > candidate for the MAG or whatever, I would indicate that I'd represent > > stakeholder category 4 with weight 0.5 and stakeholder category 5 with > > weight 0.5 > > > > The goal of this proposed refinement of the system of stakeholder > > categories is to make it easier to select a MAG and other > > multistakeholder groups with truly balanced diversity. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert. > > > > > -------------- 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 Fri Jun 1 12:17:29 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:17:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4660469a.02a46b18.0e68.ffffba95@mx.google.com> At 08:49 6/1/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I have much the same concern as you do about "consensus" - I do not >see it as a stable or viable approach. It is a mechanism that is >both too subjective, open to manipulation by the one who measures >consensus, and can result with the losers feeling unfairly treated >and resentful. Karl, consensus, in some cases, has been that whoever has the loudest voice, will be able to enforce the consensus. >Can you imagine the kind of political instability that what could >have happened in the US had the 2000 or 2004 elections been measured >by "consensus" rather than counted votes? However, this example is not quite good, because these elections can not be implemented on the Internet. There's one very good explanation about why the models which we are all used to do not work on the Internet: the online users are different from the offline users. They build their own culture, which is quite different from the offline culture. Take as an example today's NYT article about the Google Street View http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html?ref=business and you will be able to find out on your own what's this different culture. I already wrote a little about it at http://blog.veni.com/?p=236 . Being strong proponent of privacy and defending my right not to be photographed, recorded, videotaped, etc. without my prior consence, the oline culture is also changing me. The sooner we realize, and accept, that the majority of the online users do not care about Internet governance, the better. Best, Veni Disclaimer: I've always been interested in hearing what people think, and discuss possible solutions for problems that we all face. I've stated that publicly, I've asked people to come and talk to me, when they see me, on issues related to ISOC, ICANN, (etc. - a number of other mainly business topics, which are not relevant for this mailing list). However, some people misunderstand that as a sign that I am not interested in their opinion, but I'd like to endorse it, and accept it as mine. I am sure that many people here would not give up their opinion, and esp. the one about Internet; the difference is, that in the last eight (8) years I've been actually changing the national policy of the Republic of Bulgaria in a Internet-friendly way. That gives me enough confidence that what I've done, and what I do, is right. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From remmyn at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 1 12:20:29 2007 From: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk (Remmy Nweke) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:20:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <787008.33315.qm@web23304.mail.ird.yahoo.com> May I join Jeanette and colleagues to welcome the new chairman of GNSO. Keeping the flag ever green. That shows we are making some progress as CSOs. Remmy Jeanette Hofmann wrote: to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society would have achieved this?! 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 --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. -------------- 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 Fri Jun 1 12:19:46 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:19:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46604722.3050706@bertola.eu> Karl Auerbach ha scritto: > I have much the same concern as you do about "consensus" - I do not see > it as a stable or viable approach. It is a mechanism that is both too > subjective, open to manipulation by the one who measures consensus, and > can result with the losers feeling unfairly treated and resentful. Actually, I've seen much more resentment after elections, than after consensus calls - at least if the Chairman is fair (you are right about the risk of manipulation by the consensus caller, which is why you need checks and balances on the selection and decisions of the Chair). The last election I was part of ended up with both sides of the discussion flaming on their blogs about the results - and it was in a group of less than 20 voters... In elections you necessarily have winners and losers, while in consensus calls, if done correctly, you have a compromise that can distribute (dis)satisfaction fairly to everyone. > One of the reasons that internet governance has latched onto the idea of > "consensus" is that in the IETF it worked (well, it used to work when > working groups could fit around a single table, it is not working so > well now.) But the IETF deals with topics that have the nice property > that when the power is applied they either work or they emit smoke. > (Really - I recently saw smoke come out of a VoIP phone due to a flaw in > power-over-ethernet specifications.) > > But we are not dealing with the kinds of issues that the IETF is. And > the IETF has the benefit of a degree of homogeneity - we (IETF) are > mainly a bunch of geeky engineers who like Monty Python. Agree totally on this. It doesn't mean that it can't work in more diverse environment, though. The only real problem is, what do you do if people are obtrusive and try to prevent any consensus from being reached, as they benefit from the status quo. > Can you imagine the kind of political instability that what could have > happened in the US had the 2000 or 2004 elections been measured by > "consensus" rather than counted votes? Which is why, as I suggested in my previous post, representation goes by voting, while discussion goes by consensus. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Jun 1 12:22:32 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:22:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> References: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070601162241.97B3B1B2B09@mail.gn.apc.org> hi >to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society >would have achieved this?! true, hard to imagine.. and congrats again avri.. i was going to send a congrats message to a couple of apc lists, but noticed that the vote wouldn't be confirmed (?) until June 7th.. and not knowing too much about internal ICANN processes wasn't sure what that meant.. so, is it ok to go totally public? karen -------------- 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 Fri Jun 1 12:19:31 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:19:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> References: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <46604832.6e219924.6299.ffffc14a@mx.google.com> Congratulations, Avri! And good luck! veni At 18:04 6/1/2007 +0200, you wrote: >to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society >would have achieved this?! >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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 12:29:56 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 18:29:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <46604832.6e219924.6299.ffffc14a@mx.google.com> References: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> <46604832.6e219924.6299.ffffc14a@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Avri's is a deserved chair. Kudos for all the good work done all this while. Just a tap to move along. Aaron On 6/1/07, veni markovski wrote: > Congratulations, Avri! > > And good luck! > > veni > > At 18:04 6/1/2007 +0200, you wrote: > > > >to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society > >would have achieved this?! > >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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 1 12:34:05 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:34:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... Message-ID: She was elected by a decisive margin. Confirmation should be a formality, making sure no fraud or mistakes took place in the voting. This is very important to the fair administration of ICANN's major and most contentious policy making organ. Those of us on this list who are deeply involved in ICANN are thrilled by this. The only loser in my opinion is Avri herself, whose life will now be consumed by the hard and often unpleasant work of adminstering that contentious bunch of 6 constituency groups and its contentious agenda. Congratulations (I think) Avri! >>> karenb at gn.apc.org 6/1/2007 12:22:32 PM >>> hi >to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society >would have achieved this?! true, hard to imagine.. and congrats again avri.. i was going to send a congrats message to a couple of apc lists, but noticed that the vote wouldn't be confirmed (?) until June 7th.. and not knowing too much about internal ICANN processes wasn't sure what that meant.. so, is it ok to go totally public? karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 12:44:36 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 18:44:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal: 10 stakeholder categories In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410706010907n7522d26al18df8bb9c0754933@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070601152116.123E558207@quill.bollow.ch> <46604070.3090906@wzb.eu> <8cbfe7410706010907n7522d26al18df8bb9c0754933@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Very much appreciative of such massive sharing. Thanks for research efforts, really commendable. Aaron On 6/1/07, l. d. misek-falkoff wrote: > Fantastic-sharing, and rises above so many proffered ontologies. > > Sidebar: Doesn't Number 14 cover them all? And up one level on the 'Tree > of Everything', where do animals "fit in?" And etc. > > Appreciatively, with very best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing*, LDMF. > Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, and etc. > > > > On 6/1/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Sorry for this but I found the analogy so very tempting: > > > > In "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins," Jorge Luis Borges > > describes "a certain Chinese Encyclopedia," the Celestial Emporium of > > Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided > into: > > > > 1. those that belong to the Emperor, > > 2. embalmed ones, > > 3. those that are trained, > > 4. suckling pigs, > > 5. mermaids, > > 6. fabulous ones, > > 7. stray dogs, > > 8. those included in the present classification, > > 9. those that tremble as if they were mad, > > 10. innumerable ones, > > 11. those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, > > 12. others, > > 13. those that have just broken a flower vase, > > 14. those that from a long way off look like flies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Norbert Bollow schrieb: > > > How about extending the number of recognized stakeholder categories > > > to ten? > > > > > > I'd suggest something like the following: > > > > > > 1) Governments of industrialized nations > > > 2) Governments of developing countries > > > 3) Inter-governmental organizations > > > > > > 4) Civil society organizations focused on technical concerns > > > 5) Civil society organizations focused on fundamental rights > > > 6) Civil society organizations focused on development concerns > > > > > > 7) ISPs > > > 8) Software vendors and IT consulting businesses > > > 9) Other businesses > > > > > > 10) People who choose to participate in internet governance > > > discussions as individuals, without representing the interests > > > of any organization or recognizing any organization as representing > > > their interests. > > > > > > With this set-up, the understanding of "multistakeholder" as giving > > > equal weight to each of the three main categories "government", > > > "civil society" and "business" is preserved, while recognizing the > > > fundamental differences with regard to internet governance which exist > > > within each of these broad categories. > > > > > > Of course, some organizations fall into more than one category. For > > > example, the Swiss Internet User Group works on technical concerns > > > and also in the area of fundamental rights. Therefore, if I was a > > > candidate for the MAG or whatever, I would indicate that I'd represent > > > stakeholder category 4 with weight 0.5 and stakeholder category 5 with > > > weight 0.5 > > > > > > The goal of this proposed refinement of the system of stakeholder > > > categories is to make it easier to select a MAG and other > > > multistakeholder groups with truly balanced diversity. > > > > > > 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 > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Jun 1 12:26:08 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:26:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Ditto. Toldja, Avri... BD On 6/1/07 6:04 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > > > to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society would > have achieved this?! > 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 ca at rits.org.br Fri Jun 1 12:49:56 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:49:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> References: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Congrats, Avri! Will be competent, balanced work, as usual! fraternal regards --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:04:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... > > > to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society > would > have achieved this?! > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Fri Jun 1 12:56:08 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 01:56:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: References: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Congratulations to Avri, though I shared the same concern with Milton that she has to spend that much time and energy for managing the contentious bunch at ICANN. izumi 2007/6/2, carlos a. afonso : > Congrats, Avri! Will be competent, balanced work, as usual! > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:04:44 +0200 > Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... > > > > > > > to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society > > would > > have achieved this?! > > jeanette > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> 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 shailam at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 13:49:22 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <450387.88087.qm@web54303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Congratulations Avri. Well deserved , no doubt!!!! Thank you for all the work that you are going to do on our behalf .I would like to be more involved, but just reading all your emails keeps me busy enough:):) warm regards Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI bolo bolo,kuch to bolo, gussa chodo,dil na todo! pyar ho to kehedho, yes !!.. pyar nahin to kehedho, no ..!! phir jo ho so ho....! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jun 1 14:08:47 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:08:47 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Congratulations.... References: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> The European Summer School on Internet Governance (EURO-SSIG) is proud to have the new GNSO Chair as member of its faculty. Congratulationds Avri :-))) 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 dan at musicunbound.com Fri Jun 1 17:07:59 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:07:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <4660469a.02a46b18.0e68.ffffba95@mx.google.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> <4660469a.02a46b18.0e68.ffffba95@mx.google.com> Message-ID: At 12:17 PM -0400 6/1/07, veni markovski wrote: ... The sooner we realize, and >accept, that the majority of the online users do not care about >Internet governance, the better. This is certainly true, as it is of any public policy issue in the world (not constrained to "Internet governance" by any means -- IG is really not special in this regard). Even the biggest issues on the public agenda as defined by "mainstream media" are often ignored (or at least porrly understood) by a majority of the affected population (at least in the U.S. ... ). That's precisely why public representation is used in the U.S. democratic system: because representation of interests must be a specialized expertise and (more than) a full-time job. We can't all be experts on all policy issues that affect us as citizens. Our representatives have a hard enough time doing that, themselves (they rely on substantial staff to analyze the issues, and sometimes too much on "special interest" lobbyists -- and even worse, many mainstream journalists do the same thing, but I digress). Even full-time policy professionals usually can only concentrate deeply on a single narrow subset of issues at a time. Just because an individual citizen "does not care" about an issue does not mean that that citizen does not have an "interest" in that issue, and should not have that interest represented in a fair deliberative process. Pardon the pervasive idiosyncrasy of the English language. This is not about "attention" but rather it is about a *stake* in an outcome (which is why even people who do not pay attention to an issue can still be stakeholders with regard to decisions about that issue). Anyone who is affected by a decision has an "interest" in the outcome of that decision, whether or not they are even aware of the decision or would hold a coherent opinion about it if they were. This is the sense of the word that we are using here. Competence to participate actively in a governance process should not be a filter on representation on an issue in any governance structure. If it were, we'd have no rights for children, for mentally challenged, for non-speakers of the operative language of discourse, for those without effective access, etc. This is not my idea of democracy. (And granted, we have a ways to go to perfect the voting-driven system as well, as the devil is in the details.) We are all "citizens of the world" and we all have an individual interest/stake in the outcome of Internet governance as a global infrastructure, whether we individually pay attention to it or not. How does the concept of "citizenship" work in a multi-stakeholder consensus-driven process? How can I feel confident that, even if I do not participate directly, my interests as a citizen are being considered fairly? Forgive me if I do not see an affirmative answer to these questions right now. Dan PS -- I think I can concur with Vittorio that "consensus" can best be applied in contexts of "discussion" -- but ultimately I think all "citizens" deserve "representation" and voting seems to be an ineliminable component of such a representational process under a democratic system of governance. The real issue with "consensus" without voting is that it isn't really democratic -- it's inevitably a decision-by-fiat of a small elite, and if it makes an erroneous decision there is no effective structure of accountability for recourse. Consensus may be able to address the easy/narrow issues, but not the broad/contentious issues. So, consensus is useful in constrained contexts where it is effective (please excuse the tautological statement -- you know it when you see it, and it is largely contextually defined), but it should not be pressed into service where it cannot provide a fair decision process taking into balanced account the interests/stakes of all citizens. One should not underestimate how difficult it is to determine "fairness" or "balance" in governance processes. There is no perfect process to accomplish this -- we've certainly not discovered one in the full extent of human history, and we will likely be struggling with this indefinitely. One should approach all models with humility and seek to apply what makes sense according to context. If a consensus model is to be considered, the first question to ask is: Is this a context where it makes sense and can/should conceivably work? If not, then one should not seek to apply *only* consensus processes to that context. And, a particular design (i.e., fixed breakdown of stakeholder categories) may work well for one narrow policy domain, but not be appropriate to a different policy domain. Again, the policy-scalability of consensus processes is quite limited, and mission creep should be viewed with substantial apprehension because at some point it will undermine the utility of a consensus process to point of unworkability. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Jun 1 20:46:12 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 08:46:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4660BDD4.5060307@Malcolm.id.au> Karl Auerbach wrote: > I have much the same concern as you do about "consensus" - I do not see > it as a stable or viable approach. It is a mechanism that is both too > subjective, open to manipulation by the one who measures consensus, and > can result with the losers feeling unfairly treated and resentful. This however misses the point that we don't have a choice. Because the IGF is a consensual governance network without any authority to make binding decisions on its own, it is inherent the form of the organisation that it *can* only act by consensus. True it is that consensus will often not be achieved. But that is not to be regarded as a failure of the process. Making decisions is only part of what consensus is about, and in some contexts a small part. It is also about shaping opinions. It can thus narrow areas of difference to be resolved through other mechanisms of governance (such as rules, norms, markets, or architecture). In my thesis I quote Johnson and Crawford who write: Failure to reach a global consensus may be a success rather than a failure, however, because it leaves undisturbed the power of many diverse and decentralized actors to make their own decisions. These actors may find even better ways to proceed than might have emerged from a compromising committee. Having said that, it is acknowledged that making consensus *more* effective in a heterogeneous environment such as the IGF is an issue that must be addressed. Although challenging, it is far from a lost cause. There are numerous available techniques from the literature and practice of deliberative democracy, such as the "speed dialogues" that have been scheduled for Rio (and for which admittedly I haven't given enough credit to the Secretariat, due to being cranky over other issues). -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 2 03:02:06 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:32:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Workshops for Rio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070602070211.5DA985CA4@smtp2.electricembers.net> Adam wrote > I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate > discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop > proposals. We did discuss in the run up to the Geneva consultations that if our theme proposals for main sessions are not accepted we should consider sponsored workshops on these issues. And since 3 of the 4 themes we suggested are not on the list of main session themes, we should propose them for workshops sponsored by the IGC. Apart from getting what we in any case wanted to discuss into the IGF space, such IGC sponsored workshops, which are well thought out, gives IGC a good profile. So, my proposal is that we propose workshops on (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF We can seek other partners for these workshops, which I understand we need to do to comply with the criterion for selection of workshops. Other proposals for IGC sponsored workshops can also be considered. 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: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: wcurrie at apc.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) > > At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > > > > > > >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is > >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more > >properly be discussing the programme: > > > Couldn't agree more. We are wasting time and opportunities. > > Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another > couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is > needed. > > We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF. There is no agenda. > There are no speakers. There is a call for workshops, but we do not > know on what subjects. We have been told some workshops will be > linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these > linked "sub-theme" workshops. > > Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we > should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical > Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of > "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas > for workshops, these are things we do well. > > On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the > one who wanted the IGF. Other stakeholders took it as a compromise, > IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from > happening. They aren't going to move where want on process. Our > egalitarian vision isn't really shared. > > And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil > society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look > at Openness in particular, btw is now being > parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working > groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF > itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we > were at the end of the Tunis Summit. > > I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate > discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop > proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners. These are > 200-300 person meeting rooms. Quite large. And free (no fee.) > > No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet > Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC > anyone?) > > > >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly > >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of > >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's 'messages from the > >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What > >other issues are there which could be matched with specific > >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome > >that could be contained in a 'message'? > > > What's wrong with just better reporting. Can giganet provide > rapporteurs? They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not > use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to > encourage more dynamic coalitions. > > > >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN > >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on > >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with > >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings > >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy > >war with the US, with Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as > >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of > >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think > >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil > >society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we should communicate > >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A > >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how > >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable > >manner. > > > I would turn this around. If we are going to make a proposal on > process, begin by working with the other stakeholders. > Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder. > > Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least > to the EU governments? If not, we'll be wasting our time sending > anything to the Secretary General. We might even do ourselves harm > by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary > General proposes isn't what we asked for. > > > >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the > >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > > Agree. > > 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 From dan at musicunbound.com Sat Jun 2 03:04:31 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:04:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <4660BDD4.5060307@Malcolm.id.au> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> <4660BDD4.5060307@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: At 8:46 AM +0800 6/2/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >True it is that consensus will often not be achieved. But that is not >to be regarded as a failure of the process. Making decisions is only >part of what consensus is about, and in some contexts a small part. I can see how this would apply in the context of IGF at this early stage, however there are cases where a venue takes on an apparent jurisdiction to make decisions in an increasingly expanding policy domain but then seeks to use a consensus process (such as ICANN), and in such cases a "consensus-based decision" may often be the result of a process that is "forced" at best. That said, IGF may well be a venue where consensus is an important and valuable process of evaluation. But as soon as IGF seeks to make *decisions* regarding public policy or engage in actual "Internet governance" itself, I believe it will run into problems if it tries to extend a unilateral consensus model. So it may make sense to prepare for the extension of decision-making to governance venues with more accountable processes of representation, or to incorporate representational processes in its own decision-making paradigm (on a treaty-making model?). And with that, I think I should recuse from further comment regarding IGF as I am not directly involved in the process. Please excuse the brief imposition from an outsider. Couldn't help but respond to some theoretical concepts that didn't quite seem to add up, and I hope this has helped clarify the concepts in the discussion. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sat Jun 2 03:26:30 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:26:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <4660BDD4.5060307@Malcolm.id.au> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> <4660BDD4.5060307@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <46611BA6.6010701@cavebear.com> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Karl Auerbach wrote: >> I have much the same concern as you do about "consensus" - I do not >> see it as a stable or viable approach. ... ... > True it is that consensus will often not be achieved. But that is not > to be regarded as a failure of the process. Making decisions is only > part of what consensus is about, and in some contexts a small part. It > is also about shaping opinions. It can thus narrow areas of difference > to be resolved through other mechanisms of governance (such as rules, > norms, markets, or architecture). I'm having some trouble appreciating what you are saying; and I sense that we may have a fundamentally different view of what this thing "internet governance" is. To my mind, if a matter is one that admits of separate choice by each actor and that centralized plenary oversight is not necessary, then I don't see how that is a matter that ought to be subject to "internet governance" at all. To my mind, only those techo-internet matters that require, and I mean really require, a unified, singular body to make binding decisions, are matters that require a layer of internet governance. If you are saying that much of the internet can get along without mandatory oversight I would very much agree with you. But I would then suggest that those things that do not require mandatory oversight are things that we ought not to include as subjects of "internet governance". In other words, to me, the term "internet governance" ought to be reserved for those internet techno things that really and truly require one choice that binds everyone. It is rather hard to come up with a list of technical matters on the net that really do require a singular, worldwide, unified, mandatory policy. IP addresses and ASN's (autonomous system numbers, used in routing) seem need such central policies. DNS names, as I have described elsewhere, do not. In other words, I perceive internet governance as something that ought to have a very small bailiwick. What this suggests to me is that we each have a very different view of internet governance. I perceive it as being something of last resort, that should be created only when there is no other alternative, when arbitrary choices by private actors must not be permitted. I sense that you are considering governance in a broader way that isn't necessarily coercive and admits of private choice that is contrary to the decision of the governance body. If we drop the qualifier "internet" from "internet governance" then, I submit, we've entered a whole new ball game. Once we start dealing with matters that go beyond the technical necessities of the net, then we are engaging in World Governance with a big 'W' and a big 'G'. Much as I think we want to improve the world, I'm not particularly optimistic about the chances of success if we enter that arena. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Jun 2 04:20:43 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:20:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] 6/6 Cyberspace Discussion-SOME PEOPLE THINK THE INTERNET IS A BAD THING In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ------ Forwarded Message From: Todd Davies Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:30:31 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: [cpsr-activists] 6/6 Cyberspace Discussion-SOME PEOPLE THINK THE INTERNET IS A BAD THING (fwd) SOME PEOPLE THINK THE INTERNET IS A BAD THING The struggle for freedom of expression in cyberspace Join Amnesty International UK and The Observernewspaper for a unique global event. On 6 June we will use the internet to link activists from around the world to discuss the struggle against internet repression and to celebrate the irrepressible desire of people towards freedom of expression. Wednesday 6 June, 18.30 UK (19.30 Europe/13.30 EST/10.30 PST) Speakers include: Martha Lane Fox - lastminute.com Clark Boyd ­ BBC Ron Deibert ­ Open Net Initiative Sami Ben Garbia ­ Tunisian cyber-dissident Josh Wolf ­ US cyber-dissident Morton Sklar ­Yahoo! Court case Yan Sham-Shackleton ­ glutter.org Markus Beckedahl ­Network Media Kevin Anderson ­ The Guardian Shava Nerad ­ The Onion Router With contributions from: Jimmy Wales ­ wikipedia Richard Stallman ­ Free Software Movement Ethan Zuckerman ­ Global Voices Dan Gillmor ­ Center for Citizen Media Yu Ling ­ wife of Chinese cyber-dissident Cory Doctorow ­ boing boing Š and You You can watch the debate live by webcast, ask questions, make comments and put your point across at: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/webcast For a sneak preview of the event go to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/irrepressible 6 June 2007, 18.30 - 21.00 UK Time Some People Think the Internet is a Bad Thing: The Struggle for Freedom of Expression in Cyberspace A unique global event linking activists from around the world to discuss the struggle against internet repression. Wherever you are, you will be able to watch the debate live on the day by webcast, and ask questions at www.amnesty.org.uk/webca ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 2 05:40:27 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:40:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <46611BA6.6010701@cavebear.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0705312322t34833863qb0fe39b4c66f84b9@mail.gmail.com> <46604002.8020901@cavebear.com> <4660BDD4.5060307@Malcolm.id.au> <46611BA6.6010701@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46613B0B.3040404@Malcolm.id.au> Karl Auerbach wrote: >> It is also about shaping opinions. It can thus narrow areas of >> difference to be resolved through other mechanisms of governance (such >> as rules, norms, markets, or architecture). > > I'm having some trouble appreciating what you are saying; and I sense > that we may have a fundamentally different view of what this thing > "internet governance" is. ...snip... > To my mind, only those techo-internet matters that require, and I mean > really require, a unified, singular body to make binding decisions, are > matters that require a layer of internet governance. Then yes, we do have a fundamentally different view of Internet governance. Recall that the WGIG defined Internet governance as "the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." This is a much broader conception of Internet governance than that of a unified, singular body making binding decisions. It is actually loosely derived from the accepted definition of a "regime" in international relations theory, which is broad enough to encompass all manner of public and private, hard and soft arrangements that shape the behaviour and expectations of actors in a given issue area. > In other words, to me, the term "internet governance" ought to be > reserved for those internet techno things that really and truly require > one choice that binds everyone. I see this as one of three spheres of Internet governance, that I refer to as "technical coordination", though there is no universally accepted term for it. The other two spheres I refer to as "standards development" and "public policy governance". Again, terminology varies, but I do think that your definition of "Internet governance" is nowadays unusually narrow. > I sense that > you are considering governance in a broader way that isn't necessarily > coercive and admits of private choice that is contrary to the decision > of the governance body. Sure. > If we drop the qualifier "internet" from "internet governance" then, I > submit, we've entered a whole new ball game. Once we start dealing with > matters that go beyond the technical necessities of the net, then we are > engaging in World Governance with a big 'W' and a big 'G'. Much as I > think we want to improve the world, I'm not particularly optimistic > about the chances of success if we enter that arena. You mean, matters like openness, security, access and diversity? -- 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 avri at psg.com Sat Jun 2 08:11:07 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 08:11:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> References: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Thank you to all who sent your best wishes and congratulations. I hope I can do well and will try to do so. It means a lot to me that many of you think i might be able to. Warmest regards, 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 lists at privaterra.info Sat Jun 2 11:04:10 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:04:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshops for Rio In-Reply-To: <20070602070211.5DA985CA4@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070602070211.5DA985CA4@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <0E924CF6-0F59-4AF0-AD4D-AC92180E313B@privaterra.info> Parminder: Thanks for suggesting the topics in your earlier email. A proposal - Let me suggest we develop a document that tries to match topics the IG Caucus might want to propose to the IGF mandate (below) any decisions and/or recommendations already specified by the IGF advisory group. Given recent developments the issue of - cybersecurity - comes up quite often. It is an area where , in my opinion, capacity building and multi-stakeholder dialogue could be quite strategic. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 --- IGF Mandate and comments for proposed topics for IGF/Rio (07) -- 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to: 1. Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet; 2. Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross- cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; 3. Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; 4. Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; 5. Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; 6. Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; 7. Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; 8. Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise; 9. Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes; 10. Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; 11. Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; 12. Publish its proceedings ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Sat Jun 2 17:37:14 2007 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:37:14 -0000 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... Message-ID: <200706022137.VAA07029@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Congratulations Avri, Wish you all the best as the chair of GNSO. Qusai --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by Jeanette Hofmann on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:04:44 +0200. --- Original Message --- > > > to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society would > have achieved this?! > 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 > > > to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society would > have achieved this?! > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Sat Jun 2 18:04:40 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:04:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <200706022137.VAA07029@safat.kisr.edu.kw> References: <200706022137.VAA07029@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: <2027478383-1180821959-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1997900326-@bxe012.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Congratulayions, Avri, that's brilliant! Willie Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: "Qusai Al-Shatti" Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:37:14 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Congratulations.... Congratulations Avri, Wish you all the best as the chair of GNSO. Qusai --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by Jeanette Hofmann on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:04:44 +0200. --- Original Message --- > > > to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society would > have achieved this?! > 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 > > > to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society would > have achieved this?! > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dave at isoc-mu.org Sat Jun 2 23:55:51 2007 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 07:55:51 +0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <4660439C.7040600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <002301c7a593$141a4530$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> Congratulations Avri and best of luck Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- 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 Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:05 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... to Avri Doria as the new GNSO chair! Who else from civil society would have achieved this?! 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 -------------- 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 Sun Jun 3 01:24:23 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 01:24:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <200706022137.VAA07029@safat.kisr.edu.kw> References: <200706022137.VAA07029@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410706022224r6919d60ave5b32d400f13e0f6@mail.gmail.com> And from here too Avri, congratulations to you, and to us as also as very much benefiting in your election. Best wishes, Linda. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falklff *Respectful Interfaces*. On 6/2/07, Qusai Al-Shatti wrote: > > Congratulations Avri, Wish you all the best as the chair of GNSO. > Qusai > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From rbloem at ngocongo.org Sun Jun 3 12:20:05 2007 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 18:20:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congrats Message-ID: <200706031620.l53GK66L026356@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear Avri, Since I am only from time to time lurking at the Governance list, let me also wish you great success in your new task, and congrats from heart! Renate Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mil: rbloem 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 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Sun Jun 3 14:40:50 2007 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:40:50 -0600 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410706022224r6919d60ave5b32d400f13e0f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200706022137.VAA07029@safat.kisr.edu.kw> <8cbfe7410706022224r6919d60ave5b32d400f13e0f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46630B32.9010203@umontreal.ca> Congratulations Avri, Cheers, Jeremy S. --------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Shtern Researcher: the media at McGill unit for critical communication studies & PhD candidate (ABD): Université de Montréal, département de communication jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca ---------------------------------------------------- l.d.misek-falkoff wrote: > And from here too Avri, > congratulations to you, and to us as also as very much benefiting in > your election. > > Best wishes, Linda. > Dr. L. D. Misek-Falklff > *Respectful Interfaces*. > > > On 6/2/07, *Qusai Al-Shatti* > wrote: > > Congratulations Avri, Wish you all the best as the chair of GNSO. > Qusai > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 02:22:58 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:22:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <465F3AEA.1000203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0706032322w50668c72h8a72516069ad0c08@mail.gmail.com> Fair questions, Izumi, You wrote : "Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and proceed both? Or am I naive that we first need to resolve the process in order to proceed to the substance?" My spontaneous answer is : - both issues (process/structure and content/speakers) must be dealt with at the same time, in a co-evolving manner , but nothing is a prerequisite for discussing the speakers for Rio, - as a matter of fact, the IGF process is an issue that the IGF can discuss itself, and the emerging "fifth theme", will necessarily evolve towards that, - in terms of "mechanisms to separate the two issues" (of process and substance), the first method is to continue separate threads on this list, the other one is to help those interested to interact more closely on these topics. To echo Adam's comment, it may also be time to make this discussion a bit more multi-stakeholder. Although I know a certain number of government representatives are actually lurking on this list (and that's good), they do not feel comfortable expressing themselves. Would people be interested in a workshop in Rio on these issues ? how could it be prepared ? Could it have a more "open Forum format" to engage as many participants as possible, rather than a mere "panel" type ? Nowhere else than on this list has the discussion been conducted on these themes at that level of depth. Those interested could discuss this on a specific thread. The Giganet is also obviously a space gathering academics interested in those issues. Likewise for the IGP. I am certain some government representatives would be willing to get involved in a sincere discussion. We certainly can find a few actors to co-organize something. The key challenge will be to frame the process discussion in a way that covers the preoccupation of the different parties. This means both a workshop title and a list of sub-themes or facets. Let's think about it. Best Bertrand On 6/1/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I tend to agree with Adam, too. > > However, I also think the process/structure question is important > and worth to discuss, I don't think it's a waste of time, but substantive > discussion on issues and contents/programs/speakers are of > equal, if not more, importance for us. > > Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and > proceed both? Or am I naiive that we first need to resolve the process in > order to proceed to the substance? > > I don't think so. > > izumi > > 2007/6/1, Adam Peake : > > At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is > > >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more > > >properly be discussing the programme: > > > > > > Couldn't agree more. We are wasting time and opportunities. > > > > Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another > > couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is > > needed. > > > > We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF. There is no agenda. > > There are no speakers. There is a call for workshops, but we do not > > know on what subjects. We have been told some workshops will be > > linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these > > linked "sub-theme" workshops. > > > > Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we > > should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical > > Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of > > "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas > > for workshops, these are things we do well. > > > > On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the > > one who wanted the IGF. Other stakeholders took it as a compromise, > > IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from > > happening. They aren't going to move where want on process. Our > > egalitarian vision isn't really shared. > > > > And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil > > society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look > > at Openness in particular, btw is now being > > parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working > > groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF > > itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we > > were at the end of the Tunis Summit. > > > > I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate > > discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop > > proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners. These are > > 200-300 person meeting rooms. Quite large. And free (no fee.) > > > > No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet > > Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC > > anyone?) > > > > > > >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly > > >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of > > >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's 'messages from the > > >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What > > >other issues are there which could be matched with specific > > >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome > > >that could be contained in a 'message'? > > > > > > What's wrong with just better reporting. Can giganet provide > > rapporteurs? They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not > > use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to > > encourage more dynamic coalitions. > > > > > > >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN > > >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on > > >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with > > >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings > > >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy > > >war with the US, with Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as > > >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of > > >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think > > >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil > > >society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we should communicate > > >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A > > >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how > > >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable > > >manner. > > > > > > I would turn this around. If we are going to make a proposal on > > process, begin by working with the other stakeholders. > > Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder. > > > > Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least > > to the EU governments? If not, we'll be wasting our time sending > > anything to the Secretary General. We might even do ourselves harm > > by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary > > General proposes isn't what we asked for. > > > > > > >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the > > >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > > > > > Agree. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Willie > > > > > >Sent via ... deleted :-) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From rishi at gipi.org.in Mon Jun 4 02:35:53 2007 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 12:05:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Congratulations.... In-Reply-To: <46630B32.9010203@umontreal.ca> Message-ID: Congratulations Avri and assuring you of all co-operation. Best wishes and regards Rishi Chawla ISOC India -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Shtern [mailto:jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Congratulations.... Congratulations Avri, Cheers, Jeremy S. --------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Shtern Researcher: the media at McGill unit for critical communication studies & PhD candidate (ABD): Université de Montréal, département de communication jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca ---------------------------------------------------- l.d.misek-falkoff wrote: > And from here too Avri, > congratulations to you, and to us as also as very much benefiting in > your election. > > Best wishes, Linda. > Dr. L. D. Misek-Falklff > *Respectful Interfaces*. > > > On 6/2/07, *Qusai Al-Shatti* > wrote: > > Congratulations Avri, Wish you all the best as the chair of GNSO. > Qusai > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 4 03:09:32 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:09:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706032322w50668c72h8a72516069ad0c08@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <465F3AEA.1000203@cavebear.com> <954259bd0706032322w50668c72h8a72516069ad0c08@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Bertrand for your reply. 2007/6/4, Bertrand de La Chapelle : > Fair questions, Izumi, > > You wrote : "Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and > proceed both? Or am I naive that we first need to resolve the process in > order to proceed to the substance?" > > My spontaneous answer is : > - both issues (process/structure and content/speakers) must be dealt with at > the same time, in a co-evolving manner , but nothing is a prerequisite for > discussing the speakers for Rio, I understand and agree that. In terms of substance, ie content/speakers, are we, as Civil Society, or Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in particular, trying to come up with a single voice for the Rio IGF. (Again so sorry for my ignorance since I have not read all the positings here. ) As far as I remember, there was no attempt as such at Athens. I mean different parties among CS made separate efforts which is of course OK. So the question may be: Do we, should we or could we act as a single voice at Rio IGF? If so where and how? Honestly, I am not so sure if we CAN do that. IT will be worth a try, but given the limited time and possible merit, I am not so keen. best, izumi > - as a matter of fact, the IGF process is an issue that the IGF can discuss > itself, and the emerging "fifth theme", will necessarily evolve towards > that, > - in terms of "mechanisms to separate the two issues" (of process and > substance), the first method is to continue separate threads on this list, > the other one is to help those interested to interact more closely on these > topics. > > To echo Adam's comment, it may also be time to make this discussion a bit > more multi-stakeholder. Although I know a certain number of government > representatives are actually lurking on this list (and that's good), they do > not feel comfortable expressing themselves. > > Would people be interested in a workshop in Rio on these issues ? how could > it be prepared ? Could it have a more "open Forum format" to engage as many > participants as possible, rather than a mere "panel" type ? > > Nowhere else than on this list has the discussion been conducted on these > themes at that level of depth. Those interested could discuss this on a > specific thread. The Giganet is also obviously a space gathering academics > interested in those issues. Likewise for the IGP. I am certain some > government representatives would be willing to get involved in a sincere > discussion. We certainly can find a few actors to co-organize something. > > The key challenge will be to frame the process discussion in a way that > covers the preoccupation of the different parties. This means both a > workshop title and a list of sub-themes or facets. > > Let's think about it. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On 6/1/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I tend to agree with Adam, too. > > > > However, I also think the process/structure question is important > > and worth to discuss, I don't think it's a waste of time, but substantive > > discussion on issues and contents/programs/speakers are of > > equal, if not more, importance for us. > > > > Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and > > proceed both? Or am I naiive that we first need to resolve the process in > > order to proceed to the substance? > > > > I don't think so. > > > > izumi > > > > 2007/6/1, Adam Peake < ajp at glocom.ac.jp>: > > > At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is > > > >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more > > > >properly be discussing the programme: > > > > > > > > > Couldn't agree more. We are wasting time and opportunities. > > > > > > Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another > > > couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is > > > needed. > > > > > > We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF. There is no agenda. > > > There are no speakers. There is a call for workshops, but we do not > > > know on what subjects. We have been told some workshops will be > > > linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these > > > linked "sub-theme" workshops. > > > > > > Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we > > > should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical > > > Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of > > > "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas > > > for workshops, these are things we do well. > > > > > > On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the > > > one who wanted the IGF. Other stakeholders took it as a compromise, > > > IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from > > > happening. They aren't going to move where want on process. Our > > > egalitarian vision isn't really shared. > > > > > > And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil > > > society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look > > > at Openness in particular, btw < igf-greece2006.org> is now being > > > parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working > > > groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF > > > itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we > > > were at the end of the Tunis Summit. > > > > > > I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate > > > discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop > > > proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners. These are > > > 200-300 person meeting rooms. Quite large. And free (no fee.) > > > > > > No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet > > > Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC > > > anyone?) > > > > > > > > > >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly > > > >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of > > > >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's 'messages from the > > > >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What > > > >other issues are there which could be matched with specific > > > >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome > > > >that could be contained in a 'message'? > > > > > > > > > What's wrong with just better reporting. Can giganet provide > > > rapporteurs? They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not > > > use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to > > > encourage more dynamic coalitions. > > > > > > > > > >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN > > > >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on > > > >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with > > > >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings > > > >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy > > > >war with the US, with Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as > > > >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of > > > >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think > > > >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil > > > >society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we should communicate > > > >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A > > > >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how > > > >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable > > > >manner. > > > > > > > > > I would turn this around. If we are going to make a proposal on > > > process, begin by working with the other stakeholders. > > > Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder. > > > > > > Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least > > > to the EU governments? If not, we'll be wasting our time sending > > > anything to the Secretary General. We might even do ourselves harm > > > by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary > > > General proposes isn't what we asked for. > > > > > > > > > >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the > > > >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > >Willie > > > > > > > >Sent via ... deleted :-) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -- >> 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 Abdullateef at Abdulaziz.com Mon Jun 4 07:00:28 2007 From: Abdullateef at Abdulaziz.com (Abdullateef Al-Abdulrazzaq) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:00:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Congratulations... Message-ID: <031b01c7a697$951f08a0$bf5d19e0$@com> Congratulation Avri and all the best as the chair of GNSO. Abdullateef Al-Abdulrazzaq -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Abdullateef at abdulaziz.com Sun Jun 3 21:02:22 2007 From: Abdullateef at abdulaziz.com (Abdullateef Al-Abdulrazzaq) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:02:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Congratulations... Message-ID: <01ab70e1901d909d6a9cc5cac5f4d99a@abdulaziz.com> Congratulation Avri and all the best as the chair of GNSO. � Abdullateef Al-Abdulrazzaq -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dina_hov at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 07:16:07 2007 From: dina_hov at yahoo.com (dina) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 04:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure workshop in Rio on these issues (some ideas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <383734.41860.qm@web43143.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Izumi AIZU wrote: Thank you Bertrand for your reply. 2007/6/4, Bertrand de La Chapelle : > Fair questions, Izumi, > > You wrote : "Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and > proceed both? Or am I naive that we first need to resolve the process in > order to proceed to the substance?" > > My spontaneous answer is : > - both issues (process/structure and content/speakers) must be dealt with at > the same time, in a co-evolving manner , but nothing is a prerequisite for > discussing the speakers for Rio, I understand and agree that. In terms of substance, ie content/speakers, are we, as Civil Society, or Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in particular, trying to come up with a single voice for the Rio IGF. (Again so sorry for my ignorance since I have not read all the positings here. ) As far as I remember, there was no attempt as such at Athens. I mean different parties among CS made separate efforts which is of course OK. So the question may be: Do we, should we or could we act as a single voice at Rio IGF? If so where and how? Honestly, I am not so sure if we CAN do that. IT will be worth a try, but given the limited time and possible merit, I am not so keen. best, izumi > - as a matter of fact, the IGF process is an issue that the IGF can discuss > itself, and the emerging "fifth theme", will necessarily evolve towards > that, > - in terms of "mechanisms to separate the two issues" (of process and > substance), the first method is to continue separate threads on this list, > the other one is to help those interested to interact more closely on these > topics. > > To echo Adam's comment, it may also be time to make this discussion a bit > more multi-stakeholder. Although I know a certain number of government > representatives are actually lurking on this list (and that's good), they do > not feel comfortable expressing themselves. > > Would people be interested in a workshop in Rio on these issues ? how could > it be prepared ? Could it have a more "open Forum format" to engage as many > participants as possible, rather than a mere "panel" type ? > > Nowhere else than on this list has the discussion been conducted on these > themes at that level of depth. Those interested could discuss this on a > specific thread. The Giganet is also obviously a space gathering academics > interested in those issues. Likewise for the IGP. I am certain some > government representatives would be willing to get involved in a sincere > discussion. We certainly can find a few actors to co-organize something. > > The key challenge will be to frame the process discussion in a way that > covers the preoccupation of the different parties. This means both a > workshop title and a list of sub-themes or facets. > > Let's think about it. > > Best > Bertrand > > > On 6/1/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I tend to agree with Adam, too. > > > > However, I also think the process/structure question is important > > and worth to discuss, I don't think it's a waste of time, but substantive > > discussion on issues and contents/programs/speakers are of > > equal, if not more, importance for us. > > > > Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and > > proceed both? Or am I naiive that we first need to resolve the process in > > order to proceed to the substance? > > > > I don't think so. > > > > izumi > > > > 2007/6/1, Adam Peake < ajp at glocom.ac.jp>: > > > At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is > > > >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more > > > >properly be discussing the programme: > > > > > > > > > Couldn't agree more. We are wasting time and opportunities. > > > > > > Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another > > > couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is > > > needed. > > > > > > We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF. There is no agenda. > > > There are no speakers. There is a call for workshops, but we do not > > > know on what subjects. We have been told some workshops will be > > > linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these > > > linked "sub-theme" workshops. > > > > > > Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we > > > should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical > > > Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of > > > "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas > > > for workshops, these are things we do well. > > > > > > On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the > > > one who wanted the IGF. Other stakeholders took it as a compromise, > > > IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from > > > happening. They aren't going to move where want on process. Our > > > egalitarian vision isn't really shared. > > > > > > And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil > > > society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look > > > at Openness in particular, btw < igf-greece2006.org> is now being > > > parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working > > > groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF > > > itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we > > > were at the end of the Tunis Summit. > > > > > > I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate > > > discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop > > > proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners. These are > > > 200-300 person meeting rooms. Quite large. And free (no fee.) > > > > > > No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet > > > Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC > > > anyone?) > > > > > > > > > >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly > > > >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of > > > >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's 'messages from the > > > >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What > > > >other issues are there which could be matched with specific > > > >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome > > > >that could be contained in a 'message'? > > > > > > > > > What's wrong with just better reporting. Can giganet provide > > > rapporteurs? They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not > > > use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to > > > encourage more dynamic coalitions. > > > > > > > > > >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN > > > >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on > > > >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with > > > >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings > > > >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy > > > >war with the US, with Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as > > > >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of > > > >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think > > > >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil > > > >society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we should communicate > > > >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A > > > >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how > > > >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable > > > >manner. > > > > > > > > > I would turn this around. If we are going to make a proposal on > > > process, begin by working with the other stakeholders. > > > Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder. > > > > > > Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least > > > to the EU governments? If not, we'll be wasting our time sending > > > anything to the Secretary General. We might even do ourselves harm > > > by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary > > > General proposes isn't what we asked for. > > > > > > > > > >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the > > > >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > >Willie > > > > > > > >Sent via ... deleted :-) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -- >> 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 Dina Hovakmian Tel:098 21 88053586 Fax:098 21 88031879 0912 119 7840--mobile E-mail: dina_hov at yahoo.com --------------------------------- The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 07:24:56 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:24:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] The Karl-Jeremy exchange Message-ID: <954259bd0706040424p32f847dei844e7daa16ce5150@mail.gmail.com> Karl, Jeremy, Your brief exchange below is the most concise expression so far of an ongoing debate on this list from its very inception. I thought it was an opportunity worth seizing to, very tentatively, explain why, behind your apparent "fundamental different views of what this thing "Internet governance" is", I believe you actually simply describe different and complementary aspects of the same reality, in large part because of your personal history (hope neither of you will be offended by what's below). I hope this will help all of us understand better the different facets of the task we are all facing and the long-term promises of the fragile experiment that the IGF represents. 1) On your apparent opposition This exchange seems to highlight all the dichotomies we are constantly grappling with (below are voluntary exaggerated versions of the actual positions). This covers in particular an apparent opposition : - between a limitation to "techno-internet matters" and an extension to issues related to usage in a much broader sense - between the historic technical group to which we owe the development of this amazing infrastructure and the political scientists who now want to address the organization of the global polity(ies) that emerged because of this tool - between the proponents of as little regulation as possible (when a "unified binding decision-making single structure is absolutely required") and those who believe a diversity of "regimes" and structures with various levels of enforcement capacity is required to address a broad diversity of issues - between those who fear a too broad notion of "Internet Governance" may lead to Global Governance in general with an overtone of government control and those who hope that this is indeed a laboratory for other governance frameworks at the global level that will precisely avoid the traditional, exclusively intergovernmental approach. 2) The personal factors As an advertisement I recently saw in an airport says : "a different viewpoint is often a view from a place where you are not". Your viewpoints are not contradictory : they describe different facets of the same reality, observed by two people with a different personal history. Indeed, it should not be surprising that the Karl-Jeremy exchange below is between individuals from two completely different generations and personal background. Karl has a decades-long involvement in those issues. He has witnessed the evolutions of the Internet from the onset and knows that the original very light framework based on simple interoperability protocols and open, peer-based and rough consensus decision-shaping processes was the key to the Internet success. To him (apologies for putting words in your mouth, Karl, correct me if I say anything you don't like), understandably, the WSIS, when it appeared on the horizon, could only trigger legitimate fears, as a heavy, UN -labelled process imposed from the outside on the existing Internet community, through which governments (and possibly intergovernmental agencies) would want to regain control on a self-organizing system. And, to say the truth, many aspects of the WSIS did nothing to alleviate those fears. Hence his natural focus today on what allows the Internet to exist in the first place (the preservation of its fundamental enabling technical principles) and a persistent note of caution regarding the importance of individuals as opposed to organizations that too often tend to capture representation. In that perspective, broadening the definition of Internet governance is seen as an important and still untested evolution; caution should be exercised while shaping those new "multi-stakeholder" processes to make sure that they do not affect negatively the spirit of the Internet. Jeremy, on the other hand, is what we could call a "WSIS native". Even almost an Internet Governance Forum native, who got involved in this field at a much later stage through the angle of the policy-making dimension. To him and many people who will join this process from now on (here again, Jeremy is clearly invited to correct any thought I attribute to him), the definition of Internet Governance included in the Tunis Agenda is almost a self-evident truth, or at least a starting point to build upon and not the result of a painful elaboration process that many actors still only reluctantly endorse. His natural tendency is to connect this definition to a broader regime theory and to focus on the organization of human activities on the Internet, and to see the positive transformational potential this new approach entails at a broader level. In a nutshell, and once again to overly simplify positions, Karl may underestimate the actual progress achieved in Tunis with the creation of the IGF and how much it potentially could improve traditional intergovernmental mechanisms if correctly implemented. Jeremy, on the contrary, may overestimate the real level of agreement among actors (and particularly governments) in favor of this new, multi-stakeholder approach. Excessive caution and excessive enthusiasm are the two dangers that threaten the IGF in the present stage : the IGF is far from perfect but it deserves to be allowed to address broader issues than very limited technical ones (some of which are by the way also very contentious); ont he contrary, trying to make it move too fast can hurt it and produce backlash. Karl's caution and Jeremy's enthusiasm regarding this experiment are not contradictory; they complement each other as they are just representative of the two forces that will guarantee the success of the IGF if we can combine them dynamically. 3) Common grounds Following the above, a few elements can be highlighted : - both Karl and Jeremy are individuals, whose involvement in the IGF process is not trough any organization; there is no better illustration of the originality of the IGF; both, with others, are illustrating the capacity of individuals to contribute and "represent viewpoints" rathr than people; Karl should use this forum as much as possible to push his views forward : they will receive much more echo than in the former, more rigid framework of the WSIS; - Karl's focus on "internet techno things" and Jeremy's focus on "policy" correspond to the two dimensions of Internet Governance mentionned in para 35 of Tunis : "We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues" and in the definition of Internet Governance in para 34 : "the evolution and use of the Internet"; complementarity again, not opposition; - regimes can have very different levels of uniformity and enforceability, such as : mere regular consultations among stakeholders, elaboration of common non-binding guidelines and recommendations, but also, potentially, full-fledged regimes including creation of ad hoc bodies able to take binding decisions (caution : this does not mean it should be the role of the IGF to elaborate such binding regimes); hence Karl's 'limited Internet Governance" approach is simply one instance of the diversity of regimes that could exist in the Internet Governance "toolbox" Jeremy seems to envisage. 4) Clarifications Beyond these common elements, there are still two elements that deserve more exploration : - Karl makes reference to "the governance body" as if there were (or should be) one single Internet Governance Body. This probably will not be the case and I do not think he means in the context of the broad definition of IG. Several entities may be ultimately tasked with different issues, with different corresponding regimes to implement. Just like at the national level, different agencies handle antitrust, privacy, telecom regulation etc... I believe we are clearly not talking about a future framework where one entity is in charge of every aspect of Internet Governance. The difficulty of ICANN to address issues such as .xxx (because of the content regulation dimension) or whois policy (because of the privacy dimension) is a good illustration of that. Even the IGF is probably just the dialog space for all concerned stakeholders to exchange on how and where the elaboration of a regime for a given issue should take place. Internet Governance should probably work like the Internet and the Web do : in a distributed, networked manner, uniting diverse governance mechanisms and frameworks through common interoperability protocols. - Karl is absolutely right in raising the issue of binding decisions and how they should be made : this is an open question. But there is a distinction to make between regimes that bind only those who participated in their elaboration and implement them among themselves (regimes similar to agreed standards) and regimes that potentially are applicable to third parties or have impact on them even if they did not participate in their elaboration or even opposed them. The analogy is the majority rule in national legislations when a decision has to be taken and consensus is not achievable because of opposing interests. This is what governments have the responsibility to do at the national level and their designation process (elections, etc...) is supposed to provide them with the legitimacy to take decisions applicable to all citizens. At the international level, such legitimacy processes do not exist yet in general. This is a key challenge. 5) Internet Governance and World Governance (with a big W and a big G :-) The KJ exchange in its final paragraph points towards an important prospective issue. Are we "entering a whole new ball game" and "engaging in World Governance with a big 'W' and a big 'G'" if we move beyond technical issues ? The now well-known Tunis definition of Internet Governance is : "Internet Governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." Let's step back for a second and notice that : - "Principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures" is exactly the description of a regime in traditional regime theory (the mention of "programmes" is a mere addition in the digital age to the list of possible components in a regime; it's basically a "law embedded in code" type of approach - the mirror image of Lessig's "code is law") - "the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles" is the fundamental notion of multi-stakeholderism (the modalities of which have of course to be invented) Given the above, you now get a more compact definition of Internet Governance that could read : *"Internet Governance is the multi-stakeholder development and application of regimes shaping the evolution and use of the Internet."* No change of substance, just a more compact formulation. If you then replace Internet by an abstract domain Z, you get something like : "the governance of [domain Z] is the multi-stakeholder elaboration and application of regimes [related to domain Z]". Now, try replacing [domain Z] by your favorite pet global issue and you might well have a generic definition of governance for global issues. This is why the success of the IGF experiment, in spite of its modest and fragile present beginning, is of the highest importance for all stakeholders, including governments. Internet Governance is a test case for processes that are dearly needed to address the issues of an increasingly interdependent world, because they are more and more difficult to handle in the sole framework of intergovernmental negotiations. __________________ I hope this (too) long post helps bridge a difference of viewpoints that actually permeates through the whole Caucus and helps us move forward. It is not intended to trigger a new debate and I hope I did not ruffle any feathers here in getting a bit on the personal side. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to discuss that face to face whenever the opportunity comes (in an IGF workshop in Rio on the future Internet governance architecture / framework ?). Best to you all. Bertrand On 6/2/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> It is also about shaping opinions. It can thus narrow areas of > >> difference to be resolved through other mechanisms of governance (such > >> as rules, norms, markets, or architecture). > > > > I'm having some trouble appreciating what you are saying; and I sense > > that we may have a fundamentally different view of what this thing > > "internet governance" is. > ...snip... > > To my mind, only those techo-internet matters that require, and I mean > > really require, a unified, singular body to make binding decisions, are > > matters that require a layer of internet governance. > > Then yes, we do have a fundamentally different view of Internet > governance. Recall that the WGIG defined Internet governance as "the > development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil > society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, > decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and > use of the Internet." > > This is a much broader conception of Internet governance than that of a > unified, singular body making binding decisions. It is actually loosely > derived from the accepted definition of a "regime" in international > relations theory, which is broad enough to encompass all manner of > public and private, hard and soft arrangements that shape the behaviour > and expectations of actors in a given issue area. > > > In other words, to me, the term "internet governance" ought to be > > reserved for those internet techno things that really and truly require > > one choice that binds everyone. > > I see this as one of three spheres of Internet governance, that I refer > to as "technical coordination", though there is no universally accepted > term for it. The other two spheres I refer to as "standards > development" and "public policy governance". Again, terminology varies, > but I do think that your definition of "Internet governance" is nowadays > unusually narrow. > > > I sense that > > you are considering governance in a broader way that isn't necessarily > > coercive and admits of private choice that is contrary to the decision > > of the governance body. > > Sure. > > > If we drop the qualifier "internet" from "internet governance" then, I > > submit, we've entered a whole new ball game. Once we start dealing with > > matters that go beyond the technical necessities of the net, then we are > > engaging in World Governance with a big 'W' and a big 'G'. Much as I > > think we want to improve the world, I'm not particularly optimistic > > about the chances of success if we enter that arena. > > You mean, matters like openness, security, access and diversity? > > -- > 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}' > ____________________________________________________________ > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jun 4 07:27:00 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:27:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706032322w50668c72h8a72516069ad0c08@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <465F3AEA.1000203@cavebear.com> <954259bd0706032322w50668c72h8a72516069ad0c08@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 8:22 AM +0200 6/4/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Fair questions, Izumi, > >You wrote : "Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and >proceed both? Or am I naive that we first need to resolve the process in >order to  proceed to the substance?" > >My spontaneous answer is : >- both issues (process/structure and >content/speakers) must be dealt with at the same >time, in a co-evolving manner , but nothing is a >prerequisite for discussing the speakers for Rio, I wouldn't worry so much about speakers, instead as individuals (representatives of different expert groups and organizations) think about workshops they would like to organize. >- as a matter of fact, the IGF process is an >issue that the IGF can discuss itself, and the >emerging "fifth theme", will necessarily evolve >towards that, >- in terms of "mechanisms to separate the two >issues" (of process and substance), the first >method is to continue separate threads on this >list, the other one is to help those interested >to interact more closely on these topics. > >To echo Adam's comment, it may also be time to >make this discussion a bit more >multi-stakeholder. Although I know a certain >number of government representatives are >actually lurking on this list (and that's good), >they do not feel comfortable expressing >themselves. > >Would people be interested in a workshop in Rio >on these issues ? how could it be prepared ? >Could it have a more "open Forum format" to >engage as many participants as possible, rather >than a mere "panel" type ? > Parminder suggested the caucus might try to organize 3 workshops (as multi-stakeholder events) on the themes we had proposed as main sessions: At 12:32 PM +0530 6/2/07, Parminder wrote: > >(1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions >(2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the >Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG >(this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) >(3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF > Would the 3rd be a fit with what we're discussing here. To respond to Izumi's question about civil society trying to speak with a single voice, I think he's right to say we might not be able to do that. And I'd go further and say we shouldn't try. Working on workshop proposals such as the 3 Parminder suggested, that we already agree (to a degree) should be discussed in Rio, seems a good idea. But we can't try to develop common positions/single voice. 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 4 12:09:04 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:09:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Karl-Jeremy exchange Message-ID: Bertrand, Well said. Now that you've made it clear this isn't about governments taking over the Internet, but gasp, really just us academic poli sci types taking over (horrors!) and trying to lend some theory to the cross-institutional etc governance of the thing, echoing Adam, can we talk about what we want to talk about in Rio? Meaning, the 3 workshops? Are we looking for igc volunteers to take the lead on organizing the various sessions? Or do Parminder and Vittorio have to do all the work? All in favor of that option say aye ; ) Or who is volunteering to help coordinate one or another session? Each might require an instant virtual org cte of its own... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 6/4/2007 7:24 AM >>> Karl, Jeremy, Your brief exchange below is the most concise expression so far of an ongoing debate on this list from its very inception. I thought it was an opportunity worth seizing to, very tentatively, explain why, behind your apparent "fundamental different views of what this thing "Internet governance" is", I believe you actually simply describe different and complementary aspects of the same reality, in large part because of your personal history (hope neither of you will be offended by what's below). I hope this will help all of us understand better the different facets of the task we are all facing and the long-term promises of the fragile experiment that the IGF represents. 1) On your apparent opposition This exchange seems to highlight all the dichotomies we are constantly grappling with (below are voluntary exaggerated versions of the actual positions). This covers in particular an apparent opposition : - between a limitation to "techno-internet matters" and an extension to issues related to usage in a much broader sense - between the historic technical group to which we owe the development of this amazing infrastructure and the political scientists who now want to address the organization of the global polity(ies) that emerged because of this tool - between the proponents of as little regulation as possible (when a "unified binding decision-making single structure is absolutely required") and those who believe a diversity of "regimes" and structures with various levels of enforcement capacity is required to address a broad diversity of issues - between those who fear a too broad notion of "Internet Governance" may lead to Global Governance in general with an overtone of government control and those who hope that this is indeed a laboratory for other governance frameworks at the global level that will precisely avoid the traditional, exclusively intergovernmental approach. 2) The personal factors As an advertisement I recently saw in an airport says : "a different viewpoint is often a view from a place where you are not". Your viewpoints are not contradictory : they describe different facets of the same reality, observed by two people with a different personal history. Indeed, it should not be surprising that the Karl-Jeremy exchange below is between individuals from two completely different generations and personal background. Karl has a decades-long involvement in those issues. He has witnessed the evolutions of the Internet from the onset and knows that the original very light framework based on simple interoperability protocols and open, peer-based and rough consensus decision-shaping processes was the key to the Internet success. To him (apologies for putting words in your mouth, Karl, correct me if I say anything you don't like), understandably, the WSIS, when it appeared on the horizon, could only trigger legitimate fears, as a heavy, UN -labelled process imposed from the outside on the existing Internet community, through which governments (and possibly intergovernmental agencies) would want to regain control on a self-organizing system. And, to say the truth, many aspects of the WSIS did nothing to alleviate those fears. Hence his natural focus today on what allows the Internet to exist in the first place (the preservation of its fundamental enabling technical principles) and a persistent note of caution regarding the importance of individuals as opposed to organizations that too often tend to capture representation. In that perspective, broadening the definition of Internet governance is seen as an important and still untested evolution; caution should be exercised while shaping those new "multi-stakeholder" processes to make sure that they do not affect negatively the spirit of the Internet. Jeremy, on the other hand, is what we could call a "WSIS native". Even almost an Internet Governance Forum native, who got involved in this field at a much later stage through the angle of the policy-making dimension. To him and many people who will join this process from now on (here again, Jeremy is clearly invited to correct any thought I attribute to him), the definition of Internet Governance included in the Tunis Agenda is almost a self-evident truth, or at least a starting point to build upon and not the result of a painful elaboration process that many actors still only reluctantly endorse. His natural tendency is to connect this definition to a broader regime theory and to focus on the organization of human activities on the Internet, and to see the positive transformational potential this new approach entails at a broader level. In a nutshell, and once again to overly simplify positions, Karl may underestimate the actual progress achieved in Tunis with the creation of the IGF and how much it potentially could improve traditional intergovernmental mechanisms if correctly implemented. Jeremy, on the contrary, may overestimate the real level of agreement among actors (and particularly governments) in favor of this new, multi-stakeholder approach. Excessive caution and excessive enthusiasm are the two dangers that threaten the IGF in the present stage : the IGF is far from perfect but it deserves to be allowed to address broader issues than very limited technical ones (some of which are by the way also very contentious); ont he contrary, trying to make it move too fast can hurt it and produce backlash. Karl's caution and Jeremy's enthusiasm regarding this experiment are not contradictory; they complement each other as they are just representative of the two forces that will guarantee the success of the IGF if we can combine them dynamically. 3) Common grounds Following the above, a few elements can be highlighted : - both Karl and Jeremy are individuals, whose involvement in the IGF process is not trough any organization; there is no better illustration of the originality of the IGF; both, with others, are illustrating the capacity of individuals to contribute and "represent viewpoints" rathr than people; Karl should use this forum as much as possible to push his views forward : they will receive much more echo than in the former, more rigid framework of the WSIS; - Karl's focus on "internet techno things" and Jeremy's focus on "policy" correspond to the two dimensions of Internet Governance mentionned in para 35 of Tunis : "We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues" and in the definition of Internet Governance in para 34 : "the evolution and use of the Internet"; complementarity again, not opposition; - regimes can have very different levels of uniformity and enforceability, such as : mere regular consultations among stakeholders, elaboration of common non-binding guidelines and recommendations, but also, potentially, full-fledged regimes including creation of ad hoc bodies able to take binding decisions (caution : this does not mean it should be the role of the IGF to elaborate such binding regimes); hence Karl's 'limited Internet Governance" approach is simply one instance of the diversity of regimes that could exist in the Internet Governance "toolbox" Jeremy seems to envisage. 4) Clarifications Beyond these common elements, there are still two elements that deserve more exploration : - Karl makes reference to "the governance body" as if there were (or should be) one single Internet Governance Body. This probably will not be the case and I do not think he means in the context of the broad definition of IG. Several entities may be ultimately tasked with different issues, with different corresponding regimes to implement. Just like at the national level, different agencies handle antitrust, privacy, telecom regulation etc... I believe we are clearly not talking about a future framework where one entity is in charge of every aspect of Internet Governance. The difficulty of ICANN to address issues such as .xxx (because of the content regulation dimension) or whois policy (because of the privacy dimension) is a good illustration of that. Even the IGF is probably just the dialog space for all concerned stakeholders to exchange on how and where the elaboration of a regime for a given issue should take place. Internet Governance should probably work like the Internet and the Web do : in a distributed, networked manner, uniting diverse governance mechanisms and frameworks through common interoperability protocols. - Karl is absolutely right in raising the issue of binding decisions and how they should be made : this is an open question. But there is a distinction to make between regimes that bind only those who participated in their elaboration and implement them among themselves (regimes similar to agreed standards) and regimes that potentially are applicable to third parties or have impact on them even if they did not participate in their elaboration or even opposed them. The analogy is the majority rule in national legislations when a decision has to be taken and consensus is not achievable because of opposing interests. This is what governments have the responsibility to do at the national level and their designation process (elections, etc...) is supposed to provide them with the legitimacy to take decisions applicable to all citizens. At the international level, such legitimacy processes do not exist yet in general. This is a key challenge. 5) Internet Governance and World Governance (with a big W and a big G :-) The KJ exchange in its final paragraph points towards an important prospective issue. Are we "entering a whole new ball game" and "engaging in World Governance with a big 'W' and a big 'G'" if we move beyond technical issues ? The now well-known Tunis definition of Internet Governance is : "Internet Governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." Let's step back for a second and notice that : - "Principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures" is exactly the description of a regime in traditional regime theory (the mention of "programmes" is a mere addition in the digital age to the list of possible components in a regime; it's basically a "law embedded in code" type of approach - the mirror image of Lessig's "code is law") - "the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles" is the fundamental notion of multi-stakeholderism (the modalities of which have of course to be invented) Given the above, you now get a more compact definition of Internet Governance that could read : *"Internet Governance is the multi-stakeholder development and application of regimes shaping the evolution and use of the Internet."* No change of substance, just a more compact formulation. If you then replace Internet by an abstract domain Z, you get something like : "the governance of [domain Z] is the multi-stakeholder elaboration and application of regimes [related to domain Z]". Now, try replacing [domain Z] by your favorite pet global issue and you might well have a generic definition of governance for global issues. This is why the success of the IGF experiment, in spite of its modest and fragile present beginning, is of the highest importance for all stakeholders, including governments. Internet Governance is a test case for processes that are dearly needed to address the issues of an increasingly interdependent world, because they are more and more difficult to handle in the sole framework of intergovernmental negotiations. __________________ I hope this (too) long post helps bridge a difference of viewpoints that actually permeates through the whole Caucus and helps us move forward. It is not intended to trigger a new debate and I hope I did not ruffle any feathers here in getting a bit on the personal side. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to discuss that face to face whenever the opportunity comes (in an IGF workshop in Rio on the future Internet governance architecture / framework ?). Best to you all. Bertrand On 6/2/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> It is also about shaping opinions. It can thus narrow areas of > >> difference to be resolved through other mechanisms of governance (such > >> as rules, norms, markets, or architecture). > > > > I'm having some trouble appreciating what you are saying; and I sense > > that we may have a fundamentally different view of what this thing > > "internet governance" is. > ...snip... > > To my mind, only those techo-internet matters that require, and I mean > > really require, a unified, singular body to make binding decisions, are > > matters that require a layer of internet governance. > > Then yes, we do have a fundamentally different view of Internet > governance. Recall that the WGIG defined Internet governance as "the > development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil > society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, > decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and > use of the Internet." > > This is a much broader conception of Internet governance than that of a > unified, singular body making binding decisions. It is actually loosely > derived from the accepted definition of a "regime" in international > relations theory, which is broad enough to encompass all manner of > public and private, hard and soft arrangements that shape the behaviour > and expectations of actors in a given issue area. > > > In other words, to me, the term "internet governance" ought to be > > reserved for those internet techno things that really and truly require > > one choice that binds everyone. > > I see this as one of three spheres of Internet governance, that I refer > to as "technical coordination", though there is no universally accepted > term for it. The other two spheres I refer to as "standards > development" and "public policy governance". Again, terminology varies, > but I do think that your definition of "Internet governance" is nowadays > unusually narrow. > > > I sense that > > you are considering governance in a broader way that isn't necessarily > > coercive and admits of private choice that is contrary to the decision > > of the governance body. > > Sure. > > > If we drop the qualifier "internet" from "internet governance" then, I > > submit, we've entered a whole new ball game. Once we start dealing with > > matters that go beyond the technical necessities of the net, then we are > > engaging in World Governance with a big 'W' and a big 'G'. Much as I > > think we want to improve the world, I'm not particularly optimistic > > about the chances of success if we enter that arena. > > You mean, matters like openness, security, access and diversity? > > -- > 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}' > ____________________________________________________________ > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 4 12:30:47 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:30:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: Bertrand, I alson agree that organizing the 'Future of the IGF' workshop or whatever title is iinnocuous enough to get on the program, in a multistakeholder fasion, and conducting it as an open Fourm, not just as the usual speakers and audience thing, is a good opportunity. To argue f2f about what we argue about here. Sorry, I meant debate. As to organizing it, collect some names here of org cte volunteers, individuals and co-sponsoring institutions, I presume you can represent the French state/maybe also eu, and there you go. To avoid the mag selection debate for what is after all just the usually thankless job of organizaing a workshop, I suggest you take all volunteers (I recuse myself cleverly for having suggested this method ; ). Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 6/4/2007 2:22 AM >>> Fair questions, Izumi, You wrote : "Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and proceed both? Or am I naive that we first need to resolve the process in order to proceed to the substance?" My spontaneous answer is : - both issues (process/structure and content/speakers) must be dealt with at the same time, in a co-evolving manner , but nothing is a prerequisite for discussing the speakers for Rio, - as a matter of fact, the IGF process is an issue that the IGF can discuss itself, and the emerging "fifth theme", will necessarily evolve towards that, - in terms of "mechanisms to separate the two issues" (of process and substance), the first method is to continue separate threads on this list, the other one is to help those interested to interact more closely on these topics. To echo Adam's comment, it may also be time to make this discussion a bit more multi-stakeholder. Although I know a certain number of government representatives are actually lurking on this list (and that's good), they do not feel comfortable expressing themselves. Would people be interested in a workshop in Rio on these issues ? how could it be prepared ? Could it have a more "open Forum format" to engage as many participants as possible, rather than a mere "panel" type ? Nowhere else than on this list has the discussion been conducted on these themes at that level of depth. Those interested could discuss this on a specific thread. The Giganet is also obviously a space gathering academics interested in those issues. Likewise for the IGP. I am certain some government representatives would be willing to get involved in a sincere discussion. We certainly can find a few actors to co-organize something. The key challenge will be to frame the process discussion in a way that covers the preoccupation of the different parties. This means both a workshop title and a list of sub-themes or facets. Let's think about it. Best Bertrand On 6/1/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I tend to agree with Adam, too. > > However, I also think the process/structure question is important > and worth to discuss, I don't think it's a waste of time, but substantive > discussion on issues and contents/programs/speakers are of > equal, if not more, importance for us. > > Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and > proceed both? Or am I naiive that we first need to resolve the process in > order to proceed to the substance? > > I don't think so. > > izumi > > 2007/6/1, Adam Peake : > > At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is > > >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more > > >properly be discussing the programme: > > > > > > Couldn't agree more. We are wasting time and opportunities. > > > > Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another > > couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is > > needed. > > > > We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF. There is no agenda. > > There are no speakers. There is a call for workshops, but we do not > > know on what subjects. We have been told some workshops will be > > linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these > > linked "sub-theme" workshops. > > > > Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we > > should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical > > Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of > > "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas > > for workshops, these are things we do well. > > > > On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the > > one who wanted the IGF. Other stakeholders took it as a compromise, > > IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from > > happening. They aren't going to move where want on process. Our > > egalitarian vision isn't really shared. > > > > And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil > > society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look > > at Openness in particular, btw is now being > > parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working > > groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF > > itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we > > were at the end of the Tunis Summit. > > > > I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate > > discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop > > proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners. These are > > 200-300 person meeting rooms. Quite large. And free (no fee.) > > > > No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet > > Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC > > anyone?) > > > > > > >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly > > >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of > > >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's 'messages from the > > >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What > > >other issues are there which could be matched with specific > > >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome > > >that could be contained in a 'message'? > > > > > > What's wrong with just better reporting. Can giganet provide > > rapporteurs? They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not > > use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to > > encourage more dynamic coalitions. > > > > > > >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN > > >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on > > >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with > > >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings > > >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy > > >war with the US, with Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as > > >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of > > >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think > > >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil > > >society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we should communicate > > >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A > > >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how > > >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable > > >manner. > > > > > > I would turn this around. If we are going to make a proposal on > > process, begin by working with the other stakeholders. > > Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder. > > > > Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least > > to the EU governments? If not, we'll be wasting our time sending > > anything to the Secretary General. We might even do ourselves harm > > by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary > > General proposes isn't what we asked for. > > > > > > >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the > > >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > > > > > Agree. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Willie > > > > > >Sent via ... deleted :-) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Jun 6 15:03:33 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 21:03:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to the Geneva Security Forum, 20-21 June 2007 Message-ID: <200706061903.l56J2tiX011415@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached an invitation to the inaugural Geneva Security Forum taking place on 20 - 21 June 2007 at Palexpo, Geneva. Participation is free for NGOs, by clicking on the link in the invitation below to process the registration. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org _____ From: bw at genevasecurityforum.net [mailto:bw at genevasecurityforum.net] Sent: mercredi, 6. juin 2007 12:54 To: rbloem at ngocongo.org Subject: Invitation to the Geneva Security Forum, 20-21 June 2007 www.genevasecurityforum.org The Geneva Security Forum is committed to assessing the interconnectedness of international security threats and to advancing flexible fast-moving responses 06.06.2007 FREE EXCLUSIVE INVITATION TO GENEVA-BASED NGOs I am delighted to invite you to participate in the inaugural Geneva Security Forum taking place on 20 - 21 June 2007 at Palexpo, Geneva. New security challenges including increasingly sophisticated hackers, computer viruses, the move to networkcentric warfare, water shortages, the risk of pandemics, migration, the potential impact of rising number of discontented youth among others, have made it clear that a new multistakeholder and IT savvy approach to developing and implementing security solutions is urgently required. Solutions that not only make full use of the latest in information communication technology but that also reach across cultural, religious, economic and geographical divides. The Geneva Security Forum, launched by the Canton of Geneva, with the support of various private sector actors, has as its goal to assess and respond to the interconnectedness of today's security threats by bringing together the key actors from business, government, intergovernmental organizations, academia and civil society to develop recommendations and concrete action plans on implementing interoperable responses to security challenges. Building on Geneva's expertise in humanitarian issues, human rights, environment and international diplomacy, the Forum aims to cultivate the ground for new networks and develop dynamic solutions to security challenges, becoming the place for business and policy-makers to learn about, and prepare for, the threats we will face in 3-5 years, to evaluate key issues, share expertise and drive knowledge growth on best responses. For further information, please consult the Geneva Security Forum website: www.genevasecurityforum.org . The GSF Board has decided to fully subsidize the participation fee, to attend the Geneva Security Forum, exclusively for the heads of diplomatic missions, International Organizations and NGOs plus one staff member. Please cut and paste the link below into your web browser to register. Registration will be required by each participant in order to process badges and other logistical matters. https://mcigroup.emeetingsonline.com/emeetings/websitev2.asp?mmnno=172&pagen ame=SITE177054 I hope that this invitation is of interest to you and look forward to hearing from you. With warm regards, Daniel Stauffacher Former Ambassador of Switzerland Chief Executive Officer, Geneva Security Forum P.S. Please visit the website to view highlighted speakers' bios and the program. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3140 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2313 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3140 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2313 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GSF Pamphlet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 224112 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Speakers - Bio Highlights.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 395158 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Program Website 31 May.doc Type: application/msword Size: 140800 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Thu Jun 7 06:49:37 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:49:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to the Geneva Security Forum, 20-21 June 2007 Message-ID: <200706071049.l57AmxfL022339@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached an invitation to the inaugural Geneva Security Forum taking place on 20 - 21 June 2007 at Palexpo, Geneva. Participation is free for NGOs, by clicking on the link in the invitation below to process the registration. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org _____ From: bw at genevasecurityforum.net [mailto:bw at genevasecurityforum.net] Sent: mercredi, 6. juin 2007 12:54 To: rbloem at ngocongo.org Subject: Invitation to the Geneva Security Forum, 20-21 June 2007 www.genevasecurityforum.org The Geneva Security Forum is committed to assessing the interconnectedness of international security threats and to advancing flexible fast-moving responses 06.06.2007 FREE EXCLUSIVE INVITATION TO GENEVA-BASED NGOs I am delighted to invite you to participate in the inaugural Geneva Security Forum taking place on 20 - 21 June 2007 at Palexpo, Geneva. New security challenges including increasingly sophisticated hackers, computer viruses, the move to networkcentric warfare, water shortages, the risk of pandemics, migration, the potential impact of rising number of discontented youth among others, have made it clear that a new multistakeholder and IT savvy approach to developing and implementing security solutions is urgently required. Solutions that not only make full use of the latest in information communication technology but that also reach across cultural, religious, economic and geographical divides. The Geneva Security Forum, launched by the Canton of Geneva, with the support of various private sector actors, has as its goal to assess and respond to the interconnectedness of today's security threats by bringing together the key actors from business, government, intergovernmental organizations, academia and civil society to develop recommendations and concrete action plans on implementing interoperable responses to security challenges. Building on Geneva's expertise in humanitarian issues, human rights, environment and international diplomacy, the Forum aims to cultivate the ground for new networks and develop dynamic solutions to security challenges, becoming the place for business and policy-makers to learn about, and prepare for, the threats we will face in 3-5 years, to evaluate key issues, share expertise and drive knowledge growth on best responses. For further information, please consult the Geneva Security Forum website: www.genevasecurityforum.org . The GSF Board has decided to fully subsidize the participation fee, to attend the Geneva Security Forum, exclusively for the heads of diplomatic missions, International Organizations and NGOs plus one staff member. Please cut and paste the link below into your web browser to register. Registration will be required by each participant in order to process badges and other logistical matters. https://mcigroup.emeetingsonline.com/emeetings/websitev2.asp?mmnno=172&pagen ame=SITE177054 I hope that this invitation is of interest to you and look forward to hearing from you. With warm regards, Daniel Stauffacher Former Ambassador of Switzerland Chief Executive Officer, Geneva Security Forum P.S. Please visit the website to view highlighted speakers' bios and the program. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2313 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3140 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GSF Pamphlet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 224112 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Program Website 31 May.doc Type: application/msword Size: 140800 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Jun 7 09:21:06 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-2?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:21:06 +0200 Subject: ODP: [governance] Invitation to the Geneva Security Forum, 20-21 June 2007 References: <200706071049.l57AmxfL022339@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4F5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI Wolfgang Civil Society Participation in ITU On 15 June, the first meeting of an ITU's Council Working Group established by the Antalya Plenipotentiary Conference to study civil society participation in ITU will be held, under the chairmanship on Argentina. In preparation for this meeting, ITU held a consultation meeting with civil society representatives on May 18 (for details, see the main meeting website ). Ahead of the meeting, the ITU Secretary-General has issued a background paper on civil society participation in ITU, which proposes a number of steps that could be taken to enhance their participation while recognising the need for further study of the issue. The paper, together with other background resources, is available on the Council Working Group website . ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Thu Jun 7 12:05:41 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:35:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070607160549.707EDE10EF@smtp3.electricembers.net> Excerpt from BD mail below - "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? My sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this could be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail from a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that financial support and general involvement of non government participants will be withdrawn...." This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, and I thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to Nitin Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that this serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's right to know. I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include the agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. The traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of the IG space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to influence substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Hi, A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position that > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > was accompanied by four FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably the forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but were not the main voice. Snip > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? My sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this could be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > of questions arise from this scenario: 1. why don't the developing countries > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the threat > of withdrawal of funds from the This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes when the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have excuses, they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the others had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would not be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here regard as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and Norwegians ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if contributions were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been paying. Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit breaks down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > hegemonic bloc. 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. They > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads their > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and Snip Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's been expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the same time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role of the GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a better option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how the respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? I propose we > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining it > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > substantive I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think this merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state interests (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of strong opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice the reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the WTO, WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, which IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, and are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the technical/admin environment? > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > and > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable manner. There is only a month to get this together and given > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. Willie > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level of a higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. But as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of course, he was in prison when he wrote this.. Cheers, BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Jun 7 20:55:56 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:55:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <20070607160549.707EDE10EF@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070607160549.707EDE10EF@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4668A91C.7000704@Malcolm.id.au> Guru at ITfC wrote: > This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, and I > thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... Indeed, thank you for posting this important and disturbing exchange. You most certainly did the right thing by distributing it; indeed, I think it should be publicised more widely. This reflects extremely badly on Chris Disspain and auDA, though it has bolstered my flagging respect for Markus Kummer. -- 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 jothan at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 21:09:23 2007 From: jothan at gmail.com (jothan at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 01:09:23 +0000 Subject: ODP: [governance] Invitation to the Geneva Security Forum,20-21 June 2007 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4F5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <200706071049.l57AmxfL022339@smtp2.infomaniak.ch><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4F5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <830866939-1181265012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1989332005-@bxe116.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Thank yoiu for forwarding this. -jothan Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:21:06 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam ,plenary at wsis-cs.org, governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: ODP: [governance] Invitation to the Geneva Security Forum, 20-21 June 2007 FYI Wolfgang Civil Society Participation in ITU On 15 June, the first meeting of an ITU's Council Working Group established by the Antalya Plenipotentiary Conference to study civil society participation in ITU will be held, under the chairmanship on Argentina. In preparation for this meeting, ITU held a consultation meeting with civil society representatives on May 18 (for details, see the main meeting website ). Ahead of the meeting, the ITU Secretary-General has issued a background paper on civil society participation in ITU, which proposes a number of steps that could be taken to enhance their participation while recognising the need for further study of the issue. The paper, together with other background resources, is available on the Council Working Group website . ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 7 22:24:39 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:24:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: Parminder, I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what he should do. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> Excerpt from BD mail below - "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? My sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this could be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail from a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that financial support and general involvement of non government participants will be withdrawn...." This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, and I thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to Nitin Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that this serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's right to know. I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include the agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. The traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of the IG space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to influence substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Hi, A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position that > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > was accompanied by four FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably the forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but were not the main voice. Snip > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? My sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this could be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > of questions arise from this scenario: 1. why don't the developing countries > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the threat > of withdrawal of funds from the This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes when the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have excuses, they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the others had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would not be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here regard as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and Norwegians ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if contributions were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been paying. Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit breaks down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > hegemonic bloc. 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. They > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads their > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and Snip Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's been expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the same time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role of the GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a better option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how the respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? I propose we > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining it > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > substantive I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think this merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state interests (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of strong opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice the reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the WTO, WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, which IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, and are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the technical/admin environment? > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > and > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable manner. There is only a month to get this together and given > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. Willie > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level of a higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. But as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of course, he was in prison when he wrote this.. Cheers, BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 8 01:54:44 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:24:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure - Is WGIG a good model In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070608055532.19AB55C4A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All Picking up from the debate on new processes and structures in and for the IGF, I will like to note a few things. First of all, a 3 or 4 component bureau seems to have little support, expect for those who proposed it at the recent consultations (Louis and Francis). Apart from them I see only Jeremy supporting such a structure (pl correct me if I am wrong). However there seems to a good amount of dissatisfaction about the current MAG based structure. And owing to this dissatisfaction a couple of proposals for change in IGF structure have come up. The dissatisfaction is both in terms of the process - the composition, and the process of constitution of MAG, with its preponderance of technical community/ ICANN connected members at the expense of civil society members - and the substance, in terms of IGF not fulfilling all aspects its mandate. The latter probably requires, for instance to fulfill its mandate of 'making recommendations', a different structure. I think the suggestion for a 3/4 fold bureau seeks basically to address the problem of proportionate representation, and clear and transparent processes of constituting MAG or a similar body. Evidently this genuine problem can be solved even with a combined MAG/ bureau, with the processes of its constitution kept separate for the 3 stakeholder, and kept transparent. Another problem with a bureau is that it seems to be strictly a process related body. Such is the WSIS model, and such is its role in Louis Pouzin's proposal. This doesn't address one of the main problems that those dissatisfied with the present MAG structure have - which relates to its substantive outcome producing capabilities. All this make it clear that the typical WSIS like 3 fold bureau is not what most people here really seek in their dis-satisfaction with MAG. I myself don't like the word 'bureau'.... It is not the specific term that we need to be fixated on, as has been argued by some...It can be anything, lets call it IGF committee or something. But the real point is - do the Tunis documents with their multiple agenda for the IGF not imply a clearer structure than the MAG - which, since it doesn't take decisions (to quote MAG member Jeannette) it isnt clear what does it do. And, as explained recently by Nitin during the consultations, if it is only to advise the SG, does it not place too much reliance on personalities (which Jeannette also says is dangerous). Brazil's proposal of a body that have a clearer legitimacy and task of some substantive outcomes from IGF is therefore worth looking into. I wonder if it is not possible for IGF to move towards some kind of an IGF 'committee' (or some such thing, as someone pointed out we need to look for linguistic innovations like did in the case of 'dynamic coalitions') modeled on the WGIG which gave non-binding recommendations. In fact WGIG has been a very significant multistakeholder global governance innovation, and had great influence over Tunis documents, and thus over IG itself.. Its report is a good instance of how a good and very useful document can be produced by a very diverse group. Its putting together a lot of stuff which had lesser amount of consensus into a 'background document' is also a significant innovation. The 'IGF committee' can take up similar activity. I am not sure why many civil society members who were so enthusiastic about the WGIG, aren't agreeable for a standing WGIG kind of body within the IGF. We could keep having strong multistakeholder influence over IG through such a body in the IGF. This is the evolution from the MAG that many look towards, and taking the discussion towards a WSIS kind of bureau - both by its defenders, and its opponents - I think is an avoidable distraction. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 8 02:55:03 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 08:55:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure - Is WGIG a good model In-Reply-To: <20070608055532.19AB55C4A@smtp2.electricembers.net> (parminder@itforchange.net) References: <20070608055532.19AB55C4A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070608065503.6D6165B791@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > I wonder if it is not possible for IGF to move towards some kind of an IGF > 'committee' (or some such thing, as someone pointed out we need to look for > linguistic innovations like did in the case of 'dynamic coalitions') modeled > on the WGIG which gave non-binding recommendations. Sounds like a good idea 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 8 04:27:07 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:57:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070608082739.3C5BAE1AB3@smtp3.electricembers.net> Lee Think, you addressed your email below to me by mistake. I didn't post the IGF emails, Guru did :) Well, I, like Guru, have had access to these emails for a few days now, since they have been discussed in some e-groups. But I wasn't sure what to do with them because I know there are people who hurry to a 'conspiracy against ICANN' kind of alarm very easily (even when other disclosures of official docs like the Condeleezza Rice's letter to European governments on WSIS stand vis a vis IG are considered important in public interest. See http://i-policy.typepad.com/informationpolicy/2005/12/read_the_letter.html ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed interactions seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are overwhelming... Looks like Guru thought it necessary to come in, in reference to 'ICANN threats' in Willie's and Bill's emails and share these mails in this list. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:55 AM > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) > > Parminder, > > I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are > making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it > means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! > > And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that > isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how > about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what > he should do. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> > Excerpt from BD mail below - > "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." > > I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail > from > a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that > financial > support and general involvement of non government participants will be > withdrawn...." > > This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, > and I > thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... > > Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal > communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to > Nitin > Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also > attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that > this > serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's > right > to know. > > I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include > the > agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. > The > traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of > the IG > space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to > influence > substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave > concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. > > If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand > corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. > > > Regards, > Guru > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some > ideas) > > Hi, > > A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... > > On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: > > > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > > > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > > > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position > that > > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > > > was accompanied by four > > FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably > the > forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but > were > not the main voice. > > Snip > > > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > > > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > > > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > > > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > > > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number > > I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > > > of questions arise from this scenario: > > 1. why don't the developing countries > > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the > threat > > of withdrawal of funds from the > > This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded > mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes > when > the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have > excuses, > they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the > others > had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would > not > be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here > regard > as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and > Norwegians > ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other > technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the > governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if > contributions > were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been > paying. > Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit > breaks > down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that > everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > > > hegemonic bloc. > > 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. > They > > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > > > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > > > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads > their > > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and > > Snip > > Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's > been > expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward > looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the > same > time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role > of the > GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a > better > option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how > the > respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote > development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > > > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? > > I propose we > > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining > it > > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > > substantive > > I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think > this > merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO > secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state > interests > (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of > strong > opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice > the > reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the > WTO, > WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else > whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, > which > IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, > and > are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the > technical/admin > environment? > > > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > > > and > > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > > > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > > > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > > > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet > resource > issue in a reasonable manner. > > There is only a month to get this together and given > > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > Willie > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level > of a > higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. > But > as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of > course, he > was in prison when he wrote this.. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 8 04:30:10 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:30:10 -0400 Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. Those believe that the IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. It is therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it will become a meaningful forum. In this regard, I too am encouraged by Kummer's response. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 07-06-07 22:24 >>> Parminder, I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what he should do. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> Excerpt from BD mail below - "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? My sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this could be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail from a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that financial support and general involvement of non government participants will be withdrawn...." This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, and I thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to Nitin Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that this serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's right to know. I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include the agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. The traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of the IG space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to influence substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Hi, A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position that > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > was accompanied by four FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably the forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but were not the main voice. Snip > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? My sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this could be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > of questions arise from this scenario: 1. why don't the developing countries > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the threat > of withdrawal of funds from the This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes when the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have excuses, they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the others had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would not be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here regard as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and Norwegians ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if contributions were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been paying. Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit breaks down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > hegemonic bloc. 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. They > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads their > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and Snip Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's been expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the same time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role of the GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a better option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how the respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? I propose we > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining it > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > substantive I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think this merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state interests (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of strong opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice the reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the WTO, WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, which IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, and are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the technical/admin environment? > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > and > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable manner. There is only a month to get this together and given > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. Willie > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level of a higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. But as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of course, he was in prison when he wrote this.. Cheers, BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 8 05:01:40 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:31:40 +0530 Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (someideas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070608090251.3845AE1AE6@smtp3.electricembers.net> >Those believe that the > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. Milton (and Lee) While I agree with the spirit of your email about broadening and diversifying IGF's funding base, I have deep problems with both your and Lee's formulation of the issue. This is a trading house logic, not that of constitution of public policy bodies. As per what you say above, the final outcome of your recommended process will be - those who have the ability to pay more will have greater influence over policy. > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. One is not being naïve, what is at stake here is the basic principles of public institutions. One obviously knows how money actually influences politics. However things move to a completely different level when such connections are mentioned 'officially'. We recognize a stage of great political decadence when such a stage is reached. In many countries such clear linkage of finances with public policy agenda in key public policy bodies constitutes a criminal offence. And I consider global public policy spaces as sacrosanct as national ones. I know many others do not, often in quite an opposition to their enthusiasm for a connected global world. >It is > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > will become a meaningful forum. To quote from IT for Change's submission to the recent IGF consultations " To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish a more substantial structure. This requires adequate funding for which a strong case should be made out and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. This includes governments who may be interested in promoting fair, open and representative global public policy structures for IG." So while we understand the need of diversifying and widening the funding base, it doesn’t mean that we become insensitive to the basic public policy issues involved in open linking of public policy agenda with finances in manner that strongly seeks to subvert a public policy institution that came out of the decisions of a world summit. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:00 PM > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight > Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure > (someideas) > > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. Those believe that the > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. It is > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > will become a meaningful forum. In this regard, I too am encouraged by > Kummer's response. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 07-06-07 22:24 >>> > Parminder, > > I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are > making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it > means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! > > And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that > isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how > about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what > he should do. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> > Excerpt from BD mail below - > "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." > > I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail > from > a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that > financial > support and general involvement of non government participants will be > withdrawn...." > > This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, > and I > thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... > > Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal > communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to > Nitin > Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also > attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that > this > serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's > right > to know. > > I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include > the > agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. > The > traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of > the IG > space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to > influence > substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave > concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. > > If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand > corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. > > > Regards, > Guru > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some > ideas) > > Hi, > > A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... > > On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: > > > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > > > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > > > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position > that > > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > > > was accompanied by four > > FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably > the > forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but > were > not the main voice. > > Snip > > > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > > > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > > > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > > > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > > > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number > > I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > > > of questions arise from this scenario: > > 1. why don't the developing countries > > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the > threat > > of withdrawal of funds from the > > This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded > mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes > when > the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have > excuses, > they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the > others > had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would > not > be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here > regard > as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and > Norwegians > ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other > technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the > governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if > contributions > were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been > paying. > Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit > breaks > down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that > everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > > > hegemonic bloc. > > 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. > They > > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > > > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > > > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads > their > > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and > > Snip > > Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's > been > expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward > looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the > same > time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role > of the > GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a > better > option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how > the > respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote > development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > > > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? > > I propose we > > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining > it > > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > > substantive > > I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think > this > merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO > secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state > interests > (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of > strong > opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice > the > reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the > WTO, > WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else > whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, > which > IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, > and > are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the > technical/admin > environment? > > > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > > > and > > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > > > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > > > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > > > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet > resource > issue in a reasonable manner. > > There is only a month to get this together and given > > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > Willie > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level > of a > higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. > But > as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of > course, he > was in prison when he wrote this.. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 05:25:53 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:25:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence Message-ID: <954259bd0706080225q76d8ffffpc0346b577795e7c7@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, What you all agree upon is that there is an issue of common concern and interest for all actors (including governments I hope) : "How to ensure the financial independence of the IGF ?" (without forgetting the accountability dimension). Let's discuss possible solutions rather than getting into a new debate among ourselves on the dangers (however real) of capture by specific interests who may like to influence the agenda through funding. Best Bertrand On 6/8/07, Parminder wrote: > > > >Those believe that the > > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it > > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. > > Milton (and Lee) > > While I agree with the spirit of your email about broadening and > diversifying IGF's funding base, I have deep problems with both your and > Lee's formulation of the issue. This is a trading house logic, not that of > constitution of public policy bodies. As per what you say above, the final > outcome of your recommended process will be - those who have the ability > to > pay more will have greater influence over policy. > > > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a > > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. > > One is not being naïve, what is at stake here is the basic principles of > public institutions. One obviously knows how money actually influences > politics. However things move to a completely different level when such > connections are mentioned 'officially'. We recognize a stage of great > political decadence when such a stage is reached. > > In many countries such clear linkage of finances with public policy agenda > in key public policy bodies constitutes a criminal offence. And I consider > global public policy spaces as sacrosanct as national ones. I know many > others do not, often in quite an opposition to their enthusiasm for a > connected global world. > > >It is > > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > > will become a meaningful forum. > > To quote from IT for Change's submission to the recent IGF consultations > > " To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other > required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish a more substantial > structure. This requires adequate funding for which a strong case should > be > made out and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. > This > includes governments who may be interested in promoting fair, open and > representative global public policy structures for IG." > > So while we understand the need of diversifying and widening the funding > base, it doesn't mean that we become insensitive to the basic public > policy > issues involved in open linking of public policy agenda with finances in > manner that strongly seeks to subvert a public policy institution that > came > out of the decisions of a world summit. > > Parminder > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:00 PM > > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight > > Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure > > (someideas) > > > > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a > > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. Those believe that the > > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it > > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. It is > > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > > will become a meaningful forum. In this regard, I too am encouraged by > > Kummer's response. > > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > http://www.digital-convergence.org > > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > > >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 07-06-07 22:24 >>> > > Parminder, > > > > I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are > > making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it > > means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! > > > > And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that > > isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how > > about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what > > he should do. > > > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > School of Information Studies > > Syracuse University > > +1-315-443-6891office > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> > > Excerpt from BD mail below - > > "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > > My > > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > > could > > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." > > > > I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail > > from > > a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that > > financial > > support and general involvement of non government participants will be > > withdrawn...." > > > > This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, > > and I > > thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... > > > > Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal > > communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to > > Nitin > > Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also > > attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that > > this > > serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's > > right > > to know. > > > > I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include > > the > > agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. > > The > > traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of > > the IG > > space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to > > influence > > substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave > > concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. > > > > If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand > > corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. > > > > > > Regards, > > Guru > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM > > To: Governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some > > ideas) > > > > Hi, > > > > A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... > > > > On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: > > > > > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > > > > > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > > > > > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position > > that > > > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > > > > > was accompanied by four > > > > FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably > > the > > forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but > > were > > not the main voice. > > > > Snip > > > > > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > > > > > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > > > > > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > > > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > > > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > > > > > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > > > > > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number > > > > I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > > My > > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > > could > > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > > > > > of questions arise from this scenario: > > > > 1. why don't the developing countries > > > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > > > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > > > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the > > threat > > > of withdrawal of funds from the > > > > This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded > > mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes > > when > > the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have > > excuses, > > they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the > > others > > had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would > > not > > be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here > > regard > > as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and > > Norwegians > > ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other > > technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the > > governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if > > contributions > > were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been > > paying. > > Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit > > breaks > > down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that > > everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > > > > > hegemonic bloc. > > > > 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > > > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > > > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. > > They > > > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > > > > > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > > > > > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads > > their > > > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > > > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and > > > > Snip > > > > Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's > > been > > expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward > > looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the > > same > > time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role > > of the > > GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a > > better > > option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how > > the > > respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote > > development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > > > > > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? > > > > I propose we > > > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining > > it > > > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > > > substantive > > > > I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think > > this > > merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO > > secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state > > interests > > (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of > > strong > > opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice > > the > > reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the > > WTO, > > WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else > > whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, > > which > > IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, > > and > > are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the > > technical/admin > > environment? > > > > > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > > > > > and > > > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > > > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > > > > > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > > > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > > > > > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > > > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > > > > > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > > > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > > > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet > > resource > > issue in a reasonable manner. > > > > There is only a month to get this together and given > > > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > > > Willie > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > > > Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level > > of a > > higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. > > But > > as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of > > course, he > > was in prison when he wrote this.. > > > > Cheers, > > > > BD > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 8 06:09:17 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:09:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] revised schedule for the Rio Message-ID: Hi, A revised schedule for the Rio meeting has been posted . Critical Internet Resources is on the agenda as a main session, though as yet no linked sub-thematic workshops are mentioned. Of course many open workshops, so workshops on critical Internet resources can be held. The secretariat hopes to issue a revised programme early next week. Adam (Please trim old messages when replying to threads on the list) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 8 06:18:06 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence Message-ID: <155435.73853.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi Bertrand et al, Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and corporate technology companies. I think it could be easily made clear what is being funded and what the IGF is doing to any potential funders to make it clear the organisation is independent. A case for support would be invaluable with all this information. No doubt there would be some who funding would not be accepted from. But this could be discussed later. I'd also like to see the IGF do news releases occasionally to publicise the work that's being done. This would be essential if there were funders to publicise their assistance. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Bertrand de La Chapelle To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Milton Mueller ; guru at itforchange.net; Lee McKnight ; Parminder Sent: Friday, 8 June, 2007 7:25:53 PM Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence Dear all, What you all agree upon is that there is an issue of common concern and interest for all actors (including governments I hope) : "How to ensure the financial independence of the IGF ?" (without forgetting the accountability dimension). Let's discuss possible solutions rather than getting into a new debate among ourselves on the dangers (however real) of capture by specific interests who may like to influence the agenda through funding. Best Bertrand On 6/8/07, Parminder wrote: >Those believe that the > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. Milton (and Lee) While I agree with the spirit of your email about broadening and diversifying IGF's funding base, I have deep problems with both your and Lee's formulation of the issue. This is a trading house logic, not that of constitution of public policy bodies. As per what you say above, the final outcome of your recommended process will be - those who have the ability to pay more will have greater influence over policy. > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. One is not being naïve, what is at stake here is the basic principles of public institutions. One obviously knows how money actually influences politics. However things move to a completely different level when such connections are mentioned 'officially'. We recognize a stage of great political decadence when such a stage is reached. In many countries such clear linkage of finances with public policy agenda in key public policy bodies constitutes a criminal offence. And I consider global public policy spaces as sacrosanct as national ones. I know many others do not, often in quite an opposition to their enthusiasm for a connected global world. >It is > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > will become a meaningful forum. To quote from IT for Change's submission to the recent IGF consultations " To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish a more substantial structure. This requires adequate funding for which a strong case should be made out and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. This includes governments who may be interested in promoting fair, open and representative global public policy structures for IG." So while we understand the need of diversifying and widening the funding base, it doesn't mean that we become insensitive to the basic public policy issues involved in open linking of public policy agenda with finances in manner that strongly seeks to subvert a public policy institution that came out of the decisions of a world summit. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:00 PM > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight > Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure > (someideas) > > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. Those believe that the > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. It is > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > will become a meaningful forum. In this regard, I too am encouraged by > Kummer's response. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 07-06-07 22:24 >>> > Parminder, > > I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are > making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it > means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! > > And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that > isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how > about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what > he should do. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> > Excerpt from BD mail below - > "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." > > I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail > from > a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that > financial > support and general involvement of non government participants will be > withdrawn...." > > This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, > and I > thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... > > Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal > communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to > Nitin > Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also > attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that > this > serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's > right > to know. > > I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include > the > agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. > The > traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of > the IG > space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to > influence > substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave > concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. > > If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand > corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. > > > Regards, > Guru > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto: drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some > ideas) > > Hi, > > A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... > > On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" < wcurrie at apc.org> wrote: > > > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > > > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > > > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position > that > > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > > > was accompanied by four > > FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably > the > forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but > were > not the main voice. > > Snip > > > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > > > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > > > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > > > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > > > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number > > I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > > > of questions arise from this scenario: > > 1. why don't the developing countries > > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the > threat > > of withdrawal of funds from the > > This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded > mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes > when > the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have > excuses, > they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the > others > had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would > not > be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here > regard > as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and > Norwegians > ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other > technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the > governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if > contributions > were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been > paying. > Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit > breaks > down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that > everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > > > hegemonic bloc. > > 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. > They > > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > > > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > > > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads > their > > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and > > Snip > > Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's > been > expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward > looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the > same > time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role > of the > GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a > better > option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how > the > respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote > development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > > > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? > > I propose we > > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining > it > > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > > substantive > > I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think > this > merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO > secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state > interests > (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of > strong > opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice > the > reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the > WTO, > WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else > whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, > which > IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, > and > are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the > technical/admin > environment? > > > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > > > and > > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > > > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > > > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > > > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet > resource > issue in a reasonable manner. > > There is only a month to get this together and given > > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > Willie > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level > of a > higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. > But > as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of > course, he > was in prison when he wrote this.. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") _________________________________________________________________________________ How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Jun 8 07:44:11 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:44:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure - Is WGIG a good model In-Reply-To: <20070608055532.19AB55C4A@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070608055532.19AB55C4A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4669410B.1070508@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > First of all, a 3 or 4 component bureau seems to have little support, > expect for those who proposed it at the recent consultations (Louis and > Francis). Apart from them I see only Jeremy supporting such a structure > (pl correct me if I am wrong). My position is a bit more nuanced than a separate components bureau, it is more of a hybrid of this and the single bureau model. I argued that some degree of separation between the stakeholder groups would have the advantages of institutionalising the formal equality of the stakeholder groups, and allowing them each to engage in internal discussions using the means they are comfortable with, before coming together as a single bureau to seek consensus. (I'm still working on the paper in which I promised to flesh this out.) But the short of it is, I agree with your statement that > this genuine > problem can be solved even with a combined MAG/ bureau, with the > processes of its constitution kept separate for the 3 stakeholder, and > kept transparent. > > Another problem with a bureau is that it seems to be strictly a process > related body. Such is the WSIS model, and such is its role in Louis > Pouzin's proposal. This doesn’t address one of the main problems that > those dissatisfied with the present MAG structure have - which relates > to its substantive outcome producing capabilities. Yes, let us not forget that the role of the Advisory Group was explicitly limited to "preparing the substantive agenda and programme for the first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum". Some of the other roles for which we require a bureau or IGF committee are: * Approving reforms to the IGF's structure and working processes. * Preparing background briefing documents to inform discussion and foster the development of consensus. * Accrediting dynamic coalitions wishing to submit draft recommendations to the plenary forum. * Assessing the rough consensus of open consultation meetings and the plenary forum. * Preparing recommendations based on the rough consensus of the plenary forum (this will require reform at the plenary level also). And last but not least, to vest control of the IGF in the hands of its stakeholders, where it belongs, rather than leaving it under the wardship of the United Nations Secretary-General where it rests at present (despite the lack of any warrant in paragraph 78 of the Tunis Agenda, or elsewhere, for him to exercise a continuing role). -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 8 08:49:06 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:19:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence In-Reply-To: <155435.73853.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070608124931.3AA0E5C52@smtp2.electricembers.net> >Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and corporate technology companies. Micro-funding from the wider constituency is an important digital age concept and emerging practice for independence of political structures . We sure should try something like this. And contribute money even if initially mostly of symbolic value. Wikipedia and creative commons are some examples of public interest systems that have tried it successfully. A mutli-stakeholder global governance system, with some international legitimacy, and which has possible implications beyond ICT governance should be an important structure to support. However, as David says, we need to make a good case for it, and then push it with some energy. IT for Change is ready to get it rolling with a contribution of USD 500 :-) (to be pooled in from personal contributions). And we wont link it with pushing our agenda either. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:48 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] The Forum's financial independence Hi Bertrand et al, Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and corporate technology companies. I think it could be easily made clear what is being funded and what the IGF is doing to any potential funders to make it clear the organisation is independent. A case for support would be invaluable with all this information. No doubt there would be some who funding would not be accepted from. But this could be discussed later. I'd also like to see the IGF do news releases occasionally to publicise the work that's being done. This would be essential if there were funders to publicise their assistance. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Bertrand de La Chapelle To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Milton Mueller ; guru at itforchange.net; Lee McKnight ; Parminder Sent: Friday, 8 June, 2007 7:25:53 PM Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence Dear all, What you all agree upon is that there is an issue of common concern and interest for all actors (including governments I hope) : "How to ensure the financial independence of the IGF ?" (without forgetting the accountability dimension). Let's discuss possible solutions rather than getting into a new debate among ourselves on the dangers (however real) of capture by specific interests who may like to influence the agenda through funding. Best Bertrand On 6/8/07, Parminder wrote: >Those believe that the > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. Milton (and Lee) While I agree with the spirit of your email about broadening and diversifying IGF's funding base, I have deep problems with both your and Lee's formulation of the issue. This is a trading house logic, not that of constitution of public policy bodies. As per what you say above, the final outcome of your recommended process will be - those who have the ability to pay more will have greater influence over policy. > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. One is not being naïve, what is at stake here is the basic principles of public institutions. One obviously knows how money actually influences politics. However things move to a completely different level when such connections are mentioned 'officially'. We recognize a stage of great political decadence when such a stage is reached. In many countries such clear linkage of finances with public policy agenda in key public policy bodies constitutes a criminal offence. And I consider global public policy spaces as sacrosanct as national ones. I know many others do not, often in quite an opposition to their enthusiasm for a connected global world. >It is > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > will become a meaningful forum. To quote from IT for Change's submission to the recent IGF consultations " To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish a more substantial structure. This requires adequate funding for which a strong case should be made out and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. This includes governments who may be interested in promoting fair, open and representative global public policy structures for IG." So while we understand the need of diversifying and widening the funding base, it doesn't mean that we become insensitive to the basic public policy issues involved in open linking of public policy agenda with finances in manner that strongly seeks to subvert a public policy institution that came out of the decisions of a world summit. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:00 PM > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight > Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure > (someideas) > > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. Those believe that the > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. It is > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > will become a meaningful forum. In this regard, I too am encouraged by > Kummer's response. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 07-06-07 22:24 >>> > Parminder, > > I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are > making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it > means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! > > And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that > isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how > about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what > he should do. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> > Excerpt from BD mail below - > "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." > > I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail > from > a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that > financial > support and general involvement of non government participants will be > withdrawn...." > > This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, > and I > thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... > > Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal > communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to > Nitin > Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also > attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that > this > serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's > right > to know. > > I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include > the > agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. > The > traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of > the IG > space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to > influence > substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave > concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. > > If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand > corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. > > > Regards, > Guru > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto: drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some > ideas) > > Hi, > > A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... > > On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" < wcurrie at apc.org > wrote: > > > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > > > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > > > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position > that > > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > > > was accompanied by four > > FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably > the > forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but > were > not the main voice. > > Snip > > > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > > > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > > > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > > > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > > > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number > > I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > > > of questions arise from this scenario: > > 1. why don't the developing countries > > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the > threat > > of withdrawal of funds from the > > This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded > mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes > when > the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have > excuses, > they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the > others > had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would > not > be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here > regard > as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and > Norwegians > ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other > technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the > governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if > contributions > were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been > paying. > Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit > breaks > down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that > everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > > > hegemonic bloc. > > 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. > They > > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > > > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > > > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads > their > > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and > > Snip > > Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's > been > expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward > looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the > same > time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role > of the > GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a > better > option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how > the > respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote > development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > > > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? > > I propose we > > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining > it > > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > > substantive > > I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think > this > merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO > secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state > interests > (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of > strong > opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice > the > reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the > WTO, > WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else > whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, > which > IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, > and > are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the > technical/admin > environment? > > > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > > > and > > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > > > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > > > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > > > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet > resource > issue in a reasonable manner. > > There is only a month to get this together and given > > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > Willie > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level > of a > higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. > But > as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of > course, he > was in prison when he wrote this.. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") _____ How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea . -------------- 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 Fri Jun 8 10:36:12 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:36:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: Oops, my mistake, too much travel and too hasty on hitting send. But my read stays the same... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Parminder" 6/8/2007 4:27 AM >>> Lee Think, you addressed your email below to me by mistake. I didn't post the IGF emails, Guru did :) Well, I, like Guru, have had access to these emails for a few days now, since they have been discussed in some e-groups. But I wasn't sure what to do with them because I know there are people who hurry to a 'conspiracy against ICANN' kind of alarm very easily (even when other disclosures of official docs like the Condeleezza Rice's letter to European governments on WSIS stand vis a vis IG are considered important in public interest. See http://i-policy.typepad.com/informationpolicy/2005/12/read_the_letter.html ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed interactions seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are overwhelming... Looks like Guru thought it necessary to come in, in reference to 'ICANN threats' in Willie's and Bill's emails and share these mails in this list. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:55 AM > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) > > Parminder, > > I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are > making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it > means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! > > And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that > isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how > about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what > he should do. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> > Excerpt from BD mail below - > "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." > > I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail > from > a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that > financial > support and general involvement of non government participants will be > withdrawn...." > > This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, > and I > thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... > > Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal > communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to > Nitin > Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also > attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that > this > serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's > right > to know. > > I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include > the > agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. > The > traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of > the IG > space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to > influence > substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave > concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. > > If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand > corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. > > > Regards, > Guru > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some > ideas) > > Hi, > > A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... > > On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: > > > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > > > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > > > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position > that > > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > > > was accompanied by four > > FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably > the > forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but > were > not the main voice. > > Snip > > > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > > > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > > > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > > > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > > > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number > > I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > My > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > could > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > > > of questions arise from this scenario: > > 1. why don't the developing countries > > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the > threat > > of withdrawal of funds from the > > This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded > mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes > when > the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have > excuses, > they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the > others > had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would > not > be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here > regard > as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and > Norwegians > ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other > technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the > governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if > contributions > were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been > paying. > Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit > breaks > down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that > everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > > > hegemonic bloc. > > 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. > They > > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > > > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > > > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads > their > > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and > > Snip > > Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's > been > expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward > looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the > same > time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role > of the > GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a > better > option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how > the > respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote > development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > > > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? > > I propose we > > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining > it > > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > > substantive > > I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think > this > merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO > secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state > interests > (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of > strong > opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice > the > reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the > WTO, > WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else > whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, > which > IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, > and > are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the > technical/admin > environment? > > > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > > > and > > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > > > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > > > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > > > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet > resource > issue in a reasonable manner. > > There is only a month to get this together and given > > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > > Willie > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level > of a > higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. > But > as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of > course, he > was in prison when he wrote this.. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jun 8 15:03:14 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:03:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <20070608082739.3C5BAE1AB3@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070608082739.3C5BAE1AB3@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4669A7F2.6050505@wzb.eu> > Well, I, like Guru, have had access to these emails for a few days now, > since they have been discussed in some e-groups. But I wasn't sure what to > do with them because I know there are people who hurry to a 'conspiracy > against ICANN' kind of alarm very easily (even when other disclosures of > official docs like the Condeleezza Rice's letter to European governments on > WSIS stand vis a vis IG are considered important in public interest. See > http://i-policy.typepad.com/informationpolicy/2005/12/read_the_letter.html > ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed interactions > seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public > interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are overwhelming... I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that sentence above. If you meant to say that in this case public disclosure is more important than respecting the chatham house rule, then I would like to object. Personally I wantb to know if I say something on a private list or in a public, archived space. If I cannot be sure that I speak on a private list, I will behave as if I speak in a public place. It is perfectly ok to object to or boycott private conversations on public matters, I don't find ok at all to selectively broadcast compromising emails. For me the main difference between a public and a private discussion space is the tolerance I can expect when I say something stupid. I think twice before I express my opinion in this list here as I know I have to expect criticism or something worse. A private list is supposed to be protected space where ideas can be tested and where I don't expect people using things against me. I didn't like Chris' email either but he does deserve a fair treatment that would allow him, for example, to change his mind. jeanette > > Looks like Guru thought it necessary to come in, in reference to 'ICANN > threats' in Willie's and Bill's emails and share these mails in this list. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] >> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:55 AM >> To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) >> >> Parminder, >> >> I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are >> making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it >> means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! >> >> And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that >> isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how >> about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what >> he should do. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >>>>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> >> Excerpt from BD mail below - >> "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? >> My >> sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this >> could >> be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." >> >> I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail >> from >> a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that >> financial >> support and general involvement of non government participants will be >> withdrawn...." >> >> This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, >> and I >> thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... >> >> Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal >> communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to >> Nitin >> Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also >> attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that >> this >> serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's >> right >> to know. >> >> I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include >> the >> agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. >> The >> traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of >> the IG >> space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to >> influence >> substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave >> concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. >> >> If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand >> corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. >> >> >> Regards, >> Guru >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM >> To: Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some >> ideas) >> >> Hi, >> >> A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... >> >> On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" wrote: >> >>> I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might >>> come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of >>> civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position >> that >>> no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion >>> was accompanied by four >> FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably >> the >> forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but >> were >> not the main voice. >> >> Snip >> >>> consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources >>> will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of >>> the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the >>> hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of >>> hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in >>> the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a >>> simple statement of fact, if you will) A number >> I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? >> My >> sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this >> could >> be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. >> >>> of questions arise from this scenario: >> 1. why don't the developing countries >>> arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there >>> mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF >>> secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the >> threat >>> of withdrawal of funds from the >> This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded >> mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes >> when >> the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have >> excuses, >> they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the >> others >> had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would >> not >> be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here >> regard >> as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and >> Norwegians >> ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other >> technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the >> governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if >> contributions >> were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been >> paying. >> Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit >> breaks >> down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that >> everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. >> >>> hegemonic bloc. >> 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of >>> critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that >>> their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. >> They >>> don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources >>> they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as >>> the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads >> their >>> proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts >>> accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and >> Snip >> >> Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's >> been >> expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward >> looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the >> same >> time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role >> of the >> GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a >> better >> option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how >> the >> respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote >> development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. >> >>> some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? >> I propose we >>> adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining >> it >>> cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the >>> substantive >> I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think >> this >> merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO >> secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state >> interests >> (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of >> strong >> opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice >> the >> reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the >> WTO, >> WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else >> whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, >> which >> IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, >> and >> are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the >> technical/admin >> environment? >> >>> issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa >>> and >>> India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to >>> distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and >>> perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF >>> secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters >>> to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that >>> Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we >>> should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng >>> Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be >>> worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet >> resource >> issue in a reasonable manner. >> >> There is only a month to get this together and given >>> how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. >> Willie >> >>> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile >> Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level >> of a >> higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. >> But >> as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of >> course, he >> was in prison when he wrote this.. >> >> Cheers, >> >> BD >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Jun 8 18:20:42 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:20:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706080225q76d8ffffpc0346b577795e7c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0706080225q76d8ffffpc0346b577795e7c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4669D63A.7050103@cavebear.com> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > "How to ensure the financial independence of the IGF ?" (without > forgetting the accountability dimension). I do not know, much less understand, the present funding structure or the tensions that are being revealed by this recent mention of funding. I'd like to learn more about this. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Fri Jun 8 22:54:51 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence In-Reply-To: <20070608124931.3AA0E5C52@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070608124931.3AA0E5C52@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4073.66.135.114.72.1181357691.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Parminder and all, I'm really unsure as to why a process/institution we want to operate in the broad public interest should be expected (allowed?) to be funded by sectional or private interests? Shouldn't we be thinking through how to ensure that the IGF is funded in some way consistent with this as a principle. Perhaps micro-payments are the way to go but the way it is presented here suggests that this is "our" private interest being presented rather than someone else's. I would prefer a principled approach in this area and think it is something that we should not give away casually or without a fight whatever the positioning of those who argue for (are willing to accept) the privatization of public policy. MG > >>Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and >> corporate > technology companies. > > > > Micro-funding from the wider constituency is an important digital age > concept and emerging practice for independence of political structures . > We > sure should try something like this. And contribute money even if > initially > mostly of symbolic value. Wikipedia and creative commons are some examples > of public interest systems that have tried it successfully. > > > > A mutli-stakeholder global governance system, with some international > legitimacy, and which has possible implications beyond ICT governance > should > be an important structure to support. However, as David says, we need to > make a good case for it, and then push it with some energy. > > > > IT for Change is ready to get it rolling with a contribution of USD 500 > :-) > (to be pooled in from personal contributions). And we wont link it with > pushing our agenda either. > > > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > _____ > > From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:48 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] The Forum's financial independence > > > > Hi Bertrand et al, > > Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and corporate > technology companies. > > I think it could be easily made clear what is being funded and what the > IGF > is doing to any potential funders to make it clear the organisation is > independent. A case for support would be invaluable with all this > information. > > No doubt there would be some who funding would not be accepted from. But > this could be discussed later. > > I'd also like to see the IGF do news releases occasionally to publicise > the > work that's being done. This would be essential if there were funders to > publicise their assistance. > > Cheers > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Milton Mueller ; guru at itforchange.net; Lee McKnight > ; Parminder > Sent: Friday, 8 June, 2007 7:25:53 PM > Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence > > Dear all, > > What you all agree upon is that there is an issue of common concern and > interest for all actors (including governments I hope) : > "How to ensure the financial independence of the IGF ?" (without > forgetting > the accountability dimension). > > Let's discuss possible solutions rather than getting into a new debate > among > ourselves on the dangers (however real) of capture by specific interests > who > may like to influence the agenda through funding. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On 6/8/07, Parminder wrote: > > >>Those believe that the >> IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it >> does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be >> expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. > > Milton (and Lee) > > While I agree with the spirit of your email about broadening and > diversifying IGF's funding base, I have deep problems with both your and > Lee's formulation of the issue. This is a trading house logic, not that of > constitution of public policy bodies. As per what you say above, the final > outcome of your recommended process will be - those who have the ability > to > pay more will have greater influence over policy. > >> I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone >> to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a >> point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. > > One is not being naïve, what is at stake here is the basic principles of > public institutions. One obviously knows how money actually influences > politics. However things move to a completely different level when such > connections are mentioned 'officially'. We recognize a stage of great > political decadence when such a stage is reached. > > In many countries such clear linkage of finances with public policy agenda > in key public policy bodies constitutes a criminal offence. And I consider > global public policy spaces as sacrosanct as national ones. I know many > others do not, often in quite an opposition to their enthusiasm for a > connected global world. > >>It is >> therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their >> governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it >> will become a meaningful forum. > > To quote from IT for Change's submission to the recent IGF consultations > > " To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other > required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish a more substantial > structure. This requires adequate funding for which a strong case should > be > made out and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. > This > includes governments who may be interested in promoting fair, open and > representative global public policy structures for IG." > > So while we understand the need of diversifying and widening the funding > base, it doesn't mean that we become insensitive to the basic public > policy > issues involved in open linking of public policy agenda with finances in > manner that strongly seeks to subvert a public policy institution that > came > out of the decisions of a world summit. > > Parminder > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:00 PM >> To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight >> Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure >> (someideas) >> >> I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone >> to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a >> point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. Those believe that the >> IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it >> does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be >> expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. It is >> therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their >> governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it >> will become a meaningful forum. In this regard, I too am encouraged by >> Kummer's response. >> >> Dr. Milton Mueller >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> http://www.digital-convergence.org >> http://www.internetgovernance.org >> >> >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 07-06-07 22:24 >>> >> Parminder, >> >> I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are >> making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it >> means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! >> >> And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that >> isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how >> about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what >> he should do. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >> >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> >> Excerpt from BD mail below - >> "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? >> My >> sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this >> could >> be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." >> >> I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail >> from >> a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that >> financial >> support and general involvement of non government participants will be >> withdrawn...." >> >> This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, >> and I >> thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... >> >> Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal >> communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to >> Nitin >> Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also >> attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that >> this >> serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's >> right >> to know. >> >> I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include >> the >> agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. >> The >> traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of >> the IG >> space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to >> influence >> substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave >> concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. >> >> If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand >> corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. >> >> >> Regards, >> Guru >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto: drake at hei.unige.ch] >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM >> To: Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some >> ideas) >> >> Hi, >> >> A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... >> >> On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" < wcurrie at apc.org > > wrote: >> >> > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might >> >> > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of >> >> > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position >> that >> > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion >> >> > was accompanied by four >> >> FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably >> the >> forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but >> were >> not the main voice. >> >> Snip >> >> > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources >> >> > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of >> >> > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the >> > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of >> > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in >> >> > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a >> >> > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number >> >> I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? >> My >> sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this >> could >> be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. >> >> > of questions arise from this scenario: >> >> 1. why don't the developing countries >> > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there >> > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF >> > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the >> threat >> > of withdrawal of funds from the >> >> This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded >> mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes >> when >> the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have >> excuses, >> they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the >> others >> had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would >> not >> be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here >> regard >> as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and >> Norwegians >> ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other >> technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the >> governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if >> contributions >> were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been >> paying. >> Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit >> breaks >> down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that >> everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. >> >> > hegemonic bloc. >> >> 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of >> > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that >> > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. >> They >> > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources >> >> > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as >> >> > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads >> their >> > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts >> > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and >> >> Snip >> >> Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's >> been >> expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward >> looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the >> same >> time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role >> of the >> GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a >> better >> option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how >> the >> respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote >> development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. >> >> > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? >> >> I propose we >> > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining >> it >> > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the >> > substantive >> >> I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think >> this >> merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO >> secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state >> interests >> (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of >> strong >> opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice >> the >> reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the >> WTO, >> WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else >> whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, >> which >> IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, >> and >> are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the >> technical/admin >> environment? >> >> > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa >> >> > and >> > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to >> > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and >> >> > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF >> > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters >> >> > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that >> > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we >> >> > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng >> > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be >> > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet >> resource >> issue in a reasonable manner. >> >> There is only a month to get this together and given >> > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. >> >> Willie >> >> > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile >> >> Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level >> of a >> higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. >> But >> as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of >> course, he >> was in prison when he wrote this.. >> >> Cheers, >> >> BD >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > > > _____ > > How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in > Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea > tml> . > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 8 23:11:12 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 08:41:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence In-Reply-To: <4073.66.135.114.72.1181357691.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <20070609031119.89C764066@smtp1.electricembers.net> Sure, Michael, I am completely with you on adhering to basic principles of public funding of public policy institutions, and the dangers of getting into dependence on private funding, however liberal and diverse. I only spoke about it as an immediate imperative to counter some narrow and sectional interests with deep pockets from getting away with disproportionate influence on the IGF. And, probably a symbolic resistance to such efforts. In as much as even our private funding proposal strengthens the notion of private funding of public policy institutions, I will rather tone it down as essentially secondary to the basic principles involved here in the matter of moves towards, as you say, privatization of public policy. 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: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca [mailto:mgurst at vcn.bc.ca] > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:25 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'David Goldstein' > Subject: RE: [governance] The Forum's financial independence > > Parminder and all, > > I'm really unsure as to why a process/institution we want to operate in > the broad public interest should be expected (allowed?) to be funded by > sectional or private interests? > > Shouldn't we be thinking through how to ensure that the IGF is funded in > some way consistent with this as a principle. > > Perhaps micro-payments are the way to go but the way it is presented here > suggests that this is "our" private interest being presented rather than > someone else's. > > I would prefer a principled approach in this area and think it is > something that we should not give away casually or without a fight > whatever the positioning of those who argue for (are willing to accept) > the privatization of public policy. > > MG > > > > >>Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and > >> corporate > > technology companies. > > > > > > > > Micro-funding from the wider constituency is an important digital age > > concept and emerging practice for independence of political structures . > > We > > sure should try something like this. And contribute money even if > > initially > > mostly of symbolic value. Wikipedia and creative commons are some > examples > > of public interest systems that have tried it successfully. > > > > > > > > A mutli-stakeholder global governance system, with some international > > legitimacy, and which has possible implications beyond ICT governance > > should > > be an important structure to support. However, as David says, we need to > > make a good case for it, and then push it with some energy. > > > > > > > > IT for Change is ready to get it rolling with a contribution of USD 500 > > :-) > > (to be pooled in from personal contributions). And we wont link it with > > pushing our agenda either. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > _____ > > > > From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] > > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:48 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] The Forum's financial independence > > > > > > > > Hi Bertrand et al, > > > > Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and > corporate > > technology companies. > > > > I think it could be easily made clear what is being funded and what the > > IGF > > is doing to any potential funders to make it clear the organisation is > > independent. A case for support would be invaluable with all this > > information. > > > > No doubt there would be some who funding would not be accepted from. But > > this could be discussed later. > > > > I'd also like to see the IGF do news releases occasionally to publicise > > the > > work that's being done. This would be essential if there were funders to > > publicise their assistance. > > > > Cheers > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Cc: Milton Mueller ; guru at itforchange.net; Lee McKnight > > ; Parminder > > Sent: Friday, 8 June, 2007 7:25:53 PM > > Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence > > > > Dear all, > > > > What you all agree upon is that there is an issue of common concern and > > interest for all actors (including governments I hope) : > > "How to ensure the financial independence of the IGF ?" (without > > forgetting > > the accountability dimension). > > > > Let's discuss possible solutions rather than getting into a new debate > > among > > ourselves on the dangers (however real) of capture by specific interests > > who > > may like to influence the agenda through funding. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > On 6/8/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > > >>Those believe that the > >> IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if > it > >> does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > >> expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. > > > > Milton (and Lee) > > > > While I agree with the spirit of your email about broadening and > > diversifying IGF's funding base, I have deep problems with both your and > > Lee's formulation of the issue. This is a trading house logic, not that > of > > constitution of public policy bodies. As per what you say above, the > final > > outcome of your recommended process will be - those who have the > ability > > to > > pay more will have greater influence over policy. > > > >> I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > >> to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as > a > >> point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. > > > > One is not being naïve, what is at stake here is the basic principles of > > public institutions. One obviously knows how money actually influences > > politics. However things move to a completely different level when such > > connections are mentioned 'officially'. We recognize a stage of great > > political decadence when such a stage is reached. > > > > In many countries such clear linkage of finances with public policy > agenda > > in key public policy bodies constitutes a criminal offence. And I > consider > > global public policy spaces as sacrosanct as national ones. I know many > > others do not, often in quite an opposition to their enthusiasm for a > > connected global world. > > > >>It is > >> therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > >> governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > >> will become a meaningful forum. > > > > To quote from IT for Change's submission to the recent IGF consultations > > > > " To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other > > required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish a more substantial > > structure. This requires adequate funding for which a strong case should > > be > > made out and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. > > This > > includes governments who may be interested in promoting fair, open and > > representative global public policy structures for IG." > > > > So while we understand the need of diversifying and widening the funding > > base, it doesn't mean that we become insensitive to the basic public > > policy > > issues involved in open linking of public policy agenda with finances in > > manner that strongly seeks to subvert a public policy institution that > > came > > out of the decisions of a world summit. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > >> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:00 PM > >> To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight > >> Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure > >> (someideas) > >> > >> I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone > >> to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as > a > >> point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. Those believe that the > >> IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if > it > >> does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be > >> expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. It is > >> therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their > >> governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it > >> will become a meaningful forum. In this regard, I too am encouraged by > >> Kummer's response. > >> > >> Dr. Milton Mueller > >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >> http://www.digital-convergence.org > >> http://www.internetgovernance.org > >> > >> >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 07-06-07 22:24 >>> > >> Parminder, > >> > >> I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are > >> making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, > it > >> means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old! > >> > >> And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that > >> isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how > >> about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just > what > >> he should do. > >> > >> Lee > >> > >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight > >> School of Information Studies > >> Syracuse University > >> +1-315-443-6891office > >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >> > >> >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>> > >> Excerpt from BD mail below - > >> "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > >> My > >> sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > >> could > >> be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand." > >> > >> I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail > >> from > >> a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that > >> financial > >> support and general involvement of non government participants will be > >> withdrawn...." > >> > >> This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of, > >> and I > >> thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ... > >> > >> Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal > >> communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to > >> Nitin > >> Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also > >> attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that > >> this > >> serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's > >> right > >> to know. > >> > >> I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include > >> the > >> agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats. > >> The > >> traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of > >> the IG > >> space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to > >> influence > >> substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave > >> concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position. > >> > >> If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand > >> corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Guru > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: William Drake [mailto: drake at hei.unige.ch] > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM > >> To: Governance > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some > >> ideas) > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post... > >> > >> On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" < wcurrie at apc.org > > > wrote: > >> > >> > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might > >> > >> > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of > >> > >> > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position > >> that > >> > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion > >> > >> > was accompanied by four > >> > >> FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably > >> the > >> forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed but > >> were > >> not the main voice. > >> > >> Snip > >> > >> > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources > >> > >> > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of > >> > >> > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the > >> > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of > >> > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in > >> > >> > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a > >> > >> > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number > >> > >> I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring to? > >> My > >> sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this > >> could > >> be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand. > >> > >> > of questions arise from this scenario: > >> > >> 1. why don't the developing countries > >> > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there > >> > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF > >> > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the > >> threat > >> > of withdrawal of funds from the > >> > >> This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic unfunded > >> mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes > >> when > >> the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have > >> excuses, > >> they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the > >> others > >> had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would > >> not > >> be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here > >> regard > >> as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and > >> Norwegians > >> ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other > >> technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the > >> governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if > >> contributions > >> were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been > >> paying. > >> Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit > >> breaks > >> down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare that > >> everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away. > >> > >> > hegemonic bloc. > >> > >> 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of > >> > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that > >> > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull. > >> They > >> > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources > >> > >> > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as > >> > >> > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads > >> their > >> > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts > >> > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and > >> > >> Snip > >> > >> Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's > >> been > >> expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward > >> looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the > >> same > >> time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role > >> of the > >> GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a > >> better > >> option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how > >> the > >> respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote > >> development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased. > >> > >> > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'? > >> > >> I propose we > >> > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining > >> it > >> > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the > >> > substantive > >> > >> I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think > >> this > >> merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that IGO > >> secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state > >> interests > >> (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of > >> strong > >> opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice > >> the > >> reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the > >> WTO, > >> WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else > >> whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover, > >> which > >> IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented, > >> and > >> are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the > >> technical/admin > >> environment? > >> > >> > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa > >> > >> > and > >> > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to > >> > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada and > >> > >> > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF > >> > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters > >> > >> > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that > >> > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And we > >> > >> > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng > >> > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be > >> > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet > >> resource > >> issue in a reasonable manner. > >> > >> There is only a month to get this together and given > >> > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste. > >> > >> Willie > >> > >> > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > >> > >> Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level > >> of a > >> higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while. > >> But > >> as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of > >> course, he > >> was in prison when he wrote this.. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> BD > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint > > Exupéry > > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in > > Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea > > babp_reg.h > > tml> . > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 9 07:28:40 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:28:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <4669A7F2.6050505@wzb.eu> References: <20070608082739.3C5BAE1AB3@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4669A7F2.6050505@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <466A8EE8.4070306@Malcolm.id.au> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed interactions >> seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public >> interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are >> overwhelming... > > I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that sentence > above. If you meant to say that in this case public disclosure is more > important than respecting the chatham house rule, then I would like to > object. If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. Take whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if anyone. -- 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 avri at psg.com Sat Jun 9 08:39:49 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:39:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <466A8EE8.4070306@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20070608082739.3C5BAE1AB3@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4669A7F2.6050505@wzb.eu> <466A8EE8.4070306@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: -- somewhat an aside - On 9 jun 2007, at 13.28, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can > hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. > Take whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if anyone. this is one of those age old questions that has bugged me for a long time in a variety of venues - are we responsible for the promises others make? are we responsible for helping others keep those promises and are we also guilty when we assist in breaking those promises. the normal place it comes up is in married life and affairs. is the 3rd party, the lover outside marriage, responsible for their activities vis a vis the marriage oath? true only one of them took the vow, but it take someone to help them break that vow. likewise, if someone knows that a communication has been leaked from a confidential source do they have a responsibility for maintaining that confidence? it is not as if the person who leaked these emails, thought they were so important they were willing to take the chance a spread the news themselves. and for all we know, it was never meant to be leaked to the world, only shared with one intimate confidant, who shared it with another confidant, who then shared it with the world. so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it also bear responsibility. btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one participant's part. i do not believe we are talking about some crime that brings us into the realm of whistle blowing. true many of us, myself included, would prefer that all lists be open, but there are reasons that people close lists and if one is closed, it probably should be respected - except in the case of a crime or an impending crime - which is most definitely not the case in this case. i think the most important ipoints that came out is that the IGF was an unfunded mandate, and that it is struggling for a financial footing. and if in that struggle someone feels they can take try to take tactical advantage of it, it is good that the person responsible for the secretariat is able to tell them where to get off. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jun 9 11:08:38 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:08:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <466A8EE8.4070306@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20070608082739.3C5BAE1AB3@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4669A7F2.6050505@wzb.eu> <466A8EE8.4070306@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <466AC276.3020104@wzb.eu> Actually I wasn't blaming Guru. I was responding to Parminder who, if I understood him correctly, said that I he found it justified to break the Chatham house rule. jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed interactions >>> seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public >>> interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are >>> overwhelming... >> >> I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that sentence >> above. If you meant to say that in this case public disclosure is more >> important than respecting the chatham house rule, then I would like to >> object. > > If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can > hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. Take > whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if anyone. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 9 17:01:43 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:01:43 -0400 Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (someideas) Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> parminder at itforchange.net 06/08/07 5:01 AM >>> >.While I agree with the spirit of your email about broadening >and diversifying IGF's funding base, I have deep problems with >both your and Lee's formulation of the issue. This is a trading >house logic, not that of constitution of public policy bodies. >As per what you say above, the final outcome of your >recommended process will be - those who have the ability to >pay more will have greater influence over policy. Final outcome? In case you hadn't noticed, money has had greater influence over policy for about ten centuries. Don't blame the messenger. Basically, Lee and I were asserting two things: a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage over the activities of the IGF b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) Do you disagree with either of these propositions? If not, please spare us the posturing of moral superiority, and help come up with feasible ideas regarding b) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sat Jun 9 19:13:18 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:13:18 +0200 Subject: MAG operating under the Chatham house rule? Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <466AC276.3020104@wzb.eu> References: <20070608082739.3C5BAE1AB3@smtp3.electricembers.net> <4669A7F2.6050505@wzb.eu> <466A8EE8.4070306@Malcolm.id.au> <466AC276.3020104@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <85162516-882E-4DCF-B7F2-3B00526F01A2@ras.eu.org> Break the Chatham house rule? Who said the MAG was operating under the Chatham house rule? From the Chatham house website: "The Chatham House Rule reads as follows: "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed"." The MAG is not operating under the Chatham house rule. It's rather operating under the rule of silence. How it comes that such an important exchange as the one forwarded by Guru has not even been evoked by any MAG member, and specially by the CS members of the MAG? Moreover, the Chatham house rule shouldn't be re-interpreted: (still from the Chatham house website) "Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule? A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted." So the Chatham house rule is not meant to hide to the public organizations' or coalitions' positions expressed by their representatives, as is the current case. It is normally meant to protect those organizations' representatives from their organizations, when they want to speak freely as individuals, not necessarily in accordance with their organizations' positions. Thus, I hardly see how the Chatham house rule could be evoked here. Apart from the fact that, as others already commented, this rule would have applied to participants to the meetings, not to external people. BTW, what are the MAG rules, if any... Meryem Le 9 juin 07 à 17:08, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > Actually I wasn't blaming Guru. I was responding to Parminder who, > if I understood him correctly, said that I he found it justified to > break the Chatham house rule. > jeanette > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed >>>> interactions >>>> seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of >>>> public >>>> interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are >>>> overwhelming... >>> >>> I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that >>> sentence above. If you meant to say that in this case public >>> disclosure is more important than respecting the chatham house >>> rule, then I would like to object. >> If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can >> hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. >> Take whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if >> anyone. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 10 05:24:39 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:54:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <4669A7F2.6050505@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070610092453.21E825C64@smtp2.electricembers.net> > I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that sentence > above. If you meant to say that in this case public disclosure is more > important than respecting the chatham house rule, then I would like to > object. Two things before I answer the real question " what you said in that sentence > above". One, as Jeremy says Guru is not subject to Chatham house rules, as someone who gets access to documents whose disclosure has important public interests implications, and after making sure that they are genuine shares them with all. This is more of a journalist/ public activist role which is at very heart of democracy. Think of where we would if our journalists did not give us access to a good amount of official correspondences in governments over which a complete 'industry' of accountability extraction is build. Think of how our governments and bureaucrats will work if they had complete assurance (and some draconian law backing such assurance) that what they wrote in official correspondences in their routine activities (except a few cases, where because of some strong and clear reasons, some exceptions may be recognized), which are generally not public domain documents as such, will always be protected from the public gaze. I did forward the example of the expose of the Condoleezza's Rice' letter to EU ministers (incidentally the expose is made by Kieren McCarthy and he (rightly) proudly declares that " This is the first time the full text of that letter has been published") and how widely it was circulated. Why such expose from governments are greatly appreciated, but if they have to do with some "CS friendly" bodies that need to be treated with velvet gloves, one needs to be so defensive about them. Let's stay CS, not try to be bunch of bureaucrats citing rules for such simple matters of transparency.... The Rice letter could also have come out only through some bureaucrat (bond with similar informal, and perhaps formal rules of non-disclosure as well). Why one thing is so good and other is bad... can anyone tell me that? Second thing is that I did not in my email expect anyone to break the chatham house rules.... However, Meryem has given an excellent explanation of these rules, and I do not want to duplicate it here. Wonder, why when Bill queried about Willie's email, and said he hasn't heard about the 'threat' no MAG member came in to explain, even keeping within chatham house rules. In any case, the exchange was important enough that it should have been mentioned even before Willie referred to it. It is a good question Meryem asks - where are the MAG rules. And also if I remember right IGC nominations for MAG carried some conditions about keeping in touch with IGC on vital matters etc and reporting information. Chatham rules are devised as an excellent way information can be reported. I will respond to the query about the text of my email which led Jeanette to defend chatham rules in another email. 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 wzb.eu] > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 12:33 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; guru at itforchange.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) > > > > > > Well, I, like Guru, have had access to these emails for a few days now, > > since they have been discussed in some e-groups. But I wasn't sure what > to > > do with them because I know there are people who hurry to a 'conspiracy > > against ICANN' kind of alarm very easily (even when other disclosures of > > official docs like the Condeleezza Rice's letter to European governments > on > > WSIS stand vis a vis IG are considered important in public interest. See > > http://i- > policy.typepad.com/informationpolicy/2005/12/read_the_letter.html > > ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed interactions > > seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public > > interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are > overwhelming... > > I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that sentence > above. If you meant to say that in this case public disclosure is more > important than respecting the chatham house rule, then I would like to > object. Personally I wantb to know if I say something on a private list > or in a public, archived space. If I cannot be sure that I speak on a > private list, I will behave as if I speak in a public place. It is > perfectly ok to object to or boycott private conversations on public > matters, I don't find ok at all to selectively broadcast compromising > emails. > > For me the main difference between a public and a private discussion > space is the tolerance I can expect when I say something stupid. I think > twice before I express my opinion in this list here as I know I have to > expect criticism or something worse. A private list is supposed to be > protected space where ideas can be tested and where I don't expect > people using things against me. I didn't like Chris' email either but he > does deserve a fair treatment that would allow him, for example, to > change his mind. > jeanette > > > > > > Looks like Guru thought it necessary to come in, in reference to 'ICANN > > threats' in Willie's and Bill's emails and share these mails in this > list. > > > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 10 05:38:21 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:08:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <466AC276.3020104@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070610093832.DFF6F5C52@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Actually I wasn't blaming Guru. I was responding to Parminder who, if I > understood him correctly, said that I he found it justified to break the > Chatham house rule. > jeanette Jeanette, if you read my email again you can see that I never said that. I quote my email in full. > Lee > > Think, you addressed your email below to me by mistake. I didn't post the > IGF emails, Guru did :) > > Well, I, like Guru, have had access to these emails for a few days now, > since they have been discussed in some e-groups. But I wasn't sure what > to > do with them because I know there are people who hurry to a 'conspiracy > against ICANN' kind of alarm very easily (even when other disclosures of > official docs like the Condeleezza Rice's letter to European governments > on > WSIS stand vis a vis IG are considered important in public interest. See > http://i-policy.typepad.com/informationpolicy/2005/12/read_the_letter.html > ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed interactions > seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public > interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are > overwhelming... > > Looks like Guru thought it necessary to come in, in reference to 'ICANN > threats' in Willie's and Bill's emails and share these mails in this list. > > Parminder > I was explaining, how though I had access to the email exchange, I myself took time wondering what to do about them, since with the burden of the official position of co-coordinator-ship, rules probably seemed more important they owed to. I know I am not bond by chatham house rules, I was only a little worried how many people in the IGC close to the IGF will see this disclosure (though I was very clear that disclosure should be made in public interest, and that these people who knew it before we others did, perhaps, should themselves have shared the information with us, even if under chatham house rules). A couple of responses now have borne out my fears, and it really bothers me how we in IGC see public accountability, transparency etc. We, who are supposed to be representing a CS constituency. 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 wzb.eu] > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: Parminder; 'Lee McKnight'; guru at itforchange.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) > > Actually I wasn't blaming Guru. I was responding to Parminder who, if I > understood him correctly, said that I he found it justified to break the > Chatham house rule. > jeanette > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>> ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed > interactions > >>> seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public > >>> interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are > >>> overwhelming... > >> > >> I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that sentence > >> above. If you meant to say that in this case public disclosure is more > >> important than respecting the chatham house rule, then I would like to > >> object. > > > > If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can > > hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. Take > > whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if anyone. > > -------------- 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 Sun Jun 10 06:18:23 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:48:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070610101828.B3190E0AA4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Avri > btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a > personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one > participant's part. I am not sure if you read the offending email, and reflected on its context and implications. The first sentence on the email is "A number of advisory group members met tonight to discuss today's meeting and I am sending this to you and the list to express our concerns." And throughout afterwards a collective "we" and "our" is used. So the email is hardly a personal foible, it represents the consider view of a like-minded group within the MAG, and everything about the mail suggests that Chris was authorized to write this email on the behalf of the group, in an almost formal manner, to the IGF secretariat. So it is really not one of those poorly-considered remarks in a closed meeting for which you (and Jeanette) think one should be protected. It looks like quite a formal letter, though within the proceedings of MAG, taking up the concern of a group of members, which have been formulated though some amount of deliberation. Will you give same considerations as you give this letter to public interest disclosures from your governments working. Say, a group of parliamentarians, writing a collective letter in the proceedings of a parliament committee, many of which work under chatham house rules in the matter of informal discussions. Pick up the newspaper, it is full of such scoops from government's working. So, I will like you to explain to me why MAG's working should not be treated differently than that of any other public body. ' Both you and Jeanette have used some arguments (for examples your on marital fidelity) from the realm of private lives. Now, we need to make this distinction clear - MAG is a public body, and its members are public office holders, even if some informal rules on disclosure of information apply to some of its proceedings. Chatham house rules, as explained by Meryem, are built to serve public interest imperatives, and are there to facilitate sharing of information from activities of public bodies, rather than necessarily blocking it. Government officials will be glad to get the protections which we are affording the so-called new age experiment in a new, CS driven, open, etc etc form of global governance. But in most countries they have lost it decades ago, and have learnt to live with it. > so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but > perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it > also bear responsibility. Well :), not sure you really mean it. But if you do, then I will like to say that, you can have your private opinions, but this is what constitutes public activism. Welcome to the world of democracy, transparency, accountability, people's right to public information and civil society activism. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:10 PM > To: Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: Governance Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) > > -- somewhat an aside - > > On 9 jun 2007, at 13.28, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can > > hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. > > Take whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if anyone. > > > this is one of those age old questions that has bugged me for a long > time in a variety of venues - are we responsible for the promises > others make? are we responsible for helping others keep those > promises and are we also guilty when we assist in breaking those > promises. > > the normal place it comes up is in married life and affairs. is the > 3rd party, the lover outside marriage, responsible for their > activities vis a vis the marriage oath? true only one of them took > the vow, but it take someone to help them break that vow. > > likewise, if someone knows that a communication has been leaked from > a confidential source do they have a responsibility for maintaining > that confidence? it is not as if the person who leaked these > emails, thought they were so important they were willing to take the > chance a spread the news themselves. and for all we know, it was > never meant to be leaked to the world, only shared with one intimate > confidant, who shared it with another confidant, who then shared it > with the world. > > so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but > perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it > also bear responsibility. > > btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a > personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one > participant's part. i do not believe we are talking about some crime > that brings us into the realm of whistle blowing. true many of us, > myself included, would prefer that all lists be open, but there are > reasons that people close lists and if one is closed, it probably > should be respected - except in the case of a crime or an impending > crime - which is most definitely not the case in this case. > > i think the most important ipoints that came out is that the IGF was > an unfunded mandate, and that it is struggling for a financial > footing. and if in that struggle someone feels they can take try to > take tactical advantage of it, it is good that the person responsible > for the secretariat is able to tell them where to get off. > > 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 mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Sun Jun 10 06:39:15 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <20070610101828.B3190E0AA4@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070610101828.B3190E0AA4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1370.66.135.114.72.1181471955.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Hello All, I hadn't as yet read Guru's note or the attached emails from the MAG when I sent my original note, but having now read them and following the recent interactions it only reinforces my original point, which I think should be the issue for CS i.e. ensuring that there is public and transparent funding for public processes. The note sent along only reveals what we all knew which is that in the absence of this, them's that pays the piper calls the tune. Happening to know who the piper is in this particular instance is of tittilating interest only, I would suggest, but being again reminded of the larger issue is surely something of significant public value--Chatham House rules or no--if only to enlighten those of a more naive persuasion. MG > > Avri > >> btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a >> personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one >> participant's part. > > I am not sure if you read the offending email, and reflected on its > context > and implications. The first sentence on the email is > > "A number of advisory group members met tonight to discuss today's meeting > and I am sending this to you and the list to express our concerns." > > And throughout afterwards a collective "we" and "our" is used. So the > email > is hardly a personal foible, it represents the consider view of a > like-minded group within the MAG, and everything about the mail suggests > that Chris was authorized to write this email on the behalf of the group, > in > an almost formal manner, to the IGF secretariat. > > So it is really not one of those poorly-considered remarks in a closed > meeting for which you (and Jeanette) think one should be protected. It > looks > like quite a formal letter, though within the proceedings of MAG, taking > up > the concern of a group of members, which have been formulated though some > amount of deliberation. Will you give same considerations as you give this > letter to public interest disclosures from your governments working. Say, > a > group of parliamentarians, writing a collective letter in the proceedings > of > a parliament committee, many of which work under chatham house rules in > the > matter of informal discussions. Pick up the newspaper, it is full of such > scoops from government's working. So, I will like you to explain to me > why > MAG's working should not be treated differently than that of any other > public body. > ' > Both you and Jeanette have used some arguments (for examples your on > marital > fidelity) from the realm of private lives. Now, we need to make this > distinction clear - MAG is a public body, and its members are public > office > holders, even if some informal rules on disclosure of information apply to > some of its proceedings. Chatham house rules, as explained by Meryem, are > built to serve public interest imperatives, and are there to facilitate > sharing of information from activities of public bodies, rather than > necessarily blocking it. > > Government officials will be glad to get the protections which we are > affording the so-called new age experiment in a new, CS driven, open, etc > etc form of global governance. But in most countries they have lost it > decades ago, and have learnt to live with it. > >> so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but >> perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it >> also bear responsibility. > > Well :), not sure you really mean it. But if you do, then I will like to > say > that, you can have your private opinions, but this is what constitutes > public activism. Welcome to the world of democracy, transparency, > accountability, people's right to public information and civil society > activism. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:10 PM >> To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Cc: Governance Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) >> >> -- somewhat an aside - >> >> On 9 jun 2007, at 13.28, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> > If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can >> > hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. >> > Take whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if anyone. >> >> >> this is one of those age old questions that has bugged me for a long >> time in a variety of venues - are we responsible for the promises >> others make? are we responsible for helping others keep those >> promises and are we also guilty when we assist in breaking those >> promises. >> >> the normal place it comes up is in married life and affairs. is the >> 3rd party, the lover outside marriage, responsible for their >> activities vis a vis the marriage oath? true only one of them took >> the vow, but it take someone to help them break that vow. >> >> likewise, if someone knows that a communication has been leaked from >> a confidential source do they have a responsibility for maintaining >> that confidence? it is not as if the person who leaked these >> emails, thought they were so important they were willing to take the >> chance a spread the news themselves. and for all we know, it was >> never meant to be leaked to the world, only shared with one intimate >> confidant, who shared it with another confidant, who then shared it >> with the world. >> >> so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but >> perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it >> also bear responsibility. >> >> btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a >> personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one >> participant's part. i do not believe we are talking about some crime >> that brings us into the realm of whistle blowing. true many of us, >> myself included, would prefer that all lists be open, but there are >> reasons that people close lists and if one is closed, it probably >> should be respected - except in the case of a crime or an impending >> crime - which is most definitely not the case in this case. >> >> i think the most important ipoints that came out is that the IGF was >> an unfunded mandate, and that it is struggling for a financial >> footing. and if in that struggle someone feels they can take try to >> take tactical advantage of it, it is good that the person responsible >> for the secretariat is able to tell them where to get off. >> >> 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 > > > !DSPAM:2676,466bd004285501450418039! > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Jun 10 08:19:31 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:19:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <20070610101828.B3190E0AA4@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070610101828.B3190E0AA4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7562E738-B1A7-480B-B27D-81284BF29599@psg.com> On 10 jun 2007, at 12.18, Parminder wrote: > I am not sure if you read the offending email, and reflected on its > context > and implications. Please do not be so condescending. > > "A number of advisory group members met tonight to discuss today's > meeting > and I am sending this to you and the list to express our concerns." > > And throughout afterwards a collective "we" and "our" is used. It really does not matter what someone says using a royal we. It is a communication by one person unless others have explicitly signed on or explicitly endorsed the statement. > it represents the consider view of a > like-minded group within the MAG, and everything about the mail > suggests > that Chris was authorized to write this email on the behalf of the > group, in > an almost formal manner, to the IGF secretariat. That is, as far as i can tell an accusation without basis. Fortunately you do not name the members of the conspiratorial cabal. > So, I will like you to explain to me why > MAG's working should not be treated differently than that of any other > public body. The Advisory Group is not a empowered public body and it was not elected by some group of constituents. It is a group of advisors serving at the pleasure of the UNSG and his advisor, the Chair. Their email list is a closed list. Forwarding messages off of a closed list is a breach of netiquette. As I argued, that privacy should be respected except in the case of a crime or an impending crime - and this just does not rise to that level. As I mentioned I personally prefer open lists, but I must respect the view that others have not opened up their lists. If people participate in a list with the assumption of privacy, then we all have something to gain by protecting that privacy. Sure, this is not illegal and muckrackers have always had the privilege of digging though the muck to find some titillating tidbit to use in furthering their agendas. If you think this particular conspiracy theory is going to further CS's goals and agenda, whatever they might be, then so be it. Personally, i think it is as tactically broken as the original email was. I would prefer to see the list working on civil society's issues and not on some bit of tantalizing fluff. 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Jun 10 08:55:25 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:55:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Post to cpsr.org] Message-ID: <466BF4BD.6010604@Malcolm.id.au> At his request, I am forwarding an email from Chris Disspain. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Chris Disspain" Subject: Post to cpsr.org Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:58:02 +1000 (EST) Size: 24244 URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Jun 10 09:40:28 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:40:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <1370.66.135.114.72.1181471955.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: Hi, In the mAG email that touched off this debate, Chris Disspain said to Markus, "I intend to raise these issues at the meeting in the morning but thought it courteous to let you and the rest of the list know in advance." I was unable to attend the Friday open meeting; could someone who did please inform as to whether these issues were indeed raised en plein air and if so how that discussion went? Thanks, Bill On 6/10/07 12:39 PM, "mgurst at vcn.bc.ca" wrote: > Hello All, > > I hadn't as yet read Guru's note or the attached emails from the MAG when > I sent my original note, but having now read them and following the recent > interactions it only reinforces my original point, which I think should be > the issue for CS i.e. ensuring that there is public and transparent > funding for public processes. > > The note sent along only reveals what we all knew which is that in the > absence of this, them's that pays the piper calls the tune. > > Happening to know who the piper is in this particular instance is of > tittilating interest only, I would suggest, but being again reminded of > the larger issue is surely something of significant public value--Chatham > House rules or no--if only to enlighten those of a more naive persuasion. > > MG > >> >> Avri >> >>> btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a >>> personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one >>> participant's part. >> >> I am not sure if you read the offending email, and reflected on its >> context >> and implications. The first sentence on the email is >> >> "A number of advisory group members met tonight to discuss today's meeting >> and I am sending this to you and the list to express our concerns." >> >> And throughout afterwards a collective "we" and "our" is used. So the >> email >> is hardly a personal foible, it represents the consider view of a >> like-minded group within the MAG, and everything about the mail suggests >> that Chris was authorized to write this email on the behalf of the group, >> in >> an almost formal manner, to the IGF secretariat. >> >> So it is really not one of those poorly-considered remarks in a closed >> meeting for which you (and Jeanette) think one should be protected. It >> looks >> like quite a formal letter, though within the proceedings of MAG, taking >> up >> the concern of a group of members, which have been formulated though some >> amount of deliberation. Will you give same considerations as you give this >> letter to public interest disclosures from your governments working. Say, >> a >> group of parliamentarians, writing a collective letter in the proceedings >> of >> a parliament committee, many of which work under chatham house rules in >> the >> matter of informal discussions. Pick up the newspaper, it is full of such >> scoops from government's working. So, I will like you to explain to me >> why >> MAG's working should not be treated differently than that of any other >> public body. >> ' >> Both you and Jeanette have used some arguments (for examples your on >> marital >> fidelity) from the realm of private lives. Now, we need to make this >> distinction clear - MAG is a public body, and its members are public >> office >> holders, even if some informal rules on disclosure of information apply to >> some of its proceedings. Chatham house rules, as explained by Meryem, are >> built to serve public interest imperatives, and are there to facilitate >> sharing of information from activities of public bodies, rather than >> necessarily blocking it. >> >> Government officials will be glad to get the protections which we are >> affording the so-called new age experiment in a new, CS driven, open, etc >> etc form of global governance. But in most countries they have lost it >> decades ago, and have learnt to live with it. >> >>> so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but >>> perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it >>> also bear responsibility. >> >> Well :), not sure you really mean it. But if you do, then I will like to >> say >> that, you can have your private opinions, but this is what constitutes >> public activism. Welcome to the world of democracy, transparency, >> accountability, people's right to public information and civil society >> activism. >> >> Parminder >> >> ________________________________________________ >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> IT for Change, Bangalore >> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >> www.ITforChange.net >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:10 PM >>> To: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Cc: Governance Governance Caucus >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) >>> >>> -- somewhat an aside - >>> >>> On 9 jun 2007, at 13.28, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can >>>> hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. >>>> Take whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if anyone. >>> >>> >>> this is one of those age old questions that has bugged me for a long >>> time in a variety of venues - are we responsible for the promises >>> others make? are we responsible for helping others keep those >>> promises and are we also guilty when we assist in breaking those >>> promises. >>> >>> the normal place it comes up is in married life and affairs. is the >>> 3rd party, the lover outside marriage, responsible for their >>> activities vis a vis the marriage oath? true only one of them took >>> the vow, but it take someone to help them break that vow. >>> >>> likewise, if someone knows that a communication has been leaked from >>> a confidential source do they have a responsibility for maintaining >>> that confidence? it is not as if the person who leaked these >>> emails, thought they were so important they were willing to take the >>> chance a spread the news themselves. and for all we know, it was >>> never meant to be leaked to the world, only shared with one intimate >>> confidant, who shared it with another confidant, who then shared it >>> with the world. >>> >>> so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but >>> perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it >>> also bear responsibility. >>> >>> btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a >>> personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one >>> participant's part. i do not believe we are talking about some crime >>> that brings us into the realm of whistle blowing. true many of us, >>> myself included, would prefer that all lists be open, but there are >>> reasons that people close lists and if one is closed, it probably >>> should be respected - except in the case of a crime or an impending >>> crime - which is most definitely not the case in this case. >>> >>> i think the most important ipoints that came out is that the IGF was >>> an unfunded mandate, and that it is struggling for a financial >>> footing. and if in that struggle someone feels they can take try to >>> take tactical advantage of it, it is good that the person responsible >>> for the secretariat is able to tell them where to get off. >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,466bd004285501450418039! >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 10 09:52:22 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:22:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <7562E738-B1A7-480B-B27D-81284BF29599@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070610135229.80BE843D0@smtp1.electricembers.net> Avri > Please do not be so condescending. I am not. You said in your email that " i believe we are talking about what is at best a personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one participant's part." The first line of the email under question makes it clear that it was a email on behalf of a group, stating matters and opinions developed after due deliberation. So, I am right to assume that it is possible that, in the manner we all do in these times of a thousand emails, you either couldn't read the original email, or could only devote passing attention to it. Nothing more was intended. However, I apologise if you think it came off as condescending. > It really does not matter what someone says using a royal we. It is a > communication by one person unless others have explicitly signed on > or explicitly endorsed the statement. Evidently I trust Chris Disspain more than you do :) > The Advisory Group is not a empowered public body and it was not > elected by some group of constituents. You neither have to empowered or be elected to be a public body. Bureacrats themselves form public offices and their formal collections public bodies, don't they. Forwarding messages off of a > closed list is a breach of netiquette. As I argued, that privacy > should be respected except in the case of a crime or an impending > crime - and this just does not rise to that level. You have refused to engage on the equivalence of the issue under examination and much of journalism and CS activism today. Would you also accept such privacy considerations in that case. Much of watchdog activity of media and CS will collapse in that case. Meryem have also discussed how chatham rules are for information sharing and not so much about privacy, as we speak in terms of individual rights. As for netiquette, Net is a part of the rest of the world, not a special case. Certainly not a special case to apply regressive rules in terms of gains in pulbic accountability law and practices which have been won over centuries. > Sure, this is not illegal and muckrackers have always had the > privilege of digging though the muck to find some titillating tidbit > to use in furthering their agendas. If you think this particular > conspiracy theory is going to further CS's goals and agenda, whatever > they might be, then so be it. Personally, i think it is as > tactically broken as the original email was. Now that is harsh language for some people who struck their neck out to do something for pulbic interest. I don't think I can go into too much detail here to argue the public interest importance of disclosing the instance of a group making explicit connection between financial considerations and public policy agenda, except to say that this is actually criminal in many countries to do so. Let me also comment on how you see chris's email as a simple reminder of the fact of financial isseus with IGF. This is from your earleir email. >i think the most important ipoints that came out is that the IGF was an >unfunded mandate, and that it is struggling >for a financial footing. and if in that struggle someone feels they can take try to take tactical advantage of it, it >is good that the person responsible for the secretariat is able to tell them where to get off. It isnt that simple. It must be remembered that the same qaurters who are now trying to make the best of IGF's financial inadequacies joined up with like-minded governments to support positions at the WSIS that either there should be no separate WSIS follow-up structures, and if there are to be any, they should imply no financial commitments (of UN like public money). So well, this is how it works then. Speak against new public funding of important public bodies, and then pay up some support, and then use that support to push partisan agenda. If this would have happened at the national levels at my or your country, this would be an unimaginably big scandel. I think you are too easy on letting these people off... > I would prefer to see the list working on civil society's issues and > not on some bit of tantalizing fluff. You don't think it is a civil society issue ??? Parminder ________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:50 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: Governance Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) > > > On 10 jun 2007, at 12.18, Parminder wrote: > > > I am not sure if you read the offending email, and reflected on its > > context > > and implications. > > Please do not be so condescending. > > > > > "A number of advisory group members met tonight to discuss today's > > meeting > > and I am sending this to you and the list to express our concerns." > > > > And throughout afterwards a collective "we" and "our" is used. > > It really does not matter what someone says using a royal we. It is a > communication by one person unless others have explicitly signed on > or explicitly endorsed the statement. > > > > it represents the consider view of a > > like-minded group within the MAG, and everything about the mail > > suggests > > that Chris was authorized to write this email on the behalf of the > > group, in > > an almost formal manner, to the IGF secretariat. > > That is, as far as i can tell an accusation without basis. > Fortunately you do not name the members of the conspiratorial cabal. > > > So, I will like you to explain to me why > > MAG's working should not be treated differently than that of any other > > public body. > > The Advisory Group is not a empowered public body and it was not > elected by some group of constituents. It is a group of advisors > serving at the pleasure of the UNSG and his advisor, the Chair. > Their email list is a closed list. Forwarding messages off of a > closed list is a breach of netiquette. As I argued, that privacy > should be respected except in the case of a crime or an impending > crime - and this just does not rise to that level. As I mentioned I > personally prefer open lists, but I must respect the view that others > have not opened up their lists. If people participate in a list with > the assumption of privacy, then we all have something to gain by > protecting that privacy. > > Sure, this is not illegal and muckrackers have always had the > privilege of digging though the muck to find some titillating tidbit > to use in furthering their agendas. If you think this particular > conspiracy theory is going to further CS's goals and agenda, whatever > they might be, then so be it. Personally, i think it is as > tactically broken as the original email was. > > I would prefer to see the list working on civil society's issues and > not on some bit of tantalizing fluff. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Sun Jun 10 10:10:11 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:10:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59C6C5D3-C776-4078-BD78-FE55C489FB06@psg.com> hi, Not so far as I noticed. a. On 10 jun 2007, at 15.40, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > In the mAG email that touched off this debate, Chris Disspain said to > Markus, "I intend to raise these issues at the meeting in the > morning but > thought it courteous to let you and the rest of the list know in > advance." > I was unable to attend the Friday open meeting; could someone who > did please > inform as to whether these issues were indeed raised en plein air > and if so > how that discussion went? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > On 6/10/07 12:39 PM, "mgurst at vcn.bc.ca" wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I hadn't as yet read Guru's note or the attached emails from the >> MAG when >> I sent my original note, but having now read them and following >> the recent >> interactions it only reinforces my original point, which I think >> should be >> the issue for CS i.e. ensuring that there is public and transparent >> funding for public processes. >> >> The note sent along only reveals what we all knew which is that in >> the >> absence of this, them's that pays the piper calls the tune. >> >> Happening to know who the piper is in this particular instance is of >> tittilating interest only, I would suggest, but being again >> reminded of >> the larger issue is surely something of significant public value-- >> Chatham >> House rules or no--if only to enlighten those of a more naive >> persuasion. >> >> MG >> >>> >>> Avri >>> >>>> btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a >>>> personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one >>>> participant's part. >>> >>> I am not sure if you read the offending email, and reflected on its >>> context >>> and implications. The first sentence on the email is >>> >>> "A number of advisory group members met tonight to discuss >>> today's meeting >>> and I am sending this to you and the list to express our concerns." >>> >>> And throughout afterwards a collective "we" and "our" is used. So >>> the >>> email >>> is hardly a personal foible, it represents the consider view of a >>> like-minded group within the MAG, and everything about the mail >>> suggests >>> that Chris was authorized to write this email on the behalf of >>> the group, >>> in >>> an almost formal manner, to the IGF secretariat. >>> >>> So it is really not one of those poorly-considered remarks in a >>> closed >>> meeting for which you (and Jeanette) think one should be >>> protected. It >>> looks >>> like quite a formal letter, though within the proceedings of MAG, >>> taking >>> up >>> the concern of a group of members, which have been formulated >>> though some >>> amount of deliberation. Will you give same considerations as you >>> give this >>> letter to public interest disclosures from your governments >>> working. Say, >>> a >>> group of parliamentarians, writing a collective letter in the >>> proceedings >>> of >>> a parliament committee, many of which work under chatham house >>> rules in >>> the >>> matter of informal discussions. Pick up the newspaper, it is full >>> of such >>> scoops from government's working. So, I will like you to explain >>> to me >>> why >>> MAG's working should not be treated differently than that of any >>> other >>> public body. >>> ' >>> Both you and Jeanette have used some arguments (for examples your on >>> marital >>> fidelity) from the realm of private lives. Now, we need to make this >>> distinction clear - MAG is a public body, and its members are public >>> office >>> holders, even if some informal rules on disclosure of information >>> apply to >>> some of its proceedings. Chatham house rules, as explained by >>> Meryem, are >>> built to serve public interest imperatives, and are there to >>> facilitate >>> sharing of information from activities of public bodies, rather than >>> necessarily blocking it. >>> >>> Government officials will be glad to get the protections which we >>> are >>> affording the so-called new age experiment in a new, CS driven, >>> open, etc >>> etc form of global governance. But in most countries they have >>> lost it >>> decades ago, and have learnt to live with it. >>> >>>> so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but >>>> perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it >>>> also bear responsibility. >>> >>> Well :), not sure you really mean it. But if you do, then I will >>> like to >>> say >>> that, you can have your private opinions, but this is what >>> constitutes >>> public activism. Welcome to the world of democracy, transparency, >>> accountability, people's right to public information and civil >>> society >>> activism. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> ________________________________________________ >>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>> IT for Change, Bangalore >>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >>> www.ITforChange.net >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:10 PM >>>> To: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Cc: Governance Governance Caucus >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some >>>> ideas) >>>> >>>> -- somewhat an aside - >>>> >>>> On 9 jun 2007, at 13.28, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can >>>>> hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group. >>>>> Take whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if >>>>> anyone. >>>> >>>> >>>> this is one of those age old questions that has bugged me for a >>>> long >>>> time in a variety of venues - are we responsible for the promises >>>> others make? are we responsible for helping others keep those >>>> promises and are we also guilty when we assist in breaking those >>>> promises. >>>> >>>> the normal place it comes up is in married life and affairs. is >>>> the >>>> 3rd party, the lover outside marriage, responsible for their >>>> activities vis a vis the marriage oath? true only one of them took >>>> the vow, but it take someone to help them break that vow. >>>> >>>> likewise, if someone knows that a communication has been leaked >>>> from >>>> a confidential source do they have a responsibility for >>>> maintaining >>>> that confidence? it is not as if the person who leaked these >>>> emails, thought they were so important they were willing to >>>> take the >>>> chance a spread the news themselves. and for all we know, it was >>>> never meant to be leaked to the world, only shared with one >>>> intimate >>>> confidant, who shared it with another confidant, who then shared it >>>> with the world. >>>> >>>> so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault. but >>>> perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it >>>> also bear responsibility. >>>> >>>> btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a >>>> personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one >>>> participant's part. i do not believe we are talking about some >>>> crime >>>> that brings us into the realm of whistle blowing. true many of us, >>>> myself included, would prefer that all lists be open, but there are >>>> reasons that people close lists and if one is closed, it probably >>>> should be respected - except in the case of a crime or an impending >>>> crime - which is most definitely not the case in this case. >>>> >>>> i think the most important ipoints that came out is that the IGF >>>> was >>>> an unfunded mandate, and that it is struggling for a financial >>>> footing. and if in that struggle someone feels they can take >>>> try to >>>> take tactical advantage of it, it is good that the person >>>> responsible >>>> for the secretariat is able to tell them where to get off. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> !DSPAM:2676,466bd004285501450418039! >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Jun 10 10:26:34 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:26:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <20070610135229.80BE843D0@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070610135229.80BE843D0@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <5C71BF69-9BAF-4137-9087-BB140C624933@psg.com> On 10 jun 2007, at 15.52, Parminder wrote: > for some people who struck their neck out to do something for > pulbic interest. does this mean that there was a group decision to release the email? if so, in the spirit of transparency of public groups, would it be possible to know those who were part of sticking their necks out for the public interest? is there email which can be released where this disclosure was discussed? if this was not a breach of netiquette but a proud act of heroic activism, then we should recognize all of the people who took a chance for the public interest. > You don’t think it is a civil society issue ??? > question of semantics here. It has been made a issue by some part of civil society, so in that respect, yes, it is a civil society issue. on the other hand, is it one of the important issues that needs to be discussed in terms of Internet governance for development or policies for enabling access for all? i don't think so. does it contribute toward developing CS initiated multistakeholder workshop proposals for Rio? i don't think so. does it even begin to develop the topics CS would like to see discussed as part of the Critical Internet Resources theme that is now on the agenda? again, i don't think so. as I said, i see it as tantalizing fluff, kind of like a good story in the tabloid press - juicy and full of intrigue but signifying nothing. but that is just my personal opinion. 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 Sun Jun 10 10:30:52 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:30:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Saving the IGF Message-ID: <466C0B1C.6030406@bertola.eu> All, I think that we are focusing on the wrong issue. I would never have forwarded that message "as is" as it was done, but the Chatham House rules that have been adopted by the IGF AG only prohibit naming the speaker - they do not prohibit making public what is being said. So, while the netiquette and the AG rules have been broken when the author of the message was explicitly named, no rule was broken in letting us know that this kind of discussion was going on in the AG. Actually, if I may, I think that a discussion of this magnitude and importance going on in the AG should have prompted its civil society members to raise it immediately on this list and/or the CS plenary. I do not think that they omitted doing so on purpose, but IMHO we have to be more committed to building effective channels of communications between our representatives in the AG and the broader set of civil society participants, especially as the IGF might adopt more formalized representative structures. Anyway, the real point is that there is a risk of the IGF breaking up under two opposite pressures, one by the countries willing to discuss Internet resources and pushing for formal recommendations to be made, and the other from the "Internet community" group rejecting any idea of formal recommendations and threatening to walk off the forum, cut funds etc. We in civil society were the main proposers of the IGF, and so I think that it is up to us to try to save the IGF from these threats, and try to bridge the two positions. Personally, I am doing what I can to encourage the "Internet community" people to be less afraid and more understanding, and to stay in the process. Perhaps those of us who have contacts with some of the governments on the other side, such as Brazil, China, Russia and India, could try to encourage them to be willing to compromise as well. IMHO, the Internet is the party that has more to lose from wrecking the only current attempt at an open and global process to discuss its future. We always tried to represent the hope for a better future, and protect the Internet from any specific interest group. Under this light, I couldn't care less about the bureaucracy of the AG rules - I think that we should focus on how to save the IGF. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 11:02:14 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:02:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <5C71BF69-9BAF-4137-9087-BB140C624933@psg.com> References: <20070610135229.80BE843D0@smtp1.electricembers.net> <5C71BF69-9BAF-4137-9087-BB140C624933@psg.com> Message-ID: On 6/10/07, Avri Doria wrote: > as I said, i see it as tantalizing fluff, kind of like a good story > in the tabloid press - juicy and full of intrigue but signifying > nothing. Tempest, teapot, let's move on shall we? -- 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 mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Sun Jun 10 16:54:05 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <7562E738-B1A7-480B-B27D-81284BF29599@psg.com> References: <20070610101828.B3190E0AA4@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7562E738-B1A7-480B-B27D-81284BF29599@psg.com> Message-ID: <63264.64.229.30.148.1181508845.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> "Transparency, accountability, rule of law..." It's really hard for me to see what Civil Society issues are more important than those that arise from this particular exchange. I believe that this is called the Internet "Governance" Forum, not the West Twickenham Social Circle... If the governance process of the governance forum is not held to some level of appropriate practice then how can one have any reliance on the outcome of that process? And to ensure that this is not something "more than a bit of tantalizing fluff" then CS should surely be working with redoubled and single-minded effort to ensure that the process is in fact "transparent, accountable, subject to the rule of law" etc.etc. by for example insisting on some appropriate "Ceasar's wife" funding mechanism... MG > > I would prefer to see the list working on civil society's issues and > not on some bit of tantalizing fluff. > > 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 > > > !DSPAM:2676,466bec71285508099411786! > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pouzin at well.com Sun Jun 10 20:27:03 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:27:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: <200706110027.l5B0R3Lu024616@muse.enst.fr> This rift about who should feel guilty of spilling restricted info sounds a bit like snowing the gist of the issue. I do concur with Parminder that Meryem gave a crystal clear roundup of the Chatham house rules. She aptly pinpointed the "rule of silence" followed by the MAG (members). Isn't there a need to reassess the CS representation in this cloak and dagger operation ? Cheers - - On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:13:18 +0200, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >The MAG is not operating under the Chatham house rule. It's rather operating under the rule of silence. How it comes that such an important exchange as the one forwarded by Guru has not even been evoked by any MAG member, and specially by the CS members of the MAG? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 11 06:14:27 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:14:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Saving the IGF Message-ID: >>> vb at bertola.eu 6/10/2007 10:30:52 AM >>> >...a discussion of this >magnitude and importance going on in the AG should >have prompted its civil society members to raise it >immediately on this list and/or the CS plenary. I do >not think that they omitted doing so on purpose, but >IMHO we have to be more committed to building >effective channels of communications between >our representatives in the AG and the broader set of civil society >participants, especially as the IGF might adopt more formalized >representative structures. Well said. I agree. >We in civil society were the main proposers of the IGF, >and so I think that it is up to us to try to save the IGF >from these threats, and try to bridge the two positions. Yes. Perhaps this can be a topic at the CS meetings in San Juan's ICANN meeting? >We always tried to represent the hope for a better future, >and protect the Internet from any specific interest group. >Under this light, I couldn't care less about the bureaucracy >of the AG rules - I think that we should focus on how to >save the IGF. The priorities here are good ones. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Jun 11 08:38:27 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:38:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Saving the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466D4243.7070401@rits.org.br> Yes, I agree as well with Bertola's good points. Who will be at the Icann meeting in PR? We could plan a specific joint meeting of all CS constituencies who will be there. --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>> vb at bertola.eu 6/10/2007 10:30:52 AM >>> >> ...a discussion of this >> magnitude and importance going on in the AG should >> have prompted its civil society members to raise it >> immediately on this list and/or the CS plenary. I do >> not think that they omitted doing so on purpose, but >> IMHO we have to be more committed to building >> effective channels of communications between >> our representatives in the AG and the broader set of civil society >> participants, especially as the IGF might adopt more formalized >> representative structures. > > Well said. I agree. > >> We in civil society were the main proposers of the IGF, >> and so I think that it is up to us to try to save the IGF >>from these threats, and try to bridge the two positions. > > Yes. Perhaps this can be a topic at the CS meetings in San Juan's ICANN > meeting? > >> We always tried to represent the hope for a better future, >> and protect the Internet from any specific interest group. >> Under this light, I couldn't care less about the bureaucracy >> of the AG rules - I think that we should focus on how to >> save the IGF. > > The priorities here are good ones. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 11 09:32:46 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:32:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Saving the IGF In-Reply-To: <466C0B1C.6030406@bertola.eu> (message from Vittorio Bertola on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:30:52 +0200) References: <466C0B1C.6030406@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070611133246.BB84F5A1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > IMHO, the Internet is the party that has more to lose from wrecking the > only current attempt at an open and global process to discuss its > future. Maybe many things would improve quickly with regard to the IGF if there was competition in the area of open and global processes to discuss the internet's future? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 11 09:42:41 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:42:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure In-Reply-To: (mueller@syr.edu) References: Message-ID: <20070611134241.C38F05A1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Milton Mueller wrote: > a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage > over the activities of the IGF > > b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that > minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of the U.N. budget? If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? What would be the chances of success for this? 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 10:07:12 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:07:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF financing Message-ID: <954259bd0706110707p49630d54q7da2a89ed3727547@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to insert two general comments in the discussion : First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities, including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. In particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for participation of developing countries participants or supporting the activities of a dynamic coalition. Best Bertrand On 6/11/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > > a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage > > over the activities of the IGF > > > > b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that > > minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) > > Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of > the U.N. budget? > > If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? > > What would be the chances of success for this? > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 11 12:02:34 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:32:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Building the IGF In-Reply-To: <466C0B1C.6030406@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070611160241.612585C61@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi Vittorio Excuse me to change the subject to 'building the IGF', I think the situation is still not so bad. And I agree that as the main instigators and supporters of IGF we should do everything to save and build it. Addressing the two points in your email. One, I invite the CS members of MAG to engage with the IGC on how we can do what you have asked for when you say >we have to be > more committed to building effective channels of communications between > our representatives in the AG and the broader set of civil society > participants, especially as the IGF might adopt more formalized > representative structures. Second on the differences on whether 'IGF shd make recommendations or not' I agree that we need to take a cautious attitude, and dispel misgiving all around - on both sides, as you describe them. I think the fear of the 'Internet community' is that governments will use IGF to issues diktats against its institutions, and in the long run use it for a takeover. We need to tell them, that on this count, they have more to fear from enhanced cooperation, especially if it takes place in behind-the-scene parlays of government. Nitin pointed out, as is also clear from the tunis docs, that EC consists of two parts - an inter-governmental initiated one, and a bottom-up one among IG related institutions. Internet community's safety lies in keep a close aligning with all constituencies, especially of CS. And IGF is a good place to do it. It should be most bothered about its image in CS, and try to win as big a part of it as possible through open interactions and engagements. It should also give up its head-in-the-sand attitude that CS is basically with it, except for some government-instigated people. They should be most afraid of losing CS support. New CS constituencies keep joining the IG arena, and I see no strategy of ICANN to win them over..... Governments need to be told that all attempts into making it into another inter-governmental forum of you-scratch-my back kind of deals will be resisted, and CS, business, and internet community has enough strength at IGF to do it. So, IGF is not going to get into government sponsored diktats, if that's what they mean by recommendations... they can keep trying to do that from GAC. However, in between the two sets of fears/ position, it is my view, and of many others that IGF need to evolve further, and too many people are already disillusioned and cutting themselves off from IGF, and soon it may be too late. It is a new experiment, and we need to be cautious to give it time to mature, and it must keep moving in the right direction. That's important. Well, I had asked this question: why many in the CS, and some of internet community as well, liked WGIG so much, but they cant accept a standing WGIG like body in IGF, which can do things as WGIG did, and give recommendations only as WGIG did. What the real difference here??? Because, as we go to mediate, it is also necessary that we have some positions of our own - or some alternatives which can be discussed, negotiated etc. We need not rush into anything right away, but discussing and moving our positions forward towards common grounds within the IGC will be useful. 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: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 8:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Saving the IGF > > All, > > I think that we are focusing on the wrong issue. I would never have > forwarded that message "as is" as it was done, but the Chatham House > rules that have been adopted by the IGF AG only prohibit naming the > speaker - they do not prohibit making public what is being said. So, > while the netiquette and the AG rules have been broken when the author > of the message was explicitly named, no rule was broken in letting us > know that this kind of discussion was going on in the AG. > > Actually, if I may, I think that a discussion of this magnitude and > importance going on in the AG should have prompted its civil society > members to raise it immediately on this list and/or the CS plenary. I do > not think that they omitted doing so on purpose, but IMHO we have to be > more committed to building effective channels of communications between > our representatives in the AG and the broader set of civil society > participants, especially as the IGF might adopt more formalized > representative structures. > > Anyway, the real point is that there is a risk of the IGF breaking up > under two opposite pressures, one by the countries willing to discuss > Internet resources and pushing for formal recommendations to be made, > and the other from the "Internet community" group rejecting any idea of > formal recommendations and threatening to walk off the forum, cut funds > etc. > > We in civil society were the main proposers of the IGF, and so I think > that it is up to us to try to save the IGF from these threats, and try > to bridge the two positions. Personally, I am doing what I can to > encourage the "Internet community" people to be less afraid and more > understanding, and to stay in the process. Perhaps those of us who have > contacts with some of the governments on the other side, such as Brazil, > China, Russia and India, could try to encourage them to be willing to > compromise as well. > > IMHO, the Internet is the party that has more to lose from wrecking the > only current attempt at an open and global process to discuss its > future. We always tried to represent the hope for a better future, and > protect the Internet from any specific interest group. Under this light, > I couldn't care less about the bureaucracy of the AG rules - I think > that we should focus on how to save the IGF. > > Regards, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 11 12:02:34 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:32:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706110707p49630d54q7da2a89ed3727547@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070611160238.6A0E6E1AE1@smtp3.electricembers.net> No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it expressly. In fact, that’s the big difference between how things, less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating such things as acceptable principles. When Milton said, it is simple – those who fund IGF will push their agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up their contribution – I responded that however practical it be, this looks like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all – for CS and for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what should I do. I don’t have money to contribute. And I cant go to my government (per Milton’s advise) because my government doesn’t share my agenda. And he called it moral posturing, I hope you don’t come back in the same vein. For me and many in public interest advocacy it is an important principle, and I cant let such formulations pass by.. It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies where there is a plurality – like a foundation funding a university program or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under certain conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN bodies etc) in their constituency and mandate, but then the proportion of private funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as well as in total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed with strict rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal. Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards ‘privatised governance’. We may be realizing their worst fears. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: [governance] IGF financing Dear all, Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to insert two general comments in the discussion : First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities, including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. In particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for participation of developing countries participants or supporting the activities of a dynamic coalition. Best Bertrand On 6/11/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: Milton Mueller wrote: > a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage > over the activities of the IGF > > b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that > minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of the U.N. budget? If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? What would be the chances of success for this? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 12:44:36 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:44:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <466d7220.63e2308b.3a12.ffff9278SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <954259bd0706110707p49630d54q7da2a89ed3727547@mail.gmail.com> <466d7220.63e2308b.3a12.ffff9278SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0706110944n1b6c31a3i916b352282925b7c@mail.gmail.com> Wow, interesting. Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for daring to utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum could/should be financed in a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember I indicated with appropriate rules of transparency. I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution and the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were suggesting something horrendous. I respect your position, as usual, but as I suppose you are speaking in a personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should let people discuss it. That's the purpose of this list, isn't it ? I am not sure this question can simply be brushed aside by your answer. And I'm not sure we understand the same thing when we speak of multi-stakeholder financing. In particular, you did not mention the distinction I was making between "automatic resources" and "ad hoc resources". Do you think that a foundation providing transparent financing to a Dynamic Coalition would be bad ? Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not necessary to make your point. Especially in a response to that post. Unless you imply - without saying - that those words are applicable to what I mentionned or you hope I might be encouraged to shut up by fear of being accused of the above. In such a case, I sincerely hope we can avoid this on this list. There are enough important issues that need to be discussed in a mature manner, and I am merely, as usual, trying to provide some constructive input. Best as ever Bertrand On 6/11/07, Parminder wrote: > > No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even > worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking > somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it > expressly. In fact, that's the big difference between how things, > less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating > such things as acceptable principles. > > > > When Milton said, it is simple – those who fund IGF will push their > agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up > their contribution – I responded that however practical it be, this looks > like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all – for CS and > for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what should I > do. I don't have money to contribute. And I cant go to my government (per > Milton's advise) because my government doesn't share my agenda. And he > called it moral posturing, I hope you don't come back in the same vein. For > me and many in public interest advocacy it is an important principle, and I > cant let such formulations pass by.. > > > > It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies > where there is a plurality – like a foundation funding a university program > or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under certain > conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN bodies > etc) in their constituency and mandate, but then the proportion of private > funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as well as in > total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed with strict > rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently happened at IGF would > be scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal. > > > > Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes > suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such > bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards 'privatised governance'. > We may be realizing their worst fears. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > *Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities* > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > *www.ITforChange.net* > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow > *Subject:* [governance] IGF financing > > > > Dear all, > > Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to > insert two general comments in the discussion : > > First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder > governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as > well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable > contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. > > Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities, > including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc > resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. In > particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good > visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for > participation of developing countries participants or supporting the > activities of a dynamic coalition. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On 6/11/07, *Norbert Bollow* wrote: > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > > a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage > > over the activities of the IGF > > > > b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that > > minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) > > Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of > the U.N. budget? > > If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? > > What would be the chances of success for this? > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe Mon Jun 11 13:33:36 2007 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:33:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Saving the IGF In-Reply-To: <466D4243.7070401@rits.org.br> References: <466D4243.7070401@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20070611173452.8684C5C26@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi Carlos I think is a good idea the meeting in Puerto Rico, somebody from AR will be there. Erick At 07:38 a.m. 11/06/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Yes, I agree as well with Bertola's good points. >Who will be at the Icann meeting in PR? We could >plan a specific joint meeting of all CS constituencies who will be there. > >--c.a. > >Milton Mueller wrote: >> >>>>>vb at bertola.eu 6/10/2007 10:30:52 AM >>> >>>...a discussion of this magnitude and >>>importance going on in the AG should have >>>prompted its civil society members to raise it >>>immediately on this list and/or the CS plenary. I do >>>not think that they omitted doing so on >>>purpose, but IMHO we have to be more committed >>>to building effective channels of >>>communications between our representatives in >>>the AG and the broader set of civil society >>>participants, especially as the IGF might >>>adopt more formalized representative structures. >>Well said. I agree. >>>We in civil society were the main proposers of >>>the IGF, and so I think that it is up to us to >>>try to save the IGF from these threats, and try to bridge the two positions. >>Yes. Perhaps this can be a topic at the CS meetings in San Juan's ICANN >>meeting? >> >>>We always tried to represent the hope for a >>>better future, and protect the Internet from >>>any specific interest group. Under this light, >>>I couldn't care less about the bureaucracy of >>>the AG rules - I think that we should focus on how to save the IGF. >>The priorities here are good ones. >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >-- > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Carlos A. Afonso >diretor de planejamento >Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits >http://www.rits.org.br >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 11 17:38:07 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:38:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706110944n1b6c31a3i916b352282925b7c@mail.gmail.com> (bdelachapelle@gmail.com) References: <954259bd0706110707p49630d54q7da2a89ed3727547@mail.gmail.com> <466d7220.63e2308b.3a12.ffff9278SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <954259bd0706110944n1b6c31a3i916b352282925b7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070611213807.70B385B5FD@quill.bollow.ch> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for > daring to utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum > could/should be financed in a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember > I indicated with appropriate rules of transparency. > > I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest > contribution and the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were > suggesting something horrendous. I'm very glad that the idea has been brought up for discussion and careful consideration. Certainly the idea itself is not horrendous. However I believe that I share Parminder's concerns about this idea. Implementing this idea comes with very real risks of truly horrendous results, some examples of which have aready occured during the WSIS process, see e.g. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051130185547876 While it is true that it might be possible to establish appropriate rules and procedures to avoid these risks of multi-stakeholder financing, I feel strongly that I would much rather work on substantive issues (such as achieving full accessibility for persons with disabilities of all e-commerce processes) than on rules and procedures for "multi-stakeholder financing". Also, I would claim that any and all financing that comes from the U.N. budget or from governments is in fact in a way actually multi-stakeholder financing because it's ultimately financed by taxes. The citizens, other residents and businesses in each nation have delegated to their government the task of using their tax money for purposes of the public interest. Money which comes from civil society people and from businesses is still perfectly good money after it has been collected by governments as taxes; I see no problem whatsoever with using that money for financing the IGF and other internet governance functions. By contrast, opinions and perspectives of civil society people and businesses cannot reliably be "passed through" via any third party into the internet governance process; therefore there is no real alternative to internet governance discussions being directly multistakeholder, with government representatives speaking in the name of their respective government organizations (but not in the name of their country in its entirety) and with the voices of civil society and businesses also being directly represented. 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 dan at musicunbound.com Mon Jun 11 17:40:29 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:40:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706110944n1b6c31a3i916b352282925b7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0706110707p49630d54q7da2a89ed3727547@mail.gmail.com> <466d7220.63e2308b.3a12.ffff9278SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <954259bd0706110944n1b6c31a3i916b352282925b7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just one more comment from the outside observer, from a policy perspective. Seems to me that Milton and Parminder both are suspicious of the influence of funding on policy, as anyone with minimal political consciousness should be. One plausible way to minimize this undue influence is for funding to be broadly sourced. So, Bertrand, if your idea of MS funding is that no one funder should have significant influence over policy, then everyone shares the same goals and the disagreement is about practical mechanics and structures. If there is private funding, it should probably be structurally capped to constrain potential influence of policy by any one player. Also, getting funding from an aggregate body such as the UN may additionally dilute the influence of any individual member of the aggregate on the funded policy-making process. This reminds me a bit of the "Chinese Wall" that traditionally used to inhere in commercial publications like magazines and newspapers, but which is increasingly under fire in the present era. There is intense pressure on editorial departments to adhere to constraints demanded by large advertisers, through the "publishing" departments (i.e., marketing and ad sales) of these publications. The editors have been progressively losing this battle over time, and when you get someone like Rupert Murdoch trying to buy the Wall Street Journal, it causes all sorts of alarm, and justly so. In public governance, the influence of money in elections, lobbying, and "Iron Triangles" (narrow quid-pro-quos by special interests, legislators and regulators) is similar and incontrovertible. So, the bottom line seems to be: * How can we set up a Chinese Wall between money and policy? Perfection is not an option, so the more nuanced question is: * How can we structurally minimize the influence of money on policy? If multi-stakeholder funding raises alarms, it must be because those structures have not insulated policy from money in the past. So, if one wants to proceed with something along those lines: * What explicit institutional structures/processes can be put in place to improve the insulation of policy from money? But all this still does not address Parminder's concern that those without resources to contribute to funding will tend not to get representation of their policy interests. Who speaks for the mute? Or, more formally: * How can the policy-making process be structured to address *all* stakeholder interests, even when some stakeholders do not have the resources to participate actively? Bertrand, if you can answer these questions more precisely, then perhaps you will find more positive response to your ideas, or at least more willingness to work within your framework to find solutions to these questions. At the very least, if you make it quite clear that these goals of separating money from policy-making are your top priority (and that you are not necessarily "married" to any particular approach to achieving these goals -- if you try to choose your structural tool before you have examined the details of all the structural options, then that is logically backward in the policy formulation process), then you might be more able to proceed with less distraction from concerns arising from vague under-specification of structural details. Hope this is helpful, Dan PS -- I am not under the illusion that the answers to these questions are easy to determine. But, they are crucial to determine if we are to build a just society. At this point, from my outside vantage, it seems that the structural options may not have been fully fleshed out, and it may be worth considering them all. It may be that they all need additional conceptual development in order to best address the problem of insulating policy from money, and after that is completed they should be compared as to how well they would be expected to satisfy these goals. Maybe there are additional considerations that need to be traded off. In the end, choose the best solution at hand. But if you are presenting multi-stakeholder (whatever that really is in detail, I'm not sure I know) as the only structural option to examine at all, then you are calling the winner before the race. You should have the race first. At 6:44 PM +0200 6/11/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Wow, interesting. > >Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for daring to >utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum could/should be financed >in a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember I indicated with appropriate >rules of transparency. > >I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution >and the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were suggesting something >horrendous. I respect your position, as usual, but as I suppose you are >speaking in a personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should >let people discuss it. That's the purpose of this list, isn't it ? > >I am not sure this question can simply be brushed aside by your answer. >And I'm not sure we understand the same thing when we speak of >multi-stakeholder financing. In particular, you did not mention the >distinction I was making between "automatic resources" and "ad hoc >resources". Do you think that a foundation providing transparent financing >to a Dynamic Coalition would be bad ? > >Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what >concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just >some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is >the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee >regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups >? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? > >In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be >scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not >necessary to make your point. Especially in a response to that post. >Unless you imply - without saying - that those words are applicable to >what I mentionned or you hope I might be encouraged to shut up by fear of >being accused of the above. In such a case, I sincerely hope we can avoid >this on this list. There are enough important issues that need to be >discussed in a mature manner, and I am merely, as usual, trying to provide >some constructive input. > >Best as ever > >Bertrand > > >On 6/11/07, Parminder ><parminder at itforchange.net > wrote: > >No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even >worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking >somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it >expressly. In fact, that's the big difference between how things, >less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating >such things as acceptable principles. > > > >When Milton said, it is simple - those who fund IGF will push their >agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up >their contribution - I responded that however practical it be, this looks >like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all - for CS >and for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what >should I do. I don't have money to contribute. And I cant go to my >government (per Milton's advise) because my government doesn't share my >agenda. And he called it moral posturing, I hope you don't come back in >the same vein. For me and many in public interest advocacy it is an >important principle, and I cant let such formulations pass by.. > > > >It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies >where there is a plurality - like a foundation funding a university >program or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under certain >conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN >bodies etc) in their constituency and mandate, but then the proportion of >private funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as >well as in total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed >with strict rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently >happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer >towards criminal. > > > >Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes >suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such >bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards 'privatised governance'. >We may be realizing their worst fears. > > > >Parminder > > > >________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change, Bangalore > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > >From: Bertrand de La Chapelle >[mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert >Bollow >Subject: [governance] IGF financing > > > >Dear all, > >Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to >insert two general comments in the discussion : > >First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder >governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as >well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable >contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. > >Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities, >including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc >resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. In >particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good >visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for >participation of developing countries participants or supporting the >activities of a dynamic coalition. > >Best > >Bertrand > >On 6/11/07, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: > >Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote: > >> a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage >> over the activities of the IGF >> >> b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that >> minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) > >Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of >the U.N. budget? > >If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? > >What would be the chances of success for this? > >Greetings, >Norbert. > > >-- >Norbert Bollow ><nb at bollow.ch> >http://Norbert.ch >President of the Swiss Internet User Group >SIUG http://SIUG.ch > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 11 18:54:08 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF financing Message-ID: <944033.15420.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I largely agree with Dan. It's fine to say IGF won't accept money from business, for example, because of their perceived interests, but then, without it, where does the money come from, or a large proportion of it? Every source of funding has its drawbacks. I'd also say IGF has to get on the front foot more. The IGF website - http://intgovforum.org/ - is pretty ineffective in putting forward what's happening. The site should be organised better so what's happening is easier to decipher. And why not have news releases or announcements on what IGF is doing? One thing's for sure, if IGF wants funding, if it looks like a well organised body through its website, it's a step forward in persuading organisations to part with their money. And the media section doesn't cover a lot of what's said about IGF. I'm almost certain I find a lot more news on IGF than what's noted in the media section for my online media monitoring, some of which is on my website - http://technewsreview.com.au/ Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Krimm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, 12 June, 2007 7:40:29 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IGF financing Just one more comment from the outside observer, from a policy perspective. Seems to me that Milton and Parminder both are suspicious of the influence of funding on policy, as anyone with minimal political consciousness should be. One plausible way to minimize this undue influence is for funding to be broadly sourced. So, Bertrand, if your idea of MS funding is that no one funder should have significant influence over policy, then everyone shares the same goals and the disagreement is about practical mechanics and structures. If there is private funding, it should probably be structurally capped to constrain potential influence of policy by any one player. Also, getting funding from an aggregate body such as the UN may additionally dilute the influence of any individual member of the aggregate on the funded policy-making process. This reminds me a bit of the "Chinese Wall" that traditionally used to inhere in commercial publications like magazines and newspapers, but which is increasingly under fire in the present era. There is intense pressure on editorial departments to adhere to constraints demanded by large advertisers, through the "publishing" departments (i.e., marketing and ad sales) of these publications. The editors have been progressively losing this battle over time, and when you get someone like Rupert Murdoch trying to buy the Wall Street Journal, it causes all sorts of alarm, and justly so. In public governance, the influence of money in elections, lobbying, and "Iron Triangles" (narrow quid-pro-quos by special interests, legislators and regulators) is similar and incontrovertible. So, the bottom line seems to be: * How can we set up a Chinese Wall between money and policy? Perfection is not an option, so the more nuanced question is: * How can we structurally minimize the influence of money on policy? If multi-stakeholder funding raises alarms, it must be because those structures have not insulated policy from money in the past. So, if one wants to proceed with something along those lines: * What explicit institutional structures/processes can be put in place to improve the insulation of policy from money? But all this still does not address Parminder's concern that those without resources to contribute to funding will tend not to get representation of their policy interests. Who speaks for the mute? Or, more formally: * How can the policy-making process be structured to address *all* stakeholder interests, even when some stakeholders do not have the resources to participate actively? Bertrand, if you can answer these questions more precisely, then perhaps you will find more positive response to your ideas, or at least more willingness to work within your framework to find solutions to these questions. At the very least, if you make it quite clear that these goals of separating money from policy-making are your top priority (and that you are not necessarily "married" to any particular approach to achieving these goals -- if you try to choose your structural tool before you have examined the details of all the structural options, then that is logically backward in the policy formulation process), then you might be more able to proceed with less distraction from concerns arising from vague under-specification of structural details. Hope this is helpful, Dan PS -- I am not under the illusion that the answers to these questions are easy to determine. But, they are crucial to determine if we are to build a just society. At this point, from my outside vantage, it seems that the structural options may not have been fully fleshed out, and it may be worth considering them all. It may be that they all need additional conceptual development in order to best address the problem of insulating policy from money, and after that is completed they should be compared as to how well they would be expected to satisfy these goals. Maybe there are additional considerations that need to be traded off. In the end, choose the best solution at hand. But if you are presenting multi-stakeholder (whatever that really is in detail, I'm not sure I know) as the only structural option to examine at all, then you are calling the winner before the race. You should have the race first. At 6:44 PM +0200 6/11/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Wow, interesting. > >Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for daring to >utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum could/should be financed >in a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember I indicated with appropriate >rules of transparency. > >I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution >and the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were suggesting something >horrendous. I respect your position, as usual, but as I suppose you are >speaking in a personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should >let people discuss it. That's the purpose of this list, isn't it ? > >I am not sure this question can simply be brushed aside by your answer. >And I'm not sure we understand the same thing when we speak of >multi-stakeholder financing. In particular, you did not mention the >distinction I was making between "automatic resources" and "ad hoc >resources". Do you think that a foundation providing transparent financing >to a Dynamic Coalition would be bad ? > >Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what >concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just >some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is >the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee >regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups >? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? > >In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be >scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not >necessary to make your point. Especially in a response to that post. >Unless you imply - without saying - that those words are applicable to >what I mentionned or you hope I might be encouraged to shut up by fear of >being accused of the above. In such a case, I sincerely hope we can avoid >this on this list. There are enough important issues that need to be >discussed in a mature manner, and I am merely, as usual, trying to provide >some constructive input. > >Best as ever > >Bertrand > > >On 6/11/07, Parminder ><parminder at itforchange.net > wrote: > >No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even >worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking >somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it >expressly. In fact, that's the big difference between how things, >less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating >such things as acceptable principles. > > > >When Milton said, it is simple - those who fund IGF will push their >agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up >their contribution - I responded that however practical it be, this looks >like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all - for CS >and for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what >should I do. I don't have money to contribute. And I cant go to my >government (per Milton's advise) because my government doesn't share my >agenda. And he called it moral posturing, I hope you don't come back in >the same vein. For me and many in public interest advocacy it is an >important principle, and I cant let such formulations pass by.. > > > >It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies >where there is a plurality - like a foundation funding a university >program or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under certain >conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN >bodies etc) in their constituency and mandate, but then the proportion of >private funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as >well as in total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed >with strict rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently >happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer >towards criminal. > > > >Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes >suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such >bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards 'privatised governance'. >We may be realizing their worst fears. > > > >Parminder > > > >________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change, Bangalore > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > >From: Bertrand de La Chapelle >[mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert >Bollow >Subject: [governance] IGF financing > > > >Dear all, > >Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to >insert two general comments in the discussion : > >First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder >governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as >well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable >contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. > >Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities, >including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc >resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. In >particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good >visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for >participation of developing countries participants or supporting the >activities of a dynamic coalition. > >Best > >Bertrand > >On 6/11/07, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: > >Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote: > >> a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage >> over the activities of the IGF >> >> b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that >> minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) > >Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of >the U.N. budget? > >If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? > >What would be the chances of success for this? > >Greetings, >Norbert. > > >-- >Norbert Bollow ><nb at bollow.ch> >http://Norbert.ch >President of the Swiss Internet User Group >SIUG http://SIUG.ch > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance _________________________________________________________________________________ How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 12 09:44:16 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:44:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing Message-ID: >>> nb at bollow.ch 6/11/2007 9:42 AM >>> >Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded >out of the U.N. budget? probably not. That would make it totally beholden to the nation-state system. See this URL for a good factsheet on the travails of UN financing. http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/2006/04factsheet.pdf This quotation is noteworthy: "Table 1 illustrates that the major contributors [US, Japan, UK, Germany, NL] pay much more than their mandatory, assessed contributions. This discrepancy occurs because countries dedicate voluntary contributions to those UN funds and programs that deem them most promising and compatible with their own agenda. By earmarking contributions, countries can increase their leverage and pursue political influence on UN activities." and... "For 2006, only 40 member states have paid their dues entirely and on time. As a result of the financial impasse, the Secretary-General often has to cross-borrow money..." IGF would be a tiny drip in the faucet of UN money, but by the same token there are probably 1,000 other such tiny drips that would like to be part of the automatic, assessed budget. Getting recognized as such would require....political support from the major powers. I need to think about it more carefully, but Bertrand's idea of MS financing seems to me to have merit. Not on a project by project basis, as that would obviously make the agenda the plaything of governmental and corporate interests, but let's say that the regular budget was divided into quotas per "stakeholder" group, e.g. 30% from govts, 30% from PS, 20% from CS, and 20% from the international organizations within its purview (ICANN, UNESCO, ITU, WIPO, etc.). Maybe this requires some kind of "membership" in which participants get certified as belonging to some sector and once so recognized, assume some kind of honorary obligation to meet those quotas. Another idea is some kind of an independent "tax" or fee on some facet of internet activity. The most successful and prosperous international orgs (ICANN, WIPO) are based on these. (Hmmm, should we call it the "bit tax?" No, maybe not.) E.g., a certain percentage of the proceeds of gTLD auctions held by ICANN are handed over to the IGF, a certain percentage of IP address fees.... People will just love this idea, just as they currently love paying taxes for other things. Well, I enjoy this talk of financing, it's a good dose of reality and a great corrective to those who think words can by themselves transform global political and economic realities. In making financial commitments, people will think hard about what value the IGF actually delivers, and that is a healthy thing, in my opinion. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 09:53:25 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:53:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0706110707p49630d54q7da2a89ed3727547@mail.gmail.com> <466d7220.63e2308b.3a12.ffff9278SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <954259bd0706110944n1b6c31a3i916b352282925b7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0706120653l2793f818ncca5106b2f500775@mail.gmail.com> Hi Dan, You wrote : "One plausible way to minimize this undue influence is for funding to be broadly sourced. So, Bertrand, if your idea of MS funding is that no one funder should have significant influence over policy, then everyone shares the same goals and the disagreement is about practical mechanics and structures." Thanks for the remarks. You are right. Who can believe this is not what I intended ? It should go without saying that funding should not have influence on policy : that's the goal. My question is precisely how. And in my mind, "broadly sourced" is precisely could precisely be a reason for multi-stakeholderism. Comments explaining what should not be done are OK (except when they are mis-representing what other people really mean). But my question is : what are the different concrete proposals on the table ? Still waiting to see any. Apologies for trying to ask questions that deserve attention ;-) and for my - barely successful attempts - at maintaining a type of interaction that remains constructive. Best Bertrand On 6/11/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > > Just one more comment from the outside observer, from a policy > perspective. > > Seems to me that Milton and Parminder both are suspicious of the influence > of funding on policy, as anyone with minimal political consciousness > should > be. > > One plausible way to minimize this undue influence is for funding to be > broadly sourced. So, Bertrand, if your idea of MS funding is that no one > funder should have significant influence over policy, then everyone shares > the same goals and the disagreement is about practical mechanics and > structures. > > If there is private funding, it should probably be structurally capped to > constrain potential influence of policy by any one player. Also, getting > funding from an aggregate body such as the UN may additionally dilute the > influence of any individual member of the aggregate on the funded > policy-making process. > > This reminds me a bit of the "Chinese Wall" that traditionally used to > inhere in commercial publications like magazines and newspapers, but which > is increasingly under fire in the present era. There is intense pressure > on editorial departments to adhere to constraints demanded by large > advertisers, through the "publishing" departments (i.e., marketing and ad > sales) of these publications. The editors have been progressively losing > this battle over time, and when you get someone like Rupert Murdoch trying > to buy the Wall Street Journal, it causes all sorts of alarm, and justly > so. > > In public governance, the influence of money in elections, lobbying, and > "Iron Triangles" (narrow quid-pro-quos by special interests, legislators > and regulators) is similar and incontrovertible. So, the bottom line > seems > to be: > > * How can we set up a Chinese Wall between money and policy? > > Perfection is not an option, so the more nuanced question is: > > * How can we structurally minimize the influence of money on policy? > > If multi-stakeholder funding raises alarms, it must be because those > structures have not insulated policy from money in the past. So, if one > wants to proceed with something along those lines: > > * What explicit institutional structures/processes can be put in place to > improve the insulation of policy from money? > > But all this still does not address Parminder's concern that those without > resources to contribute to funding will tend not to get representation of > their policy interests. Who speaks for the mute? Or, more formally: > > * How can the policy-making process be structured to address *all* > stakeholder interests, even when some stakeholders do not have the > resources to participate actively? > > Bertrand, if you can answer these questions more precisely, then perhaps > you will find more positive response to your ideas, or at least more > willingness to work within your framework to find solutions to these > questions. At the very least, if you make it quite clear that these goals > of separating money from policy-making are your top priority (and that you > are not necessarily "married" to any particular approach to achieving > these > goals -- if you try to choose your structural tool before you have > examined > the details of all the structural options, then that is logically backward > in the policy formulation process), then you might be more able to proceed > with less distraction from concerns arising from vague under-specification > of structural details. > > Hope this is helpful, > > Dan > > PS -- I am not under the illusion that the answers to these questions are > easy to determine. But, they are crucial to determine if we are to build > a > just society. > > At this point, from my outside vantage, it seems that the structural > options may not have been fully fleshed out, and it may be worth > considering them all. It may be that they all need additional conceptual > development in order to best address the problem of insulating policy from > money, and after that is completed they should be compared as to how well > they would be expected to satisfy these goals. Maybe there are additional > considerations that need to be traded off. In the end, choose the best > solution at hand. But if you are presenting multi-stakeholder (whatever > that really is in detail, I'm not sure I know) as the only structural > option to examine at all, then you are calling the winner before the race. > You should have the race first. > > > > At 6:44 PM +0200 6/11/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >Wow, interesting. > > > >Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for daring to > >utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum could/should be financed > >in a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember I indicated with appropriate > >rules of transparency. > > > >I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution > >and the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were suggesting something > >horrendous. I respect your position, as usual, but as I suppose you are > >speaking in a personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should > >let people discuss it. That's the purpose of this list, isn't it ? > > > >I am not sure this question can simply be brushed aside by your answer. > >And I'm not sure we understand the same thing when we speak of > >multi-stakeholder financing. In particular, you did not mention the > >distinction I was making between "automatic resources" and "ad hoc > >resources". Do you think that a foundation providing transparent > financing > >to a Dynamic Coalition would be bad ? > > > >Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what > >concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just > >some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is > >the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee > >regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups > >? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? > > > >In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be > >scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not > >necessary to make your point. Especially in a response to that post. > >Unless you imply - without saying - that those words are applicable to > >what I mentionned or you hope I might be encouraged to shut up by fear of > >being accused of the above. In such a case, I sincerely hope we can avoid > >this on this list. There are enough important issues that need to be > >discussed in a mature manner, and I am merely, as usual, trying to > provide > >some constructive input. > > > >Best as ever > > > >Bertrand > > > > > >On 6/11/07, Parminder > ><parminder at itforchange.net > wrote: > > > >No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even > >worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking > >somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it > >expressly. In fact, that's the big difference between how things, > >less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating > >such things as acceptable principles. > > > > > > > >When Milton said, it is simple - those who fund IGF will push their > >agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up > >their contribution - I responded that however practical it be, this looks > >like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all - for CS > >and for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what > >should I do. I don't have money to contribute. And I cant go to my > >government (per Milton's advise) because my government doesn't share my > >agenda. And he called it moral posturing, I hope you don't come back in > >the same vein. For me and many in public interest advocacy it is an > >important principle, and I cant let such formulations pass by.. > > > > > > > >It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies > >where there is a plurality - like a foundation funding a university > >program or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under > certain > >conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN > >bodies etc) in their constituency and mandate, but then the proportion > of > >private funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as > >well as in total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed > >with strict rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently > >happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer > >towards criminal. > > > > > > > >Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes > >suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such > >bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards 'privatised > governance'. > >We may be realizing their worst fears. > > > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > > > >________________________________________________ > > > >Parminder Jeet Singh > > > >IT for Change, Bangalore > > > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > >From: Bertrand de La Chapelle > >[mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > >Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert > >Bollow > >Subject: [governance] IGF financing > > > > > > > >Dear all, > > > >Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to > >insert two general comments in the discussion : > > > >First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder > >governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as > >well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable > >contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. > > > >Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities, > >including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc > >resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. > In > >particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good > >visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for > >participation of developing countries participants or supporting the > >activities of a dynamic coalition. > > > >Best > > > >Bertrand > > > >On 6/11/07, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: > > > >Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote: > > > >> a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as > leverage > >> over the activities of the IGF > >> > >> b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that > >> minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) > > > >Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of > >the U.N. budget? > > > >If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? > > > >What would be the chances of success for this? > > > >Greetings, > >Norbert. > > > > > >-- > >Norbert Bollow > ><nb at bollow.ch> > > >http://Norbert.ch > >President of the Swiss Internet User Group > >SIUG http://SIUG.ch > > > > > >-- > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jun 12 10:21:17 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:21:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: quick thought... what do we mean by IGF Financing? Secretariat? Financing to date has meant financing the secretariat. How much do we think the secretariat needs to operate effectively? Thanks, Adam > >>> nb at bollow.ch 6/11/2007 9:42 AM >>> >>Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded >>out of the U.N. budget? > >probably not. That would make it totally beholden to the nation-state >system. See this URL for a good factsheet on the travails of UN >financing. >http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/2006/04factsheet.pdf > >This quotation is noteworthy: > >"Table 1 illustrates that the major >contributors [US, Japan, UK, Germany, NL] >pay much more than their mandatory, >assessed contributions. This discrepancy occurs >because countries dedicate voluntary contributions >to those UN funds and programs that deem them >most promising and compatible with their own >agenda. By earmarking contributions, countries can >increase their leverage and pursue political influence >on UN activities." > >and... > >"For 2006, only 40 member states have >paid their dues entirely and on time. As a result of >the financial impasse, the Secretary-General often >has to cross-borrow money..." > >IGF would be a tiny drip in the faucet of UN money, but by the same >token there are probably 1,000 other such tiny drips that would like to >be part of the automatic, assessed budget. Getting recognized as such >would require....political support from the major powers. > >I need to think about it more carefully, but Bertrand's idea of MS >financing seems to me to have merit. Not on a project by project basis, >as that would obviously make the agenda the plaything of governmental >and corporate interests, but let's say that the regular budget was >divided into quotas per "stakeholder" group, e.g. 30% from govts, 30% >from PS, 20% from CS, and 20% from the international organizations >within its purview (ICANN, UNESCO, ITU, WIPO, etc.). Maybe this requires >some kind of "membership" in which participants get certified as >belonging to some sector and once so recognized, assume some kind of >honorary obligation to meet those quotas. > >Another idea is some kind of an independent "tax" or fee on some facet >of internet activity. The most successful and prosperous international >orgs (ICANN, WIPO) are based on these. (Hmmm, should we call it the "bit >tax?" No, maybe not.) E.g., a certain percentage of the proceeds of gTLD >auctions held by ICANN are handed over to the IGF, a certain percentage >of IP address fees.... People will just love this idea, just as they >currently love paying taxes for other things. > >Well, I enjoy this talk of financing, it's a good dose of reality and a >great corrective to those who think words can by themselves transform >global political and economic realities. In making financial >commitments, people will think hard about what value the IGF actually >delivers, and that is a healthy thing, in my opinion. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Tue Jun 12 11:05:36 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:05:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466eb667.6435433d.7d48.5d6f@mx.google.com> At 23:21 6/12/2007 +0900, you wrote: >quick thought... what do we mean by IGF Financing? > >Secretariat? This seems like the obvious thing to finance. And that's how it has been working at the WGIG, AG. The IGF financing is a task for the host country. >Financing to date has meant financing the secretariat. How much do >we think the secretariat needs to operate effectively? That's a question you should ask the secretariat - perhaps a note to Markus Kummer may do a good job. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 12 22:07:07 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:37:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706110944n1b6c31a3i916b352282925b7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070613020826.09502E04AB@smtp3.electricembers.net> >Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) No, no, not at all, Bertrand. Everyone knows how cautious, clever, erudite etc etc you are. And I have complimented you on these qualities on numerous occasions. Only the first two sentences of my email were intended for you where I disagreed with your idea. Immediately afterwards – starting, ‘when we speak MS-ism’, I entered into my thoughts on the general problems with MS-ism and how it often works, Of course you have clearly and honestly shared an idea, and people should discuss and have views on it. I for one strongly registered my views. Maybe a bit too strongly, but there was an existing context to my response in the exchanges on this list in the last few days, and I request you to see my email in that context, and not merely as a response to your floating of an idea. >I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution and the tonality is a bit harsh. I sincerely apologize if I gave such an impression. As ever, my intention was only to enter, what I consider is, a constructive engagement with your ideas. (note that I too gave adequate explanations etc). However, on the tonality issue, I request you to see it in the light that this wasn’t an one-off idea/ exchange between you and me, but situated, as I said, in the context of some recent event and subsequent discussions. Immediately on giving a quick reaction to the idea mooted by you, my reply got immersed in this context and situation, and was addressing the whole context of the discussions on the list and not just your email. You can see these other emails have various kinds of tones, and I am really sorry but one has to pick up different threads in a single email when responding to emails on an elist that have some level of connections. You say – ‘And remember I indicated with appropriate rules of transparency’. What happened around the Geneva meeting – I mean the email exchanges - has a central importance to such rules, and perception of moral/ legal grounds of such rules. I cannot see your financing idea as separated from this real world context. Unfortunately, a good amount of the discussion on this list of this event has not given me a good feel about there being an adequate context and understanding, and/or an ideological environment, for evolving and adherence to such principles. Remember that efforts to evoke such transparency were called muck-racking, tabloid-level fluff etc. In absence of such an understanding and commitment to the need and meaning of such transparency, my fears of private funds are obviously justified. And I will like to hear your views on this, in the stated context. >but as I suppose you are speaking in a personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should let people discuss it. Where is the question, and I am very sure people will discuss it despite me. >Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just some >international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity of resources and >independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? >In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not necessary to make your point. Ok, I think it is easier to discuss with/ explain to you what I mean, and the basis of my strong views on this issue, since you are a public official. How would you respond to a hypothetical situation like, say Carrefour company, which is looking to enter the retailing sector in India, proposes that it funds part of French diplomatic operations in India. Just for France’s image, patriotism etc’s sake, nothing sinister. And then they do begin funding part costs of the ambassador, embassy etc . And then one fine day you unearth a letter (through muck-raking efforts, of course) where Carrefour (or a group of diplomatic mission funding companies) have indicated that they may withdraw support if they see France staying lax (all a hypothetical situation, of course) at WTO instead of arguing more aggressively to promote access of global retailing services companies to global markets, especially in developing countries. Once gain for no narrow interest of course, just for the sake of promoting free trade in a free world etc .Or worse still, as possession of financial strings do have a way to move down such a path, writing to the Foreign minister of France, again with the same threat, if she/he doesn’t put the specific issues of Indian government clearing Carrefour’s investment proposal on the table when India is pushing its case with France for opening up its nuclear fuel supplies .. How does all this sound . Horrendous ? Criminal? Am I then right in making the criminal connection, which as I said, isnt in regard to your email, but the general context of discussion on this list with regard to the necessary safeguards of ‘transparency’ that you propose. We cant discuss ideas and principles in isolation from existing discussions, views and values in the group on what does transparency etc means in context of private funding. For me this connection is obvious. I keep wondering why we use different standards for public activity, accountabilities etc for national and global level Even - and this is ironical –those among us who are most enthusiastic about a globalised (and to some extent a de-nationalised) world On this, I expect to hear the argument (general comment, again not aimed at you Bertrand), that well, the global governance systems will be different and evolve their own bases, principles etc to this, my humble submission (you cant say, that I am not learning :-)) - such differences and evolution can only be in progressive ways – MS-ism, more openness, better and more equal representation of all sections and people , based more on shared human values etc etc, not in regressive ways – in-transparency of funding, pay for governance services – more you pay the better, privatized governance, stake-based rather than rights based etc etc Engaging specifically with your proposal, if you call the idea ‘diversified financing’ I will support it. In any case all your arguments and those of others in support of your idea come from the logic of diversifying funding or, as you say in a latter email, broadly sourced funding. So why not name the idea also as such. Multistakeholder funding means stakes based funding, and that’s unacceptable. Everyone has equal stakes in public bodies – that’s why they are public, and stakes cant be linked to funds. This idea in its present name, in my view, seems to represent a direct prescription of privatized governance. Thanks, and best 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 _____ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:15 PM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] IGF financing Wow, interesting. Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for daring to utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum could/should be financed in a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember I indicated with appropriate rules of transparency. I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution and the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were suggesting something horrendous. I respect your position, as usual, but as I suppose you are speaking in a personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should let people discuss it. That's the purpose of this list, isn't it ? I am not sure this question can simply be brushed aside by your answer. And I'm not sure we understand the same thing when we speak of multi-stakeholder financing. In particular, you did not mention the distinction I was making between "automatic resources" and "ad hoc resources". Do you think that a foundation providing transparent financing to a Dynamic Coalition would be bad ? Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not necessary to make your point. Especially in a response to that post. Unless you imply - without saying - that those words are applicable to what I mentionned or you hope I might be encouraged to shut up by fear of being accused of the above. In such a case, I sincerely hope we can avoid this on this list. There are enough important issues that need to be discussed in a mature manner, and I am merely, as usual, trying to provide some constructive input. Best as ever Bertrand On 6/11/07, Parminder > wrote: No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it expressly. In fact, that's the big difference between how things, less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating such things as acceptable principles. When Milton said, it is simple – those who fund IGF will push their agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up their contribution – I responded that however practical it be, this looks like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all – for CS and for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what should I do. I don't have money to contribute. And I cant go to my government (per Milton's advise) because my government doesn't share my agenda. And he called it moral posturing, I hope you don't come back in the same vein. For me and many in public interest advocacy it is an important principle, and I cant let such formulations pass by.. It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies where there is a plurality – like a foundation funding a university program or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under certain conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN bodies etc) in their constituency and mandate, but then the proportion of private funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as well as in total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed with strict rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal. Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards 'privatised governance'. We may be realizing their worst fears. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: [governance] IGF financing Dear all, Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to insert two general comments in the discussion : First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities, including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. In particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for participation of developing countries participants or supporting the activities of a dynamic coalition. Best Bertrand On 6/11/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: Milton Mueller wrote: > a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage > over the activities of the IGF > > b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that > minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of the U.N. budget? If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? What would be the chances of success for this? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 13 00:10:24 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:40:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706120653l2793f818ncca5106b2f500775@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070613041107.F3F884CC0@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bertrand wrote: >But my question is : what are the different concrete proposals on the table ? Still waiting to see any. Apologies for trying to ask questions that deserve attention > ;-) and for my - barely successful attempts - at maintaining a type of interaction that remains constructive. I did speak about micro-funding, and even explored a role of IGC in 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 _____ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:23 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dan Krimm; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] IGF financing Hi Dan, You wrote : "One plausible way to minimize this undue influence is for funding to be broadly sourced. So, Bertrand, if your idea of MS funding is that no one funder should have significant influence over policy, then everyone shares the same goals and the disagreement is about practical mechanics and structures." Thanks for the remarks. You are right. Who can believe this is not what I intended ? It should go without saying that funding should not have influence on policy : that's the goal. My question is precisely how. And in my mind, "broadly sourced" is precisely could precisely be a reason for multi-stakeholderism. Comments explaining what should not be done are OK (except when they are mis-representing what other people really mean). But my question is : what are the different concrete proposals on the table ? Still waiting to see any. Apologies for trying to ask questions that deserve attention ;-) and for my - barely successful attempts - at maintaining a type of interaction that remains constructive. Best Bertrand On 6/11/07, Dan Krimm wrote: Just one more comment from the outside observer, from a policy perspective. Seems to me that Milton and Parminder both are suspicious of the influence of funding on policy, as anyone with minimal political consciousness should be. One plausible way to minimize this undue influence is for funding to be broadly sourced. So, Bertrand, if your idea of MS funding is that no one funder should have significant influence over policy, then everyone shares the same goals and the disagreement is about practical mechanics and structures. If there is private funding, it should probably be structurally capped to constrain potential influence of policy by any one player. Also, getting funding from an aggregate body such as the UN may additionally dilute the influence of any individual member of the aggregate on the funded policy-making process. This reminds me a bit of the "Chinese Wall" that traditionally used to inhere in commercial publications like magazines and newspapers, but which is increasingly under fire in the present era. There is intense pressure on editorial departments to adhere to constraints demanded by large advertisers, through the "publishing" departments (i.e., marketing and ad sales) of these publications. The editors have been progressively losing this battle over time, and when you get someone like Rupert Murdoch trying to buy the Wall Street Journal, it causes all sorts of alarm, and justly so. In public governance, the influence of money in elections, lobbying, and "Iron Triangles" (narrow quid-pro-quos by special interests, legislators and regulators) is similar and incontrovertible. So, the bottom line seems to be: * How can we set up a Chinese Wall between money and policy? Perfection is not an option, so the more nuanced question is: * How can we structurally minimize the influence of money on policy? If multi-stakeholder funding raises alarms, it must be because those structures have not insulated policy from money in the past. So, if one wants to proceed with something along those lines: * What explicit institutional structures/processes can be put in place to improve the insulation of policy from money? But all this still does not address Parminder's concern that those without resources to contribute to funding will tend not to get representation of their policy interests. Who speaks for the mute? Or, more formally: * How can the policy-making process be structured to address *all* stakeholder interests, even when some stakeholders do not have the resources to participate actively? Bertrand, if you can answer these questions more precisely, then perhaps you will find more positive response to your ideas, or at least more willingness to work within your framework to find solutions to these questions. At the very least, if you make it quite clear that these goals of separating money from policy-making are your top priority (and that you are not necessarily "married" to any particular approach to achieving these goals -- if you try to choose your structural tool before you have examined the details of all the structural options, then that is logically backward in the policy formulation process), then you might be more able to proceed with less distraction from concerns arising from vague under-specification of structural details. Hope this is helpful, Dan PS -- I am not under the illusion that the answers to these questions are easy to determine. But, they are crucial to determine if we are to build a just society. At this point, from my outside vantage, it seems that the structural options may not have been fully fleshed out, and it may be worth considering them all. It may be that they all need additional conceptual development in order to best address the problem of insulating policy from money, and after that is completed they should be compared as to how well they would be expected to satisfy these goals. Maybe there are additional considerations that need to be traded off. In the end, choose the best solution at hand. But if you are presenting multi-stakeholder (whatever that really is in detail, I'm not sure I know) as the only structural option to examine at all, then you are calling the winner before the race. You should have the race first. At 6:44 PM +0200 6/11/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Wow, interesting. > >Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for daring to >utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum could/should be financed >in a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember I indicated with appropriate >rules of transparency. > >I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution >and the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were suggesting something >horrendous. I respect your position, as usual, but as I suppose you are >speaking in a personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should >let people discuss it. That's the purpose of this list, isn't it ? > >I am not sure this question can simply be brushed aside by your answer. >And I'm not sure we understand the same thing when we speak of >multi-stakeholder financing. In particular, you did not mention the >distinction I was making between "automatic resources" and "ad hoc >resources". Do you think that a foundation providing transparent financing >to a Dynamic Coalition would be bad ? > >Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what >concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just >some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is >the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee >regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups >? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? > >In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be >scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not >necessary to make your point. Especially in a response to that post. >Unless you imply - without saying - that those words are applicable to >what I mentionned or you hope I might be encouraged to shut up by fear of >being accused of the above. In such a case, I sincerely hope we can avoid >this on this list. There are enough important issues that need to be >discussed in a mature manner, and I am merely, as usual, trying to provide >some constructive input. > >Best as ever > >Bertrand > > >On 6/11/07, Parminder ><parminder at itforchange.net > wrote: > >No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even >worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking >somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it >expressly. In fact, that's the big difference between how things, >less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating >such things as acceptable principles. > > > >When Milton said, it is simple - those who fund IGF will push their >agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up >their contribution - I responded that however practical it be, this looks >like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all - for CS >and for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what >should I do. I don't have money to contribute. And I cant go to my >government (per Milton's advise) because my government doesn't share my >agenda. And he called it moral posturing, I hope you don't come back in >the same vein. For me and many in public interest advocacy it is an >important principle, and I cant let such formulations pass by.. > > > >It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies >where there is a plurality - like a foundation funding a university >program or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under certain >conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN >bodies etc) in their constituency and mandate, but then the proportion of >private funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as >well as in total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed >with strict rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently >happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer >towards criminal. > > > >Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes >suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such >bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards 'privatised governance'. >We may be realizing their worst fears. > > > >Parminder > > > >________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change, Bangalore > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > >From: Bertrand de La Chapelle >[mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert >Bollow >Subject: [governance] IGF financing > > > >Dear all, > >Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to >insert two general comments in the discussion : > >First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder >governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as >well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable >contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. > >Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities, >including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc >resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. In >particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good >visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for >participation of developing countries participants or supporting the >activities of a dynamic coalition. > >Best > >Bertrand > >On 6/11/07, Norbert Bollow < nb at bollow.ch > wrote: > >Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote: > >> a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage >> over the activities of the IGF >> >> b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that >> minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it) > >Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of >the U.N. budget? > >If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that? > >What would be the chances of success for this? > >Greetings, >Norbert. > > >-- >Norbert Bollow ><nb at bollow.ch> > >http://Norbert.ch >President of the Swiss Internet User Group >SIUG http://SIUG.ch > > >-- -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Jun 13 03:43:05 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:43:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <954259bd0706110944n1b6c31a3i916b352282925b7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" wrote: > > Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what concrete > solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just some > international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the > appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity > of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we > address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? > ------ According to this news item from yesterday, www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ ³Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more funding. At a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, the not-for-profit which operates the .uk registry, the Department of Trade and Industry announced it had found £23,000 down the back of its sofas (the Swiss government has donated $500,000).² 174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the IGF. If just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas (equivalent to about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, or maybe one cocktail break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two countries in the case of us unfortunate US expats) wouldn¹t need to have this conversation, the IGF could have something more like a secretariat, and Markus could refocus his energies. To me the question is not can we shake micropayments out of individual taxpayers and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of game are the governments playing here. Two cents, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jun 13 06:30:19 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:30:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Financing In-Reply-To: (mueller@syr.edu) References: Message-ID: <20070613103019.4CA445AD75@quill.bollow.ch> Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> nb at bollow.ch 6/11/2007 9:42 AM >>> > >Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded > >out of the U.N. budget? > > probably not. That would make it totally beholden to the nation-state > system. Isn't that the case anyway? Is there any way for the IGF to stop being accounatble to the U.N. and to the nation-state system? My concern is that if the IGF starts to rely on significant financial contributions from industry special interests, that would cause a significant decrease in the level of integrity that we can expect from the IGF process with regard to topics that some rich companies don't want to see discussed, or about which they seek to promote some very one-sided perspective. If you want an international multistakeholder process to discuss the future of the internet in a way that is not "beholden" to the U.N. and to the nation-state system, let's work together on creating such a process. I'm game. 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed Jun 13 08:37:09 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:37:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466FE4F5.2020303@rits.org.br> Yes, there are other ways. The blackmailing tone in the letter from Disspain (which he claims to be from a "group" -- can we guess who this "group" is?) may be shocking for some, but what is really the reason the ICANN camp was so supportive? When Microsoft or any other big one supports a "pluralist" project like this, what do they expect in exchange? Is the same situation: they expect adherence to certain rules which comply with their interests. In the case of ICANN camp, to ensure that certain themes and proceedings remain anathemas. Or else..., as Chris so frankly states. So the IGF does not need funding which captures it. One criteria is diversification -- do not depend for anything on just a few funders. Another is the mobilization of the 174 governments who happily signed the agreement to form the IGF but did not take the corresponding responsibilities (except for very few). frt rgds --c.a. William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" > wrote: >> Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what concrete >> solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just some >> international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the >> appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity >> of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we >> address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? >> > ------ > > According to this news item from yesterday, > www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ > > ³Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more funding. At > a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, the not-for-profit > which operates the .uk registry, the Department of Trade and Industry > announced it had found £23,000 down the back of its sofas (the Swiss > government has donated $500,000).² > > 174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the IGF. If > just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas (equivalent to > about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, or maybe one cocktail > break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two countries in the case of us > unfortunate US expats) wouldn¹t need to have this conversation, the IGF > could have something more like a secretariat, and Markus could refocus his > energies. To me the question is not can we shake micropayments out of > individual taxpayers and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of > game are the governments playing here. > > Two cents, > > Bill > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 12/6/2007 21:42 -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Jun 13 11:39:07 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:39:07 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Re: IGF Financing In-Reply-To: <20070613103019.4CA445AD75@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070613103019.4CA445AD75@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F019B6CF1@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Norbert, I fully agree with you and find it very problematic if we must lean on rich companies and their wish to direct the development and influence! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 13 juni 2007 12:30 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Re: IGF Financing Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> nb at bollow.ch 6/11/2007 9:42 AM >>> > >Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of the > >U.N. budget? > > probably not. That would make it totally beholden to the nation-state > system. Isn't that the case anyway? Is there any way for the IGF to stop being accounatble to the U.N. and to the nation-state system? My concern is that if the IGF starts to rely on significant financial contributions from industry special interests, that would cause a significant decrease in the level of integrity that we can expect from the IGF process with regard to topics that some rich companies don't want to see discussed, or about which they seek to promote some very one-sided perspective. If you want an international multistakeholder process to discuss the future of the internet in a way that is not "beholden" to the U.N. and to the nation-state system, let's work together on creating such a process. I'm game. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Jun 13 11:43:21 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ITU Strategy and Policy Unit - Civil Society Participation in ITU Message-ID: RE: http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/Civil+Society+Participation+In+ITU.aspx ITU Strategy and Policy Unit Newslog - Civil Society Participation in ITU News related to SPU research and analysis Tuesday, June 05, 2007 Civil Society Participation in ITU On 15 June, the first meeting of an ITU's Council Working Group established by the Antalya Plenipotentiary Conference to study civil society participation in ITU will be held, under the chairmanship on Argentina. In preparation for this meeting, ITU held a consultation meeting with civil society representatives on May 18 (for details, see the main meeting website). Ahead of the meeting, the ITU Secretary-General has issued a background paper on civil society participation in ITU, which proposes a number of steps that could be taken to enhance their participation while recognising the need for further study of the issue. The paper, together with other background resources, is available on the Council Working Group website. Comments on the paper are welcome, and can be sent to ITU-Stakeholders at itu.int. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 13 12:24:57 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ITU Strategy and Policy Unit - Civil Society Participation in ITU In-Reply-To: sympa.1181749186.66686.676@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Here is the - ITU Council WorK Group main website: http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/wsis_WG.html - Working Group of the Council First Meeting: 15 June 2007, ITU Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland Res. 141 Meeting: Working Group of the Council on Resolution 141 (WG-Study) http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/index.html Working Group on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in ITU activities related to the WSIS to be held on 15 June 2007. (WG-Study) Study on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union related to the World Summit on the Information Society -- Also see: Council Groups http://www.itu.int/council/groups/indexgroups.html With attention to the: Financial Regulations Group and Management and Budget Group -- And that's how its done. --- P.S.: Geezzzzz - Louiseeeeee Must I do every thing for you ... I swear you guys are getting to be a lot like, Jeff Williams! ;-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Jun 13 12:27:02 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:27:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Financing In-Reply-To: <20070613103019.4CA445AD75@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070613103019.4CA445AD75@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <46701b4b.2035640a.153a.2ae5@mx.google.com> Norbert, At 12:30 6/13/2007 +0200, you wrote: >My concern is that if the IGF starts to rely on significant financial >contributions from industry special interests, that would cause a >significant decrease in the level of integrity that we can expect >from the IGF process with regard to topics that some rich companies >don't want to see discussed, or about which they seek to promote some >very one-sided perspective. Do you have information that the first IGF has relied on "significant financial contribution" from such companies at all? Do you have information about the second IGF? Have you seen, and if yes, could you share, the total expenses for the IGF? veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Jun 13 12:52:38 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:52:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CF80544-747B-44C9-926D-CB86710F1718@ras.eu.org> Le 12 juin 07 à 15:44, Milton Mueller a écrit : [...] > I need to think about it more carefully, but Bertrand's idea of MS > financing seems to me to have merit. Not on a project by project > basis, > as that would obviously make the agenda the plaything of governmental > and corporate interests, but let's say that the regular budget was > divided into quotas per "stakeholder" group, e.g. 30% from govts, 30% > from PS, 20% from CS, and 20% from the international organizations > within its purview (ICANN, UNESCO, ITU, WIPO, etc.). Maybe this > requires > some kind of "membership" in which participants get certified as > belonging to some sector and once so recognized, assume some kind of > honorary obligation to meet those quotas. Can't we learn from existing examples? e.g. ITU. It has States members (UN member States), private organizations members (business, membership by ITU technical sectors), and associates. Fees for sector members are described here: http://www.itu.int/ members/sectmem/fees.html I think it's enough to understand... If not, I'm sure Bill will be more than pleased to jump in with thousands of messages explaining what's wrong with this system, as he's as fond of ITU as of WTO:) Would anyone here argue that ITU would be the example to be followed by IGF? Moreover, I really don't see how this "stakeholder quotas" system is better than the "project by project" basis, which is indeed a direct agenda-setting system (not only agenda-, but also decisions-on-the- agenda-setting, as a matter of fact). It's still more harmful to loose 30% (gov or PS) than 20% (CS) of your money. And BTW, I don't see how CS could contribute even 20% on a stable basis: CS orgs are not even sure they'll have enough funding to attend the next meeting... Even the micro-credit is not a good idea. Somehow surprising that this proposal came from Parminder:), since (1) it's a perversion of the micro-credit system and (2) in the same way as the micro-credit is nothing more than an operational mean of allowing more people to access to the credit system than the "normal" banking credit from which they would never benefit, IGF financing by either micro-credit or huge (MS or not) contributions doesn't change anything at the principle level and poses the same problems, though on different scales. These problems have already been identified: 1/ agenda-setting by big contributors (or tentative of, as was recently made obvious) 2/ why on earth would citizens and even businesses pay again what they already paid (although certainly not enough for big businesses) their governments for through taxes, since IGF is integral part of the UN systems? [and speaking of learning from existing examples, setting up something new outside of the UN system may well look like ICANN, even leaving aside the US DoC issue. Would anyone (except Veni:)) here argue that ICANN would be the example to follow, instead of the ITU example?] To summarize, my opinion is that we could spend years discussing this issue, but the best answer would remain making the IGF structure as light as possible, thus as cheap as possible. In this regards, Adam raised the good question: "what do we mean by IGF Financing?". Why IGF financing would necessarily require huge amounts of money? What has been its budget as for now, and what are the strict necessary expenses? This is not a financing question only. This is closely related to the IGF institutional structure discussion ("bureau or not bureau"). All the proposals and ideas droped on this list started with a very complex structure trying to ensure representation of all stakeholders while denying this representation objectives, and ended by ensuring that this bureau/secretariat/whatever shouldn't of course have any decision-making powers. Why then should they obey a so thoroughly devised membership? Let's try to answer a very simple question: wouldn't it be possible to organize the whole IGF activities with a secretariat composed by X persons, who can be civil servants delegated by some governments in turn, plus some project officers from various concerned IGOs, also in turn, plus local logistics provided by the host country for each annual meeting (with sponsors of _this_ particular event if needed, from any economic sector: after all, such international events are good for e.g. the tourism sector, probably more than for the Internet sector, given their achievements...). These people skills should only be organizational, administrative. Substance (agenda setting, etc.) provided by contributions from anyone/any group/any institution interested. We only need some rules to organize all this and to guarantee that anyone/any group/any institution has equal/equitable access to resources. Working on such rules would be far more interesting that discussing ways of structuring and financing IGF. Is this really making no sense? Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Wed Jun 13 13:55:00 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:55:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Financing In-Reply-To: <20070613103019.4CA445AD75@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070613103019.4CA445AD75@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: At 12:30 PM +0200 6/13/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: >If you want an international multistakeholder process to discuss the >future of the internet in a way that is not "beholden" to the U.N. >and to the nation-state system, let's work together on creating such >a process. I'm game. If I may, it seems there have been several suggestions already. Perhaps they could be collected together, and I have a few additional ideas. Obviously just a starting point, and I'm still an outsider, but perhaps it might set you folks on a productive path. - Concentrate on general operational (unrestricted) funds, with only a small proportion of project-earmark funding (Milton). - Quotas per stakeholder group: Milton started out with "e.g. 30% from govts, 30% from PS, 20% from CS, and 20% from the international organizations within its purview (ICANN, UNESCO, ITU, WIPO, etc.)" - I might offer a tweak on that: specifically, caps (maximums) instead of "quotas" (which I think can sometimes be interpreted as minimums or "exacts"), and have caps add up to somewhat more than 100%, so that reductions in funding below cap from one area need not immediately reduce funding from other sectors. - Parminder brings in micro-funding (ala MoveOn.org in the US, as well as many NPOs), and that could be added to the mix. Note that the success of such appeals tends to rely on a real-time context of issues and actions that capture the attention and passion of "common folk" and is often attached to the announcement of a clearly-budgeted project, but the donations are still available for general purposes on an unrestricted basis. Any overages can be applied to general funds. - How about putting in place a strategy to build an endowment? Perhaps 5-10% of revenues over the first 5-10 years should be earmarked for the endowment, with no tapping of those funds for any reason except imminent threat of abject operational collapse. Put it in the charter. Perhaps any project funding should require a small (say, 1-2%) contribution to general funds and/or the endowment. Mandate a diverse portfolio of investments, and perhaps some portion for green/sustainable investments or index funds? (I'm just throwing that green thing in there...) - That said, the endowment should not constitute a majority of resources, because that removes accountability to *any* constituency. The point of an endowment is to cover short-term fluctuations in funding, so as to reduce dependency on any specific funding source, just as diversifying the portfolio is designed to do the same thing. Once the endowment hits a certain magnitude, it should be managed for steady state, and some of the annual interest could contribute to a portion of annual budgets. If an endowment were supporting the overwhelming majority of the budget via interest, that would place far too much power in the hands of the administration (in the absence of national laws to constrain activity), so we don't want to go overboard here. If the endowment is hit by shortages for several years in a row, the charter should mandate steps to rebuild it, even if that means a reduction in general expenditures for a period of several years. The point is to keep year-to-year funding and expenditures fairly stable, but long term levels can respond to long term trends. In toto, this is intended to minimize dependency on any single funding source (i.e., diversify the portfolio), without undermining fundamental accountability to the broad range of stakeholders. Thus, this is a real balancing act. So maybe the caps look more like: 30% govts, 30% PS, 20% CS, 20% intl, 30% micro, 10% endowment. (Maybe micro funding could have a rather higher cap, even though it may not be likely to get there often in practice, because there is infinitesimal dependency risk in the micro sector, which is why it is attractive as a specific-dependency-reduction tactic.) Note: It occurs to me that in the case of international orgs such as the UN that do not aggregate funding into general funds, but rather earmark project funding (thanks for that tidbit, Milton, I was not aware of that detail), a strategy similar to micro-funding might be used, perhaps call it "mini-funding", targeted at a broad range of nations for a large number of smaller amounts. (As Bill Drake says, "chump change from their sofas" ... maybe in the 4-digit range?) Put this all together, and it starts to look like something that may not be out of the realm of possibility? Talk amongst yourselves... Dan PS -- Anything along these lines obviously requires cooperation of the various stakeholder sources, so target caps may not be achievable immediately. So then, targets should be devised in a phase-in mode to move in this direction. I honestly don't know what is reasonable to expect in this space, so obviously I would want to stay within the bounds of feasibility. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 13 16:14:28 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:14:28 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) In-Reply-To: <5CF80544-747B-44C9-926D-CB86710F1718@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <04a801c7adf7$78fa85c0$9300a8c0@IAN> The obvious longer term funding structure (assuming IGF becomes permanent some time) is a tax on domain names - the same pattern that funds ICANN. Perhaps IGF could collect the tax on domain names and ICANN and other bodies involved in internet governance could bid for funds from it? IGF could then use funds coercively to obtain performance and results desired from internet governance bodies. Sort of the reverse of the current situation but with greater legitimacy. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 12/06/2007 21:42 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 13 19:10:19 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:10:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) In-Reply-To: <04a801c7adf7$78fa85c0$9300a8c0@IAN> References: <04a801c7adf7$78fa85c0$9300a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4670795B.9050809@rits.org.br> I think it does not work... IGF goes well beyond names and numbers (but should not forget names and numbers are also a crucial part of IG). Anyway, IGF (even if it grows a bit bigger) is not a large operation moneywise. There should be an uncomplicated way to fund it. frt rgds --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > The obvious longer term funding structure (assuming IGF becomes permanent > some time) is a tax on domain names - the same pattern that funds ICANN. > > Perhaps IGF could collect the tax on domain names and ICANN and other bodies > involved in internet governance could bid for funds from it? > > IGF could then use funds coercively to obtain performance and results > desired from internet governance bodies. Sort of the reverse of the current > situation but with greater legitimacy. > > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 12/06/2007 > 21:42 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 13 19:40:41 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:40:41 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) In-Reply-To: <4670795B.9050809@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <04c401c7ae14$493d46c0$9300a8c0@IAN> -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Sent: 14 June 2007 09:10 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) >I think it does not work... IGF goes well beyond names and numbers (but >should not forget names and numbers are also a crucial part of IG). Yes but a tax base (and that’s what we are talking about) is a broad based income scheme that is fair to all concerned and raises revenue for a variety of activities not necessarily related to the income base. WE can argue that domain name ownership is not universal but its fairly universal, happens to slightly favour the richer who are more likely to own domain(s), and is widespread enough to get a substantial revenue base to use for other things as well. ICANN essentially does that already. >Anyway, IGF (even if it grows a bit bigger) is not a large operation >moneywise. There should be an uncomplicated way to fund it. Yep, but IGF related activities and which don’t yet have current funding bases or governance bodies could also benefit. Existing ones could also. If the per domain tax were able to be allocated to a range of central funding needs including ICANN, IGF IANA and whatever is necessary we can overcome a range of problems Ian frt rgds --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > The obvious longer term funding structure (assuming IGF becomes permanent > some time) is a tax on domain names - the same pattern that funds ICANN. > > Perhaps IGF could collect the tax on domain names and ICANN and other bodies > involved in internet governance could bid for funds from it? > > IGF could then use funds coercively to obtain performance and results > desired from internet governance bodies. Sort of the reverse of the current > situation but with greater legitimacy. > > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 12/06/2007 > 21:42 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 12/06/2007 21:42 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 13/06/2007 12:50 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Jun 13 19:45:19 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF financing Message-ID: <890863.14470.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Carlos, You’re comment regarding an intent to blackmail by Chris Disspain is totally inappropriate. Yes, I am a board member of auDA. But this in no way makes a difference to my response to the spurious allegations made about Chris on this list, and about which Jeremy Malcolm has already posted a response from Chris refuting these comments. Comments such as these reflect poorly on the IGF’s stakeholders. And given this is in a financing thread, you would have to ask, who would want to fund a body that makes such comments? I passed on the comments to Chris, and he’s suggested, if I want, I could post the complete text of his comments, which are below. Any reasonable person reading these comments would see there is no intent on “blackmailing”. The text below makes it perfectly plain that keeping “critical internet resources” off the agenda is NOT what this was about. To suggest any intent to blackmail is a serious allegation, and in this case is one that cannot be sustained. David A number of advisory group members met tonight to discuss today's meeting and I am sending this to you and the list to express our concerns. Firstly, we were under the impression that even though the advisory group has yet to be officially reconstituted we were meeting here following yesterdays open consultation as the advisory group in anticipation of formal approval from the Secretary General. In fact this meeting has turned into another open consultation seeking to set the agenda for and structure of the igf. I want to make it clear that most of us have no problem with critical internet resources being an agenda item in a main session if agreed. Rather, we are concerned that there appear to be fundamental changes being mooted which are unacceptable to and may lead to the withdrawal of some non government and perhaps even government participants. Overall the topics and format of Athens were a success and to ensure the continued enrolment of all stakeholders should be maintained. Chief amongst our concerns is the concept, that seems to have been 'agreed' in today's session, of final recommendations arising from the igf. In effect, a negotiated document. This is way outside of the mandate of the igf and is, simply, unacceptable to the majority of non government people here. We are dismayed that this meeting seems to have been taken over by government officials well versed in international manoeuvring or 'UN games'. It is likely that this will marginalise the legitimate concerns and interests of developing countries for whom issues such as access are key. This is not what these meetings were intended to be. There is a grave danger that financial support and general involvement of non government participants will be withdrawn. I intend to raise these issues at the meeting in the morning but thought it courteous to let you and the rest of the list know in advance. ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos Afonso To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, 13 June, 2007 10:37:09 PM Subject: Re: [governance] IGF financing Yes, there are other ways. The blackmailing tone in the letter from Disspain (which he claims to be from a "group" -- can we guess who this "group" is?) may be shocking for some, but what is really the reason the ICANN camp was so supportive? When Microsoft or any other big one supports a "pluralist" project like this, what do they expect in exchange? Is the same situation: they expect adherence to certain rules which comply with their interests. In the case of ICANN camp, to ensure that certain themes and proceedings remain anathemas. Or else..., as Chris so frankly states. So the IGF does not need funding which captures it. One criteria is diversification -- do not depend for anything on just a few funders. Another is the mobilization of the 174 governments who happily signed the agreement to form the IGF but did not take the corresponding responsibilities (except for very few). frt rgds --c.a. William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" > wrote: >> Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what concrete >> solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just some >> international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the >> appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity >> of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we >> address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? >> > ------ > > According to this news item from yesterday, > www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ > > ³Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more funding. At > a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, the not-for-profit > which operates the .uk registry, the Department of Trade and Industry > announced it had found £23,000 down the back of its sofas (the Swiss > government has donated $500,000).² > > 174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the IGF. If > just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas (equivalent to > about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, or maybe one cocktail > break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two countries in the case of us > unfortunate US expats) wouldn¹t need to have this conversation, the IGF > could have something more like a secretariat, and Markus could refocus his > energies. To me the question is not can we shake micropayments out of > individual taxpayers and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of > game are the governments playing here. > > Two cents, > > Bill > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 12/6/2007 21:42 -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 _________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Jun 13 21:01:01 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:01:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <890863.14470.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <890863.14470.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4670934D.7050505@rits.org.br> With all respect for the work of auDA (I do not think Chris was writing in the name of auDA, or at least I hope so), threatening to pull funds if the IGF and the MAG "do not behave" regarding certain interests is what? And this threat does reflect poorly on the folks who did it, unfortunately. I would like to read an apology from Chris and his group regarding this, and I think Kummer's response was right to the point, and certainly more diplomatic than mine. frt rgds --c.a. David Goldstein wrote: > > Carlos, > > > You’re comment regarding an intent to > blackmail by Chris Disspain is totally inappropriate. Yes, I am a board member > of auDA. But this in no way makes a difference to my response to the spurious allegations made > about Chris on this list, and about which Jeremy Malcolm has already posted a > response from Chris refuting these comments. > > > Comments such as these reflect poorly on > the IGF’s stakeholders. And given this is in a financing thread, you would have > to ask, who would want to fund a body that makes such comments? > > > I passed on the comments to Chris, and he’s > suggested, if I want, I could post the complete text of his comments, which are > below. Any reasonable person reading these comments would see there is no > intent on “blackmailing”. The text below makes it perfectly plain that keeping “critical > internet resources” off the agenda is NOT what this was about. > > > To suggest any intent to blackmail is a > serious allegation, and in this case is one that cannot be sustained. > > > > > > David > > > > > A number of advisory group members met > tonight to discuss today's meeting and I am sending this to you and the list to > express our concerns. > > > > Firstly, we were under the impression that even though the advisory group has > yet to be officially reconstituted we were meeting here following yesterdays > open consultation as the advisory group in anticipation of formal approval from > the Secretary General. In fact this meeting has turned into another open > consultation seeking to set the agenda for and structure of the igf. > > > > I want to make it clear that most of us have no problem with critical internet > resources being an agenda item in a main session if agreed. Rather, we are > concerned that there appear to be fundamental changes being mooted which are > unacceptable to and may lead to the withdrawal of some non government and > perhaps even government participants. > > > > Overall the topics and format of Athens were a success and to ensure the continued > enrolment of all stakeholders should be maintained. > > > > Chief amongst our concerns is the concept, that seems to have been 'agreed' in > today's session, of final recommendations arising from the igf. In effect, a > negotiated document. This is way outside of the mandate of the igf and is, > simply, unacceptable to the majority of non government people here. > > > > We are dismayed that this meeting seems to have been taken over by government > officials well versed in international manoeuvring or 'UN games'. It is likely > that this will marginalise the legitimate concerns and interests of developing > countries for whom issues such as access are key. This is not what these > meetings were intended to be. > > > > There is a grave danger that financial support and general involvement of non > government participants will be withdrawn. > > > > I intend to raise these issues at the meeting in the morning but thought it courteous > to let you and the rest of the list know in advance. > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Carlos Afonso > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Sent: Wednesday, 13 June, 2007 10:37:09 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF financing > > Yes, there are other ways. The blackmailing tone in the letter from > Disspain (which he claims to be from a "group" -- can we guess who this > "group" is?) may be shocking for some, but what is really the reason the > ICANN camp was so supportive? When Microsoft or any other big one > supports a "pluralist" project like this, what do they expect in > exchange? Is the same situation: they expect adherence to certain rules > which comply with their interests. In the case of ICANN camp, to ensure > that certain themes and proceedings remain anathemas. Or else..., as > Chris so frankly states. > > So the IGF does not need funding which captures it. One criteria is > diversification -- do not depend for anything on just a few funders. > Another is the mobilization of the 174 governments who happily signed > the agreement to form the IGF but did not take the corresponding > responsibilities (except for very few). > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" >> wrote: >>> Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what concrete >>> solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just some >>> international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the >>> appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity >>> of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we >>> address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? >>> >> ------ >> >> According to this news item from yesterday, >> www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ >> >> ³Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more funding. At >> a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, the not-for-profit >> which operates the .uk registry, the Department of Trade and Industry >> announced it had found £23,000 down the back of its sofas (the Swiss >> government has donated $500,000).² >> >> 174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the IGF. If >> just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas (equivalent to >> about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, or maybe one cocktail >> break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two countries in the case of us >> unfortunate US expats) wouldn¹t need to have this conversation, the IGF >> could have something more like a secretariat, and Markus could refocus his >> energies. To me the question is not can we shake micropayments out of >> individual taxpayers and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of >> game are the governments playing here. >> >> Two cents, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 12/6/2007 21:42 > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Jun 13 21:31:54 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:31:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <890863.14470.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <890863.14470.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46709A8A.7050308@Malcolm.id.au> David Goldstein wrote: > You’re comment regarding an intent to > blackmail by Chris Disspain is totally inappropriate. Yes, I am a board member > of auDA. But this in no way makes a difference to my response to the spurious allegations made > about Chris on this list, and about which Jeremy Malcolm has already posted a > response from Chris refuting these comments. I didn't post it to accede to the views that it expressed; in fact I took strong issue with it in a private reply to Chris, and a member of this list also replied to me directly with the view that the reply reflected as badly on Chris as his original message to Markus had. Chris's attitude is that he took the actions he did in a noble endeavour to save the IGF from "what we perceived as an attempt by some governments to hi-jack the IGF process" through such nefarious means as raising the idea of a multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF or the need for it to seek to produce some concluding recommendations. The problem is that whereas those dreadful governments and their civil society collaborators having been raising these issues openly and transparently in multi-stakeholder consultations, the knights in white armour from the private sector have seen this as a "breakdown of the multi-stakeholder process" and sought to circumvent it using financial leverage. For those who have dealt with Chris Disspain before they will know he is no shrinking violet and that he gives as good as he gets (often better). So although to talk of blackmail is a little hyperbolic, Carlos is not the bad guy here. Chris made his own bed, and now he has to lie in it. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Jun 13 22:08:17 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:08:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <890863.14470.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <890863.14470.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4670a40f.0f1d640a.519e.ffffe2fc@mx.google.com> David, I may have missed the initial mail, and tried to find it in the archives, but unsuccessfully. Having said that, I hope that people are not going to be taken away by what Chris has said, but rather by the question who is pushing certain agendas around the IGF - there were hints here that these are "known groups", "businesses", I only miss the "international situation" for the picture to be completed - and remind me of the communism in the socialist block. It's amazing that today Chris gets all the bashing - perhaps just because he's the one to speak openly, and say what's in the heads of many people, but who don't dare to write that. It's also amazing that the NW coalition (North - West) continues to dictate loudly what should be, and what should not be discussed - be that on this mailing list, or at the IGF. It's time to kind of wake up, and admit the reality - the huge majority of the people don't care about domain names and IP addresses. They care how much they pay for their Internet, and if they can access any site without restrictions, or without being afraid that someone may come after them for doing that. Of course, it is understandable that the Americans and the WestEuropeans would not think about this, as they take this (as well as many other things!) for granted. When someone from the rest of the world suggests something different, something that will change the way people have access to the Internet, then (s)he will be attacked by the same NW coalitioners.... So sad. Veni At 16:45 6/13/2007 -0700, you wrote: >A number of advisory group members met >tonight to discuss today's meeting and I am sending this to you and >the list to >express our concerns. > >Firstly, we were under the impression that even though the advisory group has >yet to be officially reconstituted we were meeting here following yesterdays >open consultation as the advisory group in anticipation of formal >approval from >the Secretary General. In fact this meeting has turned into another open >consultation seeking to set the agenda for and structure of the igf. > >I want to make it clear that most of us have no problem with critical internet >resources being an agenda item in a main session if agreed. Rather, we are >concerned that there appear to be fundamental changes being mooted which are >unacceptable to and may lead to the withdrawal of some non government and >perhaps even government participants. > >Overall the topics and format of Athens were a success and to ensure >the continued >enrolment of all stakeholders should be maintained. > >Chief amongst our concerns is the concept, that seems to have been 'agreed' in >today's session, of final recommendations arising from the igf. In effect, a >negotiated document. This is way outside of the mandate of the igf and is, >simply, unacceptable to the majority of non government people here. > >We are dismayed that this meeting seems to have been taken over by government >officials well versed in international manoeuvring or 'UN games'. It is likely >that this will marginalise the legitimate concerns and interests of developing >countries for whom issues such as access are key. This is not what these >meetings were intended to be. > >There is a grave danger that financial support and general involvement of non >government participants will be withdrawn. >I intend to raise these issues at the meeting in the morning but >thought it courteous >to let you and the rest of the list know in advance. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Wed Jun 13 23:39:30 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:39:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F02178F-6ECD-433D-BE23-D6EC492FEF6D@privaterra.info> let's not forget that the government of Canada announced at the last IGF open consultation that they were contributing 100, 000 dollars exclusively for IGF fellowships . Perhaps not picked up on this list, but something that is significant. At today's exchange rate, that is approx 93,670 USD or 70,381.264 € . If only other govts did the same we'd have funds not only for participation but also for a slightly larger secretariat. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 13-Jun-07, at 3:43 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" > wrote: >> >> Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, >> what concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the >> UN ? or just some international organizations ? The key question >> is, again : what is the appropriate financing structure for the >> IGF in order to guarantee regularity of resources and independence >> from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we address this issue >> calmly, with the attention it deserves ? >> > ------ > > According to this news item from yesterday, www.theregister.co.uk/ > 2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ > > “Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more > funding. At a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, > the not-for-profit which operates the .uk registry, the Department > of Trade and Industry announced it had found £23,000 down the back > of its sofas (the Swiss government has donated $500,000).” > > 174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the > IGF. If just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas > (equivalent to about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, > or maybe one cocktail break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two > countries in the case of us unfortunate US expats) wouldn’t need to > have this conversation, the IGF could have something more like a > secretariat, and Markus could refocus his energies. To me the > question is not can we shake micropayments out of individual > taxpayers and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of > game are the governments playing here. > > Two cents, > > 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 veni at veni.com Thu Jun 14 08:37:28 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:37:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <9F02178F-6ECD-433D-BE23-D6EC492FEF6D@privaterra.info> References: <9F02178F-6ECD-433D-BE23-D6EC492FEF6D@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <20070614124845.CD5D733758D@mxr.isoc.bg> by the way, some years ago (5?), the Switzerland government has contributed to the WSIS a huge amount of money, including for civil society participation. We got information about that from Jonathan Robin, and that's how we got involved at the Bucharest PrepCom meeting. Perhaps the fact that today governments contribute much less, and they seem not to be interested in contributing, should give us some idea what's their position on IG is? veni At 23:39 6/13/2007 -0400, you wrote: >let's not forget that the government of Canada announced at the last >IGF open consultation that they were contributing 100, 000 dollars >exclusively for IGF fellowships . Perhaps not picked up on this list, >but something that is significant. > >At today's exchange rate, that is approx 93,670 USD or 70,381.264 >─ . If only other govts did the same we'd have funds not only for >participation but also for a slightly larger secretariat. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Jun 14 09:10:25 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:10:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF financing In-Reply-To: <9F02178F-6ECD-433D-BE23-D6EC492FEF6D@privaterra.info> References: <9F02178F-6ECD-433D-BE23-D6EC492FEF6D@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <46713E41.6050806@rits.org.br> It is clear IGF does not need contributions from all 174+ govs who agreed to create it -- if they (and more) did it, fine, but the total budget (including a far more significant amount to make sure Southern interest groups are better represented) is not a big one. I would suggest a cap (no one would contribute more than, say, 15% of the total budget, and there are no strings of any kind attached to any contribution), to make sure no single entity provides a big enough chunk of funding which would enable it to leverage decisions in its favor. Yes, and it would of course be open to contributions from non-governmental entities as well (pluralist participation and pluralist funding). --c.a. Robert Guerra wrote: > let's not forget that the government of Canada announced at the last IGF > open consultation that they were contributing 100, 000 dollars > exclusively for IGF fellowships . Perhaps not picked up on this list, > but something that is significant. > > At today's exchange rate, that is approx 93,670 USD or 70,381.264 € . > If only other govts did the same we'd have funds not only for > participation but also for a slightly larger secretariat. > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > > On 13-Jun-07, at 3:43 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" >> wrote: >>> >>> Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what >>> concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or >>> just some international organizations ? The key question is, again : >>> what is the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to >>> guarantee regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and >>> pressure groups ? Can we address this issue calmly, with the >>> attention it deserves ? >>> >> ------ >> >> According to this news item from yesterday, >> www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ >> >> “Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more >> funding. At a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, the >> not-for-profit which operates the .uk registry, the Department of >> Trade and Industry announced it had found £23,000 down the back of its >> sofas (the Swiss government has donated $500,000).” >> >> 174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the IGF. >> If just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas >> (equivalent to about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, or >> maybe one cocktail break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two >> countries in the case of us unfortunate US expats) wouldn’t need to >> have this conversation, the IGF could have something more like a >> secretariat, and Markus could refocus his energies. To me the >> question is not can we shake micropayments out of individual taxpayers >> and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of game are the >> governments playing here. >> >> Two cents, >> >> 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 > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 14 09:17:15 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:17:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] new IGF programme online Message-ID: Hi, New draft program online. Please see IGF website , direct link to the file Revised schedule Still many things to do and to be improved, but... Critical Internet resources is the opening session. Privacy recognized, with the main themes of the dynamic coalition on privacy recognized: good work done by them. Access looking OK I think. But it all needs fleshing out with proposals for workshops etc. 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 From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 14 17:02:49 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:02:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF financing Message-ID: Hi Folks, Let's step back and put this string in some historical context shall we? It is not unusual for financing mechanisms and agenda-setting/control issues to be inter-mixed with heated rhetoric. Especially early in the process of establishing a new institution. If we recall ICANN's earliest days, there was an appeal for individual contributions - you can blame or credit yours truly for throwing $250 into the pot back then - and then the Markle foundation, Cisco, and I forget who else put up $$ to help get ICANN started. The idea of a $1 tax per domain going to ICANN was shot down by the time the US Congress held hearings about it, never mind the EU and others not amused by taxation without representation. But over time ICANN figured out financing mechanisms that worked for it and its stakeholders, more or less. I guess some WSIS participants might be of the 'less' opinion but anyway. So while some may (pretend to) be 'shocked!' that the conversation on the list has taken the turn it has, I would be shocked if folks who were putting money in didn;t expect their concerns to be heard. In others words: my forecast is for several years of debate and at times heated rhetoric on IGF financing (and the scope of its mandate), and yes for fuinders to pull out if IGF takes a turn they percieve to be against their interests. Therefore, in my opinion, this caucus should not count on the benevolence of governments or industry stakeholders to ensure its interests are represented well within IGF, but should instead take the high ground and direct action of establishing mechanisms to channel contributions of individual Internet users from wherever, to ensure civil society from north and south has paid for its own seat at the virtual table. (The 'threat' of particular groups to pull funding is not made idly, but can be met with an 'I'm sorry to hear you feel that way' indifference if as Carlos suggests their contributions are only a small part of the pie.) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ca at rits.org.br 6/14/2007 9:10 AM >>> It is clear IGF does not need contributions from all 174+ govs who agreed to create it -- if they (and more) did it, fine, but the total budget (including a far more significant amount to make sure Southern interest groups are better represented) is not a big one. I would suggest a cap (no one would contribute more than, say, 15% of the total budget, and there are no strings of any kind attached to any contribution), to make sure no single entity provides a big enough chunk of funding which would enable it to leverage decisions in its favor. Yes, and it would of course be open to contributions from non-governmental entities as well (pluralist participation and pluralist funding). --c.a. Robert Guerra wrote: > let's not forget that the government of Canada announced at the last IGF > open consultation that they were contributing 100, 000 dollars > exclusively for IGF fellowships . Perhaps not picked up on this list, > but something that is significant. > > At today's exchange rate, that is approx 93,670 USD or 70,381.264 € . > If only other govts did the same we'd have funds not only for > participation but also for a slightly larger secretariat. > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > > On 13-Jun-07, at 3:43 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" >> wrote: >>> >>> Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what >>> concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or >>> just some international organizations ? The key question is, again : >>> what is the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to >>> guarantee regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and >>> pressure groups ? Can we address this issue calmly, with the >>> attention it deserves ? >>> >> ------ >> >> According to this news item from yesterday, >> www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ >> >> "Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more >> funding. At a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, the >> not-for-profit which operates the .uk registry, the Department of >> Trade and Industry announced it had found £23,000 down the back of its >> sofas (the Swiss government has donated $500,000)." >> >> 174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the IGF. >> If just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas >> (equivalent to about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, or >> maybe one cocktail break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two >> countries in the case of us unfortunate US expats) wouldn't need to >> have this conversation, the IGF could have something more like a >> secretariat, and Markus could refocus his energies. To me the >> question is not can we shake micropayments out of individual taxpayers >> and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of game are the >> governments playing here. >> >> Two cents, >> >> 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 > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 15 00:51:06 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:21:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. It will serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these are from our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF consultations). These are (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. I am not sure we will be able to sponsor all three. But the third one - role and mandate of the IGF - was suggested by some as a workshop theme. It also becomes important in terms of financing IGF discussions on this list these last few days. I think we must try to organize this workshop on behalf of IGC, and find partners for it. We should also look at doing another workshop on access/ development agenda in IG - in view of repeated assertions that access is the most important issue. This depends on whether we choose to do one workshop or two. There isnt much time, and we need to first get an agreement here (which can be built over the agreement already reached on importance of these themes last month), then get partners and then get a workshop proposal done. We can also to try to this non-linearly, but still there isnt much time. I request inputs on this issue. 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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:47 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] new IGF programme online > > Hi, > > New draft program online. Please see IGF website > , direct link to the file > > > Revised schedule > > Still many things to do and to be improved, but... > > Critical Internet resources is the opening session. > > Privacy recognized, with the main themes of the dynamic coalition on > privacy recognized: good work done by them. > > Access looking OK I think. But it all needs fleshing out with > proposals for workshops etc. > > 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Jun 15 04:18:46 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:18:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, On 6/15/07 6:51 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. It will > serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of > IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these are from > our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF > consultations). As I said a while back, On 5/1/07 8:07 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes proposed, > probably we ought to consider proposing workshops on each. This could be done > in addition to or instead of making a statement about the plenaries. If it's > impossible for the caucus to agree on such workshops, then varying coalitions > of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list serving as > initial facilitators. Since there was no follow-up discussion on joint caucus proposals and subsequent dialogues underscored the diversity of perspectives here and the difficulty of reaching agreement, I decided to revert to my original plan of doing something on a coalition of the willing basis, as per all the CS-initiated workshops at Athens. So I'm going to propose a workshop on a Development Agenda that builds on the meeting I organized in Geneva in February and the GigaNet cluster on the same. The framing parallels the GigaNet wording and is hence different from the two sentences included in the caucus themes proposal, which focused on "disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet." We added the DA clause to the title but didn't elaborate on it amidst all the debate on the core resources theme, so I'm drilling down into this aspect. Anyway, bottom line, there will be a proposal that is more or less compatible with, > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the > Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG > (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) As to the others, > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions > a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to use global > institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between > "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy and the > "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet > governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy > concerns are closely linked to technical administration? > > b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the > coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and how can this > goal be pursued? I argued from the outset that the way this was specified seemed a bit diffuse and seemed to blend into the core resources theme, which has since been built into the main agenda. I still think that; "what is public policy" is not a real issue with respect to many other domains of IG, like intellectual property, privacy, security, etc. where there are clearly settled policies in place, for better or worse. I strongly suspect that the caucus would have a hard time agreeing a clearly specified, non-redundant, and compelling formulation on this and also getting co-sponsors on board in the next two weeks. I'd suggest dropping this for now, but if someone else wants to put the work into trying to make it work, go for it. > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. If there were to be a caucus proposal, I would suggest it focus on this. The topic is clearly specified, non-redundant, and entirely workable, and one would think we'd be able to reach agreement on a proposal since it doesn't have to do with core resources etc. It's also something the caucus has been raising for a long while---in fact, for some of us, since before the WGIG---so Cs has already put down markers on it and can make a distinct contribution. I'd be willing to collaborate with others on this if there's interest. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 15 04:38:17 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:38:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder: good suggestion. None of the following has yet been discussed on the advisory group list, my opinion only: My guess is demand for workshops will be higher this year -- IGF's better known and more will notice it's an opportunity (free) to put on a workshop in a quite prominent space. Workshops will have an audience of between 200-300 people so are quite large events in their own right. Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. The schedule was adjusted so this was possible (workshops held over lunch, which was not originally planned) A few on the same theme were asked to merge (but that's reasonable, yes?) Some that better met the criteria (multistakeholder organization, relevance to the main themes) were given a choice of times or perhaps a larger room, but all could be accepted. If demand for workshops is greater than the number of available slots --even after merging of like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject some. I think demand may well exceed supply. Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting is the advisory group. And I suspect the first criteria for judging proposals will be if the workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing team behind it. Proposals from the caucus will be good, certainly would show broad civil society support, but involving other stakeholders will be essential. Regional diversity also positive. Just my opinion. I do not believe "controversial" topics will be rejected simply because some might consider them controversial. Last year there were two workshop proposals on DNS related topics. Both had multi-stakeholder organizers, they were accepted, and to the best of my memory during advisory group discussions neither were challenged at any time for any reason. Working on details of criteria for workshops would have been the type of issue the advisory group discussed had it met in a closed session last month. Just not easy to get into detail in an open session. So the process is behind on issues such as this. About the themes and number of proposals the caucus might work on. The deadline is 30 June 2007. The caucus is not very good at reaching decisions. I suggest that the three you suggest: (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access, etc (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. will likely be more than we can manage. If there is be competition for slots, solid proposals will be necessary. Given Bill's comment that he's developing a proposal on development agenda and tieing it to giganet etc, I suggest the caucus focus on 1 and 3. It will be a lot of work for you and Vittorio to coordinate. I wouldn't expand into Access etc. Let CS groups expert on the area do a job without confusion of the caucus' "consensus". And I think privacy safe with the coalition (Ralf Bendrath etc.) But I am surprised you don't mention critical Internet resources. Adam At 10:21 AM +0530 6/15/07, Parminder wrote: >Hi > >I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. It will >serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of >IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these are from >our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF >consultations). > >These are > >(1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions > >(2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the >Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG >(this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) > >(3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF.  > >I am not sure we will be able to sponsor all three. But the third one - role >and mandate of the IGF - was suggested by some as a workshop theme. It also >becomes important in terms of financing IGF discussions on this list these >last few days. I think we must try to organize this workshop on behalf of >IGC, and find partners for it. > >We should also look at doing another workshop on access/ development agenda >in IG - in view of repeated assertions that access is the most important >issue. This depends on whether we choose to do one workshop or two. > >There isnt much time, and we need to first get an agreement here (which can >be built over the agreement already reached on importance of these themes >last month), then get partners and then get a workshop proposal done. We can >also to try to this non-linearly, but still there isnt much time. I request >inputs on this issue. 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Jun 15 05:02:51 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:02:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: References: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070615090256.72DB01BB469@mail.gn.apc.org> hi parminder, bill parminder, thanks for moving us forward on workshop proposals > > I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. It will > > serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of > > IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these are from > > our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF > > consultations). > > > Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes proposed, > > probably we ought to consider proposing workshops on each. This > could be done > > in addition to or instead of making a statement about the > plenaries. If it's > > impossible for the caucus to agree on such workshops, then > varying coalitions > > of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list serving as > > initial facilitators. I think it's useful to think about the themed workshops, separately from the open workshops - in some ways. Themed workshops will feed into the main plenaries, and (i think) will be more influential in terms of framing the debates around the 4 themes (at least, this is my understanding of the rationale having themed worshops, prior to the same-theme main session). Open workshops will provide more space for addressing very specific issues, issues not addressed by the sub-themes, emerging issues etc I'm not sure about the caucus proposing workshops for all themes - that would be a lot of work, and i'm not sure is the best role for the caucus - the coalitions are working on proposals, several organisations etc.. and we don't want unnecssary duplication.. but the caucus could play a useful role in - acting as a clearinghouse for any CS folk who want to let us know what they're planning for the IGF - support IGC members who are organising workshops (not as caucus events) - develop proposals for workshops which are central to the IGC objectives, and which are difficult for others to organise (poliitically, lack of capacity, outreach etc) - work with ca and others in brazil to prepare for the pre IGF CS event - a good opportunity to prepare in general; and specifically for day 1: critical internet resources (there are no workshops prior to this session) it makes good sense to develop workshops (or ideas for other inputs) around the 3 agreed IGC themes - that will ensure continuity, building on collective work etc - but, it's important for us to know as soon as possible what the sub-themes are as they will affect the nature of themed workshops proposed, and those that have to be open I know the CS MAG participants will let us know as soon as they can on that one So, maybe a good first round would be to go through each of these themes, discuss what type of format the issue could be best addressed in (eg bill has made some suggestions for how certain themes could be addressed) - i've added my own comments > > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions > > > a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to > use global > > institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between > > "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy and the > > "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet > > governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy > > concerns are closely linked to technical administration? i think this is interesting in and of itself.. and if you were really to do it justice, i think it would have to be a standalone (open?) workshop - they are only 90 minutes long.. i think for something like this, you need a good backrgound paper.. i don't think you'd want to deal with the issue purely through workshop format > > b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of > > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the > > coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and > how can this > > goal be pursued? it's hard to know what's planned for the critical internet resources session - is it going to deal with in in line with (b) above? or is it more likely to focus on a challenge/problem (root zone file, dns ownership etc) but agree with bill, that we should focus energies around this issue, on the critical internet resources main session.. and how we can influence this > > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the > > Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG > > (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) bill commented extensively on this, and even if other proposals address this theme, it's broad and large enough a topic that if the IGC wanted to organise a workshop on this, there'd be plenty to talk about.. it would just be important to ensure there's no duplication of effort and some coordination between similar workshop proposals > > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. >If there were to be a caucus proposal, I would suggest it focus on >this. The topic is clearly specified, non-redundant, and entirely >workable, and one would think we'd be able to reach agreement on a >proposal since it doesn't have to do with core resources etc. It's >also something the caucus has been raising for a long while---in >fact, for some of us, since before >the WGIG---so Cs has already put down markers on it and can make a >distinct contribution. I'd be willing to collaborate with others on >this if there's interest. i think this is interesting.. and forward looking, which we need.. several contributors commented, usefully in the main i think, during consultations on concrete ways the IGF could address more elements of it's mandate.. including apc's contribution karen -------------- 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 Jun 15 07:44:07 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:14:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070615114413.0B9B7E051B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Adam > But I am surprised you don't mention critical Internet resources. Just a little hesitation before one touches the forbidden subject :) On a more serious note, I have been thinking of a workshop to link to this main theme but haven't been able to get the details worked out. I have initiated an initial discussion on this with some CS groups. The idea is of a generic discussion on 'governance of critical internet resources from a public interest or commons and public-ness of Internet principle', with some presenters coming in with some specific ideas. (I know everyone will claim that these resources have always been governed with a public interest perspective, and so we need to expand what particular kind of public interest is implied.) The idea is to propose some alternative/ additional frameworks that emphasize a commons based approach (I understand Brazil cctld is so managed and I have requested Carlos if he can make a presentation of it) or a more public-ness of the Internet approach as contrasted to a highly commercialized, private sector interests heavy approach of a marketplace, with no other specific public interest considerations. I know there has been some history on public interest tlds, which I still have to plug into.... But I am in contact with at least one group who is working on this kind of a concept, in exploring practical options for this. We at IT for Change have been thinking of possibilities of a .publicdomain or .pd kind of tld on which, unlike the present default copyright law, all content is by default in public domain through a simple contract agreement while taking up space in the tld. This will help develop a commons and provide a 'rich and accessible public domain' (the words of a recent WIPO resolution )in the digital space, which cannot be captured by creating rent seeking positions once the spaces hosting public domain content become very popular... as most user created content platforms tend to get usurped at present. (there are many other justifications for such a public domain space on the internet as well). The above are some very early thought, and may have conceptual gaps which need to be worked out. Sorry for the detour... Back to the workshop ideas, yes we must have workshops on the critical internet resources theme - ideas are welcome. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops > > Parminder: good suggestion. > > None of the following has yet been discussed on > the advisory group list, my opinion only: > > My guess is demand for workshops will be higher > this year -- IGF's better known and more will > notice it's an opportunity (free) to put on a > workshop in a quite prominent space. Workshops > will have an audience of between 200-300 people > so are quite large events in their own right. > > Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. > The schedule was adjusted so this was possible > (workshops held over lunch, which was not > originally planned) A few on the same theme were > asked to merge (but that's reasonable, yes?) > Some that better met the criteria > (multistakeholder organization, relevance to the > main themes) were given a choice of times or > perhaps a larger room, but all could be accepted. > > If demand for workshops is greater than the > number of available slots --even after merging of > like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject > some. I think demand may well exceed supply. > Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting > is the advisory group. And I suspect the first > criteria for judging proposals will be if the > workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing > team behind it. Proposals from the caucus will > be good, certainly would show broad civil society > support, but involving other stakeholders will be > essential. Regional diversity also positive. > Just my opinion. > > I do not believe "controversial" topics will be > rejected simply because some might consider them > controversial. Last year there were two workshop > proposals on DNS related topics. Both had > multi-stakeholder organizers, they were accepted, > and to the best of my memory during advisory > group discussions neither were challenged at any > time for any reason. > > Working on details of criteria for workshops > would have been the type of issue the advisory > group discussed had it met in a closed session > last month. Just not easy to get into detail in > an open session. So the process is behind on > issues such as this. > > About the themes and number of proposals the > caucus might work on. The deadline is 30 June > 2007. The caucus is not very good at reaching > decisions. I suggest that the three you suggest: > > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access, etc > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. > > will likely be more than we can manage. If there > is be competition for slots, solid proposals will > be necessary. > > Given Bill's comment that he's developing a > proposal on development agenda and tieing it to > giganet etc, I suggest the caucus focus on 1 and > 3. It will be a lot of work for you and > Vittorio to coordinate. > > I wouldn't expand into Access etc. Let CS groups > expert on the area do a job without confusion of > the caucus' "consensus". And I think privacy > safe with the coalition (Ralf Bendrath etc.) > > But I am surprised you don't mention critical Internet resources. > > Adam > > > > At 10:21 AM +0530 6/15/07, Parminder wrote: > >Hi > > > >I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. It > will > >serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of > >IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these are > from > >our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF > >consultations). > > > >These are > > > >(1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions > > > >(2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the > >Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in > IG > >(this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) > > > >(3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. > > > >I am not sure we will be able to sponsor all three. But the third one - > role > >and mandate of the IGF - was suggested by some as a workshop theme. It > also > >becomes important in terms of financing IGF discussions on this list > these > >last few days. I think we must try to organize this workshop on behalf of > >IGC, and find partners for it. > > > >We should also look at doing another workshop on access/ development > agenda > >in IG - in view of repeated assertions that access is the most important > >issue. This depends on whether we choose to do one workshop or two. > > > >There isnt much time, and we need to first get an agreement here (which > can > >be built over the agreement already reached on importance of these themes > >last month), then get partners and then get a workshop proposal done. We > can > >also to try to this non-linearly, but still there isnt much time. I > request > >inputs on this issue. 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Jun 15 07:45:20 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:45:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <20070615090256.72DB01BB469@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20070615090256.72DB01BB469@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <46727BD0.8060709@rits.org.br> Dear people, I would like to recall that local organizers of the IGF process in Brazil have agreed to secure space and time for a forum of the dynamic coalitions on the 11th of November in the afternoon, so they can present their proposals to the public before the IGF starts. There will be also spaces for private meetings of the DCs. All in the same venue of the IGF, or at least this is what was promised to me. Would you please reinforce the need we have here for a feedback from the DCs regarding this? I have got none so far (although I sent a first proposal to at least four of them about two months ago), I think you are in contact with more DCs than I am, and people will certainly listen to you. If the decision is not to make it or to use the space for another kind of activity, fine, but we need to know ASAP. I do not even know if Nov.11 is an acceptable date for the DCs. We could do it on the 10th (in this case it would not conflict with the Giganet meeting) -- on this day there will be a full-day APC wokshop on low-cost connectivity, and DC people would have to be in Rio one day earlier. Anyway, we need a feedback from the DCs (and from the caucus) as soon as possible on this. fraternal regards --c.a. karen banks wrote: > hi parminder, bill > > parminder, thanks for moving us forward on workshop proposals > >> > I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. >> It will >> > serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the >> profile of >> > IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these >> are from >> > our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF >> > consultations). >> >> > Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes >> proposed, >> > probably we ought to consider proposing workshops on each. This >> could be done >> > in addition to or instead of making a statement about the >> plenaries. If it's >> > impossible for the caucus to agree on such workshops, then varying >> coalitions >> > of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list >> serving as >> > initial facilitators. > > I think it's useful to think about the themed workshops, separately from > the open workshops - in some ways. > > Themed workshops will feed into the main plenaries, and (i think) will > be more influential in terms of framing the debates around the 4 themes > (at least, this is my understanding of the rationale having themed > worshops, prior to the same-theme main session). > > Open workshops will provide more space for addressing very specific > issues, issues not addressed by the sub-themes, emerging issues etc > > I'm not sure about the caucus proposing workshops for all themes - that > would be a lot of work, and i'm not sure is the best role for the caucus > - the coalitions are working on proposals, several organisations etc.. > and we don't want unnecssary duplication.. > > but the caucus could play a useful role in > > - acting as a clearinghouse for any CS folk who want to let us know what > they're planning for the IGF > > - support IGC members who are organising workshops (not as caucus events) > > - develop proposals for workshops which are central to the IGC > objectives, and which are difficult for others to organise > (poliitically, lack of capacity, outreach etc) > > - work with ca and others in brazil to prepare for the pre IGF CS event > - a good opportunity to prepare in general; and > specifically for day 1: critical internet resources (there are no > workshops prior to this session) > > it makes good sense to develop workshops (or ideas for other inputs) > around the 3 agreed IGC themes - that will ensure continuity, building > on collective work etc - but, it's important for us to know as soon as > possible what the sub-themes are as they will affect the nature of > themed workshops proposed, and those that have to be open > > I know the CS MAG participants will let us know as soon as they can on > that one > > So, maybe a good first round would be to go through each of these > themes, discuss what type of format the issue could be best addressed in > (eg bill has made some suggestions for how certain themes could be > addressed) - i've added my own comments > >> > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions >> >> > a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to >> use global >> > institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between >> > "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy >> and the >> > "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet >> > governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy >> > concerns are closely linked to technical administration? > > i think this is interesting in and of itself.. and if you were really to > do it justice, i think it would have to be a standalone (open?) workshop > - they are only 90 minutes long.. i think for something like this, you > need a good backrgound paper.. i don't think you'd want to deal with the > issue purely through workshop format > >> > b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of >> > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated >> with the >> > coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and how >> can this >> > goal be pursued? > > it's hard to know what's planned for the critical internet resources > session - is it going to deal with in in line with (b) above? or is it > more likely to focus on a challenge/problem (root zone file, dns > ownership etc) > > but agree with bill, that we should focus energies around this issue, on > the critical internet resources main session.. and how we can influence > this > >> > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use >> of the >> > Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda >> in IG >> > (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) > > bill commented extensively on this, and even if other proposals address > this theme, it's broad and large enough a topic that if the IGC wanted > to organise a workshop on this, there'd be plenty to talk about.. it > would just be important to ensure there's no duplication of effort and > some coordination between similar workshop proposals > >> > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. >> If there were to be a caucus proposal, I would suggest it focus on >> this. The topic is clearly specified, non-redundant, and entirely >> workable, and one would think we'd be able to reach agreement on a >> proposal since it doesn't have to do with core resources etc. It's >> also something the caucus has been raising for a long while---in fact, >> for some of us, since before >> the WGIG---so Cs has already put down markers on it and can make a >> distinct contribution. I'd be willing to collaborate with others on >> this if there's interest. > > i think this is interesting.. and forward looking, which we need.. > > several contributors commented, usefully in the main i think, during > consultations on concrete ways the IGF could address more elements of > it's mandate.. including apc's contribution > > karen > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 14/6/2007 12:44 -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 15 08:00:55 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:00:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <46727BD0.8060709@rits.org.br> References: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20070615090256.72DB01BB469@mail.gn.apc.org> <46727BD0.8060709@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Carlos, Hi. This is good news. There are 6 slots on the agenda for dynamic coalitions (with room for more perhaps.) The coalitions should submit room requests by July 31. Their sessions will be 90 minutes. They will also have time to speak at the "reporting back" session (so people hear about their work, but also means it is in the official transcript and some people find that useful. In the "record" of the meeting.) Adam At 8:45 AM -0300 6/15/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Dear people, > >I would like to recall that local organizers of >the IGF process in Brazil have agreed to secure >space and time for a forum of the dynamic >coalitions on the 11th of November in the >afternoon, so they can present their proposals >to the public before the IGF starts. There will >be also spaces for private meetings of the DCs. >All in the same venue of the IGF, or at least >this is what was promised to me. > >Would you please reinforce the need we have here >for a feedback from the DCs regarding this? I >have got none so far (although I sent a first >proposal to at least four of them about two >months ago), I think you are in contact with >more DCs than I am, and people will certainly >listen to you. If the decision is not to make it >or to use the space for another kind of >activity, fine, but we need to know ASAP. > >I do not even know if Nov.11 is an acceptable >date for the DCs. We could do it on the 10th (in >this case it would not conflict with the Giganet >meeting) -- on this day there will be a full-day >APC wokshop on low-cost connectivity, and DC >people would have to be in Rio one day earlier. > >Anyway, we need a feedback from the DCs (and >from the caucus) as soon as possible on this. > >fraternal regards > >--c.a. > >karen banks wrote: >>hi parminder, bill >> >>parminder, thanks for moving us forward on workshop proposals >> >>> > I want to re-state my proposal that IGC >>>does some workshops at IGF. It will >>>> serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of >>>> IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these are from >>>> our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF >>>> consultations). >>> >>>> Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes proposed, >>>> probably we ought to consider proposing >>>>workshops on each. This could be done >>>> in addition to or instead of making a >>>>statement about the plenaries. If it's >>>> impossible for the caucus to agree on such >>>>workshops, then varying coalitions >>>> of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list serving as >>>> initial facilitators. >> >>I think it's useful to think about the themed >>workshops, separately from the open workshops - >>in some ways. >> >>Themed workshops will feed into the main >>plenaries, and (i think) will be more >>influential in terms of framing the debates >>around the 4 themes (at least, this is my >>understanding of the rationale having themed >>worshops, prior to the same-theme main session). >> >>Open workshops will provide more space for >>addressing very specific issues, issues not >>addressed by the sub-themes, emerging issues etc >> >>I'm not sure about the caucus proposing >>workshops for all themes - that would be a lot >>of work, and i'm not sure is the best role for >>the caucus - the coalitions are working on >>proposals, several organisations etc.. and we >>don't want unnecssary duplication.. >> >>but the caucus could play a useful role in >> >>- acting as a clearinghouse for any CS folk who >>want to let us know what they're planning for >>the IGF >> >>- support IGC members who are organising workshops (not as caucus events) >> >>- develop proposals for workshops which are >>central to the IGC objectives, and which are >>difficult for others to organise (poliitically, >>lack of capacity, outreach etc) >> >>- work with ca and others in brazil to prepare >>for the pre IGF CS event - a good opportunity >>to prepare in general; and >>specifically for day 1: critical internet >>resources (there are no workshops prior to this >>session) >> >>it makes good sense to develop workshops (or >>ideas for other inputs) around the 3 agreed IGC >>themes - that will ensure continuity, building >>on collective work etc - but, it's important >>for us to know as soon as possible what the >>sub-themes are as they will affect the nature >>of themed workshops proposed, and those that >>have to be open >> >>I know the CS MAG participants will let us know >>as soon as they can on that one >> >>So, maybe a good first round would be to go >>through each of these themes, discuss what type >>of format the issue could be best addressed in >>(eg bill has made some suggestions for how >>certain themes could be addressed) - i've added >>my own comments >> >>> > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions >>> >>>> a) What is "public policy" on the Internet >>>>and when do we need to use global >>>> institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between >>>> "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy and the >>>> "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet >>>> governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy >>>> concerns are closely linked to technical administration? >> >>i think this is interesting in and of itself.. >>and if you were really to do it justice, i >>think it would have to be a standalone (open?) >>workshop - they are only 90 minutes long.. i >>think for something like this, you need a good >>backrgound paper.. i don't think you'd want to >>deal with the issue purely through workshop >>format >> >>> > b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of >>>> globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the >>>> coordination and management of critical >>>>Internet resources" and how can this >>>> goal be pursued? >> >>it's hard to know what's planned for the >>critical internet resources session - is it >>going to deal with in in line with (b) above? >>or is it more likely to focus on a >>challenge/problem (root zone file, dns >>ownership etc) >> >>but agree with bill, that we should focus >>energies around this issue, on the critical >>internet resources main session.. and how we >>can influence this >> >>> > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the >>>> Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG >>>> (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) >> >>bill commented extensively on this, and even if >>other proposals address this theme, it's broad >>and large enough a topic that if the IGC wanted >>to organise a workshop on this, there'd be >>plenty to talk about.. it would just be >>important to ensure there's no duplication of >>effort and some coordination between similar >>workshop proposals >> >>> > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. >>>If there were to be a caucus proposal, I would >>>suggest it focus on this. The topic is clearly >>>specified, non-redundant, and entirely >>>workable, and one would think we'd be able to >>>reach agreement on a proposal since it doesn't >>>have to do with core resources etc. It's also >>>something the caucus has been raising for a >>>long while---in fact, for some of us, since >>>before >>>the WGIG---so Cs has already put down markers >>>on it and can make a distinct contribution. >>>I'd be willing to collaborate with others on >>>this if there's interest. >> >>i think this is interesting.. and forward looking, which we need.. >> >>several contributors commented, usefully in the >>main i think, during consultations on concrete >>ways the IGF could address more elements of >>it's mandate.. including apc's contribution >> >>karen >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / >>Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: >>14/6/2007 12:44 > >-- > >Carlos A. Afonso >Rio Brazil >*************************************************************** >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Jun 15 09:17:47 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:17:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: References: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20070615090256.72DB01BB469@mail.gn.apc.org> <46727BD0.8060709@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4672917B.4040402@rits.org.br> Adam, please note that I am not talking about the slots within the IGF meeting itself. This is a preparatory meeting before the IGF starts (nov.11 is the suggested date, from 15:00 to 20:00). fraternal regards --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > Carlos, Hi. > > This is good news. > > There are 6 slots on the agenda for dynamic coalitions > (with room for more > perhaps.) > > The coalitions should submit room requests by July 31. Their sessions > will be 90 minutes. They will also have time to speak at the "reporting > back" session (so people hear about their work, but also means it is in > the official transcript and some people find that useful. In the > "record" of the meeting.) > > Adam > > > > At 8:45 AM -0300 6/15/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Dear people, >> >> I would like to recall that local organizers of the IGF process in >> Brazil have agreed to secure space and time for a forum of the dynamic >> coalitions on the 11th of November in the afternoon, so they can >> present their proposals to the public before the IGF starts. There >> will be also spaces for private meetings of the DCs. All in the same >> venue of the IGF, or at least this is what was promised to me. >> >> Would you please reinforce the need we have here for a feedback from >> the DCs regarding this? I have got none so far (although I sent a >> first proposal to at least four of them about two months ago), I think >> you are in contact with more DCs than I am, and people will certainly >> listen to you. If the decision is not to make it or to use the space >> for another kind of activity, fine, but we need to know ASAP. >> >> I do not even know if Nov.11 is an acceptable date for the DCs. We >> could do it on the 10th (in this case it would not conflict with the >> Giganet meeting) -- on this day there will be a full-day APC wokshop >> on low-cost connectivity, and DC people would have to be in Rio one >> day earlier. >> >> Anyway, we need a feedback from the DCs (and from the caucus) as soon >> as possible on this. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> karen banks wrote: >>> hi parminder, bill >>> >>> parminder, thanks for moving us forward on workshop proposals >>> >>>> > I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at >>>> IGF. It will >>>>> serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the >>>>> profile of >>>>> IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these >>>>> are from >>>>> our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF >>>>> consultations). >>>> >>>>> Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes >>>>> proposed, >>>>> probably we ought to consider proposing workshops on each. This >>>>> could be done >>>>> in addition to or instead of making a statement about the >>>>> plenaries. If it's >>>>> impossible for the caucus to agree on such workshops, then varying >>>>> coalitions >>>>> of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list >>>>> serving as >>>>> initial facilitators. >>> >>> I think it's useful to think about the themed workshops, separately >>> from the open workshops - in some ways. >>> >>> Themed workshops will feed into the main plenaries, and (i think) >>> will be more influential in terms of framing the debates around the 4 >>> themes (at least, this is my understanding of the rationale having >>> themed worshops, prior to the same-theme main session). >>> >>> Open workshops will provide more space for addressing very specific >>> issues, issues not addressed by the sub-themes, emerging issues etc >>> >>> I'm not sure about the caucus proposing workshops for all themes - >>> that would be a lot of work, and i'm not sure is the best role for >>> the caucus - the coalitions are working on proposals, several >>> organisations etc.. and we don't want unnecssary duplication.. >>> >>> but the caucus could play a useful role in >>> >>> - acting as a clearinghouse for any CS folk who want to let us know >>> what they're planning for the IGF >>> >>> - support IGC members who are organising workshops (not as caucus >>> events) >>> >>> - develop proposals for workshops which are central to the IGC >>> objectives, and which are difficult for others to organise >>> (poliitically, lack of capacity, outreach etc) >>> >>> - work with ca and others in brazil to prepare for the pre IGF CS >>> event - a good opportunity to prepare in general; and >>> specifically for day 1: critical internet resources (there are no >>> workshops prior to this session) >>> >>> it makes good sense to develop workshops (or ideas for other inputs) >>> around the 3 agreed IGC themes - that will ensure continuity, >>> building on collective work etc - but, it's important for us to know >>> as soon as possible what the sub-themes are as they will affect the >>> nature of themed workshops proposed, and those that have to be open >>> >>> I know the CS MAG participants will let us know as soon as they can >>> on that one >>> >>> So, maybe a good first round would be to go through each of these >>> themes, discuss what type of format the issue could be best addressed >>> in (eg bill has made some suggestions for how certain themes could be >>> addressed) - i've added my own comments >>> >>>> > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions >>>> >>>>> a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to >>>>> use global >>>>> institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between >>>>> "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy >>>>> and the >>>>> "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an >>>>> Internet >>>>> governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when >>>>> policy >>>>> concerns are closely linked to technical administration? >>> >>> i think this is interesting in and of itself.. and if you were really >>> to do it justice, i think it would have to be a standalone (open?) >>> workshop - they are only 90 minutes long.. i think for something >>> like this, you need a good backrgound paper.. i don't think you'd >>> want to deal with the issue purely through workshop format >>> >>>> > b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of >>>>> globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated >>>>> with the >>>>> coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and >>>>> how can this >>>>> goal be pursued? >>> >>> it's hard to know what's planned for the critical internet resources >>> session - is it going to deal with in in line with (b) above? or is >>> it more likely to focus on a challenge/problem (root zone file, dns >>> ownership etc) >>> >>> but agree with bill, that we should focus energies around this issue, >>> on the critical internet resources main session.. and how we can >>> influence this >>> >>>> > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective >>>> Use of the >>>>> Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development >>>>> Agenda in IG >>>>> (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) >>> >>> bill commented extensively on this, and even if other proposals >>> address this theme, it's broad and large enough a topic that if the >>> IGC wanted to organise a workshop on this, there'd be plenty to talk >>> about.. it would just be important to ensure there's no duplication >>> of effort and some coordination between similar workshop proposals >>> >>>> > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. >>>> If there were to be a caucus proposal, I would suggest it focus on >>>> this. The topic is clearly specified, non-redundant, and entirely >>>> workable, and one would think we'd be able to reach agreement on a >>>> proposal since it doesn't have to do with core resources etc. It's >>>> also something the caucus has been raising for a long while---in >>>> fact, for some of us, since before >>>> the WGIG---so Cs has already put down markers on it and can make a >>>> distinct contribution. I'd be willing to collaborate with others on >>>> this if there's interest. >>> >>> i think this is interesting.. and forward looking, which we need.. >>> >>> several contributors commented, usefully in the main i think, during >>> consultations on concrete ways the IGF could address more elements of >>> it's mandate.. including apc's contribution >>> >>> karen >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: >>> 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 14/6/2007 12:44 >> >> -- >> >> Carlos A. Afonso >> Rio Brazil >> *************************************************************** >> 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 > > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brazil *************************************************************** 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 15 10:38:22 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:38:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <4672917B.4040402@rits.org.br> References: <20070615045110.3CB796789A@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20070615090256.72DB01BB469@mail.gn.apc.org> <46727BD0.8060709@rits.org.br> <4672917B.4040402@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Carlos, thanks, I did understand, I just hope coalitions that contact you will also ask for a slot on the official agenda. Perhaps you should write to Markus and ask him to tell any coalition he hears from about the local organizers plans for the 11th etc. Another matter. Could you find out if rooms will be available after the main agenda is finished for the day. Large rooms, the 200 to 300 capacity rooms used for workshops and smaller spaces. It would be helpful to have access to these large rooms should we wish to try and hold some kind of civil society meeting after each day (or some days). And other stakeholders may also wish to do this. Regional groups might wish to meet. And smaller rooms might be used for like minded groups (birds of a feather type.) There are rooms set aside during the day for ad hoc type meetings (see "other meetings" on the schedule), but I think this is not appropriate, they would be better used for organized workshops. Could you check about availability of rooms after hours (after 6PM?) Wonder if OK with security, building access, etc. Thanks, Adam At 10:17 AM -0300 6/15/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Adam, please note that I am not talking about >the slots within the IGF meeting itself. This is >a preparatory meeting before the IGF starts >(nov.11 is the suggested date, from 15:00 to >20:00). > >fraternal regards > >--c.a. > >Adam Peake wrote: >>Carlos, Hi. >> >>This is good news. >> >>There are 6 slots on the agenda for dynamic >>coalitions >> >>(with room for more perhaps.) >> >>The coalitions should submit room requests by >>July 31. Their sessions will be 90 minutes. >>They will also have time to speak at the >>"reporting back" session (so people hear about >>their work, but also means it is in the >>official transcript and some people find that >>useful. In the "record" of the meeting.) >> >>Adam >> >> >> >>At 8:45 AM -0300 6/15/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>>Dear people, >>> >>>I would like to recall that local organizers >>>of the IGF process in Brazil have agreed to >>>secure space and time for a forum of the >>>dynamic coalitions on the 11th of November in >>>the afternoon, so they can present their >>>proposals to the public before the IGF starts. >>>There will be also spaces for private meetings >>>of the DCs. All in the same venue of the IGF, >>>or at least this is what was promised to me. >>> >>>Would you please reinforce the need we have >>>here for a feedback from the DCs regarding >>>this? I have got none so far (although I sent >>>a first proposal to at least four of them >>>about two months ago), I think you are in >>>contact with more DCs than I am, and people >>>will certainly listen to you. If the decision >>>is not to make it or to use the space for >>>another kind of activity, fine, but we need to >>>know ASAP. >>> >>>I do not even know if Nov.11 is an acceptable >>>date for the DCs. We could do it on the 10th >>>(in this case it would not conflict with the >>>Giganet meeting) -- on this day there will be >>>a full-day APC wokshop on low-cost >>>connectivity, and DC people would have to be >>>in Rio one day earlier. >>> >>>Anyway, we need a feedback from the DCs (and >>>from the caucus) as soon as possible on this. >>> >>>fraternal regards >>> >>>--c.a. >>> >>>karen banks wrote: >>>>hi parminder, bill >>>> >>>>parminder, thanks for moving us forward on workshop proposals >>>> >>>>> > I want to re-state my proposal that IGC >>>>>does some workshops at IGF. It will >>>>>> serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of >>>>>> IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes >>>>>>for workshops. All these are from >>>>>> our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF >>>>>> consultations). >>>>> >>>>>> Second, if we really want to foster >>>>>>dialogue on the four themes proposed, >>>>>> probably we ought to consider proposing >>>>>>workshops on each. This could be done >>>>>> in addition to or instead of making a >>>>>>statement about the plenaries. If it's >>>>>> impossible for the caucus to agree on such >>>>>>workshops, then varying coalitions >>>>>> of the willing could evolve each, perhaps >>>>>>with the caucus/list serving as >>>>>> initial facilitators. >>>> >>>>I think it's useful to think about the themed >>>>workshops, separately from the open workshops >>>>- in some ways. >>>> >>>>Themed workshops will feed into the main >>>>plenaries, and (i think) will be more >>>>influential in terms of framing the debates >>>>around the 4 themes (at least, this is my >>>>understanding of the rationale having themed >>>>worshops, prior to the same-theme main >>>>session). >>>> >>>>Open workshops will provide more space for >>>>addressing very specific issues, issues not >>>>addressed by the sub-themes, emerging issues >>>>etc >>>> >>>>I'm not sure about the caucus proposing >>>>workshops for all themes - that would be a >>>>lot of work, and i'm not sure is the best >>>>role for the caucus - the coalitions are >>>>working on proposals, several organisations >>>>etc.. and we don't want unnecssary >>>>duplication.. >>>> >>>>but the caucus could play a useful role in >>>> >>>>- acting as a clearinghouse for any CS folk >>>>who want to let us know what they're planning >>>>for the IGF >>>> >>>>- support IGC members who are organising workshops (not as caucus events) >>>> >>>>- develop proposals for workshops which are >>>>central to the IGC objectives, and which are >>>>difficult for others to organise >>>>(poliitically, lack of capacity, outreach etc) >>>> >>>>- work with ca and others in brazil to >>>>prepare for the pre IGF CS event - a good >>>>opportunity to prepare in general; and >>>>specifically for day 1: critical internet >>>>resources (there are no workshops prior to >>>>this session) >>>> >>>>it makes good sense to develop workshops (or >>>>ideas for other inputs) around the 3 agreed >>>>IGC themes - that will ensure continuity, >>>>building on collective work etc - but, it's >>>>important for us to know as soon as possible >>>>what the sub-themes are as they will affect >>>>the nature of themed workshops proposed, and >>>>those that have to be open >>>> >>>>I know the CS MAG participants will let us >>>>know as soon as they can on that one >>>> >>>>So, maybe a good first round would be to go >>>>through each of these themes, discuss what >>>>type of format the issue could be best >>>>addressed in (eg bill has made some >>>>suggestions for how certain themes could be >>>>addressed) - i've added my own comments >>>> >>>>> > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions >>>>> >>>>>> a) What is "public policy" on the Internet >>>>>>and when do we need to use global >>>>>> institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between >>>>>> "technical" and "public policy" issues, >>>>>>and between public policy and the >>>>>> "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet >>>>>> governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy >>>>>> concerns are closely linked to technical administration? >>>> >>>>i think this is interesting in and of >>>>itself.. and if you were really to do it >>>>justice, i think it would have to be a >>>>standalone (open?) workshop - they are only >>>>90 minutes long.. i think for something like >>>>this, you need a good backrgound paper.. i >>>>don't think you'd want to deal with the issue >>>>purely through workshop format >>>> >>>>> > b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of >>>>>> globally-applicable principles on public >>>>>>policy issues associated with the >>>>>> coordination and management of critical >>>>>>Internet resources" and how can this >>>>>> goal be pursued? >>>> >>>>it's hard to know what's planned for the >>>>critical internet resources session - is it >>>>going to deal with in in line with (b) above? >>>>or is it more likely to focus on a >>>>challenge/problem (root zone file, dns >>>>ownership etc) >>>> >>>>but agree with bill, that we should focus >>>>energies around this issue, on the critical >>>>internet resources main session.. and how we >>>>can influence this >>>> >>>>> > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting >>>>>Access to and Effective Use of the >>>>>> Internet by Disadvantaged People and >>>>>>Groups - The Development Agenda in IG >>>>>> (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) >>>> >>>>bill commented extensively on this, and even >>>>if other proposals address this theme, it's >>>>broad and large enough a topic that if the >>>>IGC wanted to organise a workshop on this, >>>>there'd be plenty to talk about.. it would >>>>just be important to ensure there's no >>>>duplication of effort and some coordination >>>>between similar workshop proposals >>>> >>>>> > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. >>>>>If there were to be a caucus proposal, I >>>>>would suggest it focus on this. The topic is >>>>>clearly specified, non-redundant, and >>>>>entirely workable, and one would think we'd >>>>>be able to reach agreement on a proposal >>>>>since it doesn't have to do with core >>>>>resources etc. It's also something the >>>>>caucus has been raising for a long >>>>>while---in fact, for some of us, since before >>>>>the WGIG---so Cs has already put down >>>>>markers on it and can make a distinct >>>>>contribution. I'd be willing to collaborate >>>>>with others on this if there's interest. >>>> >>>>i think this is interesting.. and forward looking, which we need.. >>>> >>>>several contributors commented, usefully in >>>>the main i think, during consultations on >>>>concrete ways the IGF could address more >>>>elements of it's mandate.. including apc's >>>>contribution >>>> >>>>karen >>>> >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 >>>>/ Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release >>>>Date: 14/6/2007 12:44 >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Carlos A. Afonso >>>Rio Brazil >>>*************************************************************** >>>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 >> >> >> >> > >-- > >Carlos A. Afonso >Rio Brazil >*************************************************************** >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 15 10:38:28 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:38:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops Message-ID: Parminder: IGP would be very interested in cooperating and co-sponsoring this one. >>> parminder at itforchange.net 6/15/2007 12:51:06 AM >>> (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 15 11:05:17 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:05:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) Message-ID: Meryem et al >>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 6/13/2007 12:52:38 PM >>> >the best answer would remain making the IGF structure as >light as possible, thus as cheap as possible. Yes, indeed, we are in complete agreement here. I am just talking about funding the Secretariat. Which is less than US$ 1 million/year. So in that case, the idea of stakeholder quotas is not so crazy. E.g., if the civil society portion of it is 20% it is not inconceivable that we find two or three foundations willing to pony up $100-200,000 per year, or develop some other aggregation of civil society capacity to fundraise. (Think of MoveOn.org) You worry about the PS portion being 30%, which creates some horrible threat because it's "more than 20%." But it is unlikely that ALL private sector actors in the world will be unanimous about withdrawing support for the Forum -- and if they were, if the IGF has Zero support from anyone in the private sector globally, then it should probably lose 30% of its budget. The govt portion would be funded through taxes, similar to the regular parts of the UN budget. So what's your problem with that? ;-) >Can't we learn from existing examples? e.g. ITU. It's good to bring up this example, but it's not close to what I had in mind, as the discussion above makes clear. In particular, I am not talking about membership fees being a precondition of participation -- which it is in the ITU. >[and speaking of learning from existing examples, setting up >something new outside of the UN system may well look like >ICANN, even leaving aside the US DoC issue. Would anyone >(except Veni:)) here argue that ICANN would be the example You can't compare ICANN to IGF because ICANN really does authoritative governance -- it has control of a resource and uses it as leverage to do economic, technical and behavioral regulation. IGF would do none of those things. >Why IGF financing would necessarily require huge amounts of >money? It doesn't, who said it does? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 15 11:21:47 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:51:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070615152154.6E9BAA6C88@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Since there was no follow-up discussion on joint caucus proposals and > subsequent dialogues underscored the diversity of perspectives here and > the > difficulty of reaching agreement, I decided to revert to my original plan > of > doing something on a coalition of the willing basis, as per all the > CS-initiated workshops at Athens. So I'm going to propose a workshop on a > Development Agenda that builds on the meeting I organized in Geneva in > February and the GigaNet cluster on the same. The framing parallels the > GigaNet wording and is hence different from the two sentences included in > the caucus themes proposal, which focused on "disadvantaged peoples' > access > to, and effective use of, the Internet." We added the DA clause to the > title but didn't elaborate on it amidst all the debate on the core > resources > theme, so I'm drilling down into this aspect. Anyway, bottom line, there > will be a proposal that is more or less compatible with, > > > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of > the > > Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in > IG Bill Do you want to do it only as giganet and any other partners you may be in contact with, or will like to explore IGC co-sponsorship. I mean, if we as IGC is going to do workshops, it of course will be with partners. And often other partner may play the key organizing etc role. I am only making a suggestion, it is of course up to the giganet group and others who are already planning to decide on their partnerships plan. Anyway, I am very fine with the giganet formulation which focuses on 'institutional reform' rather than the phrase from our May proposal that you quoted. For those who may not have seen the paragraph on development agenda in giganet's call for papers, I am quoting it below. Correct, me, if the basic concept of development agenda for the proposed rio workshop is different. "In recent years, developing countries, civil society organizations, and concerned academics have sought to promote broad "development agendas" for reform of the international regimes and organizations dealing with such issues as trade, debt, and intellectual property. But in the field of Internet governance, no parallel initiative has taken shape. Developing countries and other stakeholders did call for what they said were pro-development institutional reforms during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, but their suggestions were not systematically explored as elements of a coherent development agenda. Moreover, there was no broad consensus among the proponents as to what kinds of reforms would actually promote development, as opposed to satisfying more specifically political demands. In the post-WSIS environment, discussions of development have tended to focus on capacity building rather than on institutional reforms."(from giganet's call for papers for rio meeting of giganet) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:49 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops > > Hi Parminder, > > On 6/15/07 6:51 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. It > will > > serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of > > IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these are > from > > our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF > > consultations). > > As I said a while back, > > On 5/1/07 8:07 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > > > Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes > proposed, > > probably we ought to consider proposing workshops on each. This could > be done > > in addition to or instead of making a statement about the plenaries. If > it's > > impossible for the caucus to agree on such workshops, then varying > coalitions > > of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list serving > as > > initial facilitators. > > Since there was no follow-up discussion on joint caucus proposals and > subsequent dialogues underscored the diversity of perspectives here and > the > difficulty of reaching agreement, I decided to revert to my original plan > of > doing something on a coalition of the willing basis, as per all the > CS-initiated workshops at Athens. So I'm going to propose a workshop on a > Development Agenda that builds on the meeting I organized in Geneva in > February and the GigaNet cluster on the same. The framing parallels the > GigaNet wording and is hence different from the two sentences included in > the caucus themes proposal, which focused on "disadvantaged peoples' > access > to, and effective use of, the Internet." We added the DA clause to the > title but didn't elaborate on it amidst all the debate on the core > resources > theme, so I'm drilling down into this aspect. Anyway, bottom line, there > will be a proposal that is more or less compatible with, > > > (2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of > the > > Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in > IG > > (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme) > > As to the others, > > > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions > > > a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to use > global > > institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between > > "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy and > the > > "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet > > governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy > > concerns are closely linked to technical administration? > > > > b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of > > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with > the > > coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and how can > this > > goal be pursued? > > I argued from the outset that the way this was specified seemed a bit > diffuse and seemed to blend into the core resources theme, which has since > been built into the main agenda. I still think that; "what is public > policy" is not a real issue with respect to many other domains of IG, like > intellectual property, privacy, security, etc. where there are clearly > settled policies in place, for better or worse. I strongly suspect that > the > caucus would have a hard time agreeing a clearly specified, non-redundant, > and compelling formulation on this and also getting co-sponsors on board > in > the next two weeks. I'd suggest dropping this for now, but if someone > else > wants to put the work into trying to make it work, go for it. > > > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. > > If there were to be a caucus proposal, I would suggest it focus on this. > The topic is clearly specified, non-redundant, and entirely workable, and > one would think we'd be able to reach agreement on a proposal since it > doesn't have to do with core resources etc. It's also something the > caucus > has been raising for a long while---in fact, for some of us, since before > the WGIG---so Cs has already put down markers on it and can make a > distinct > contribution. I'd be willing to collaborate with others on this if > there's > interest. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Jun 15 12:10:37 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:10:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <20070615114413.0B9B7E051B@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070615114413.0B9B7E051B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4672B9FD.7000701@cavebear.com> Parminder wrote: >> But I am surprised you don't mention critical Internet resources. > Just a little hesitation before one touches the forbidden subject :) > ... I know there has been some history on public interest tlds, TLDs? I have a hard time thinking of top level domains as an "internet resource" much less a critical one. Indeed, one of the problems I see here in these discussions are too many people want to make internet governance into something larger than it ought to be. And by so doing we increase the chance of stepping on the toes of interests in other areas and thus increase our chance of failing. Take for example top level domains. There is no reason why there needs to be any body of internet governance at all over the domain name system. ICANN, for example, is a governance body that exists because some lawyers in Washington DC did not understand what the domain name system is or how it works and made some very wrong assumptions. It was somebody's idea of a solution to a problem that did not, and still does not, really exist. And I don't think anyone, apart from trademark lawyers, can really consider that a successful effort. Yes, each distinct DNS root zone needs to have its own bit of centralized administration. But there need not be a global body of governance that displaces the role of innovators and a competition in the marketplaces of ideas and money. Rather than talking about a .publicdomain TLD, why not talk about breaking the mental strictures that limit the internet to one catholic (lower case 'c') domain space with an overlord of names at the top? That way you could try out .publicdomain without first having to beg for permission. And we ought not to forget that the special thing about the internet, and a thing we are rapidly losing, is the idea that innovation (even in DNS) can occur at the edges - we ought never to lose sight of the End-to-End principle or the derivative that I call "The First Law of the Internet". Much of what I have seen under the umbrella of "critical internet resources" are not resources critical to the internet. Rather they are resources that use the internet to accomplish some desired human value. Personally it seems to me that such human values ought to be considered in their broader contexts and not limited to the internet. For example: "free speech on the internet". Is that an internet issue or an issue with a more broad context? Once we admit that it is an internet issue then we have to recognize that one could then say that "free speech on telephones" is a separate issue. And that "free speech on university campuses" is another. To my mind there are really very few resources on the internet that are critical and require governance. And of those, most of those have to do with IP addresses and the routing of packets, issues that are very, very boring to most people. Much of the rest are projections of worthy goals and values onto the internet. I tool support and would like to see many of these goals and values come to pass. But I don't consider them to be "internet" issues. I would seriously suggest that there be a workshop on the question of "What are the things in the internet that need governance at all?" That way we might understand when a call for governance is really an expression of social goal that extends beyond the internet or when a call for governance is really an attempt by an industrial group (such as the trademark lobby) to create a weak governance body that can be captured and manipulated. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Fri Jun 15 21:18:08 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:18:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) Message-ID: Milton, Meryem, everyone, If I may agree and disagree - yes in early years we are not talking about huge sums, and yes a reasonable contribution from civil society may be a few hundred k$. But in domestic US politics - and in other nations as well as in world trade - the word quota generally has negative connotations these days. So just like 'bureau,' I suggest we stop using that word here or we set ourselves up for easy caricature and misrepresentation. I prefer 'contribution' or 'cost-sharing' - as in 'if civil society contributes and shares in the costs of the IGF, along with private sector and governmental/intergovernmental contributions, the cost of maintaining IGF as a lightweight, flexible instition for....is not burdensome.' So one year the cs contribution may be greater, the next smaller. As in everything else I am afraid the IGF is fated to have a 'flexible' or should we say agile - budget. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Mueller at syr.edu 6/15/2007 11:05 AM >>> Meryem et al >>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 6/13/2007 12:52:38 PM >>> >the best answer would remain making the IGF structure as >light as possible, thus as cheap as possible. Yes, indeed, we are in complete agreement here. I am just talking about funding the Secretariat. Which is less than US$ 1 million/year. So in that case, the idea of stakeholder quotas is not so crazy. E.g., if the civil society portion of it is 20% it is not inconceivable that we find two or three foundations willing to pony up $100-200,000 per year, or develop some other aggregation of civil society capacity to fundraise. (Think of MoveOn.org) You worry about the PS portion being 30%, which creates some horrible threat because it's "more than 20%." But it is unlikely that ALL private sector actors in the world will be unanimous about withdrawing support for the Forum -- and if they were, if the IGF has Zero support from anyone in the private sector globally, then it should probably lose 30% of its budget. The govt portion would be funded through taxes, similar to the regular parts of the UN budget. So what's your problem with that? ;-) >Can't we learn from existing examples? e.g. ITU. It's good to bring up this example, but it's not close to what I had in mind, as the discussion above makes clear. In particular, I am not talking about membership fees being a precondition of participation -- which it is in the ITU. >[and speaking of learning from existing examples, setting up >something new outside of the UN system may well look like >ICANN, even leaving aside the US DoC issue. Would anyone >(except Veni:)) here argue that ICANN would be the example You can't compare ICANN to IGF because ICANN really does authoritative governance -- it has control of a resource and uses it as leverage to do economic, technical and behavioral regulation. IGF would do none of those things. >Why IGF financing would necessarily require huge amounts of >money? It doesn't, who said it does? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 16 02:03:14 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:33:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops - more time is needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070616060336.30F90E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder groups, which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on proposal text and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving around 3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to keep the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is the motive here. This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing workshops. Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and even in this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving away from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call for IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. What we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals of IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different kinds talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop proposals. This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and groups. I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no great reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on behalf of 'some CS members'. This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS groups in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out to new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this problem. Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. But for the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time available to respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will both improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the workshops. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 16 02:57:59 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:57:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <20070615152154.6E9BAA6C88@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, On 6/15/07 5:21 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > Bill > > Do you want to do it only as giganet and any other partners you may be in > contact with, or will like to explore IGC co-sponsorship. I mean, if we as > IGC is going to do workshops, it of course will be with partners. And often > other partner may play the key organizing etc role. I am only making a > suggestion, it is of course up to the giganet group and others who are > already planning to decide on their partnerships plan. I assume that as with your effort on core resources from a commons perspective, a number of people here are currently scrambling to put together workshop proposals with varying configurations of like-minded partners. Same with me. Given the tight time constraints for submissions (and BTW the secretariat has just yesterday posted the format they want http://www.intgovforum.org/wks_qest_r.htm ) and the pace and difficulty of agreeing things at the caucus level, this is a rational response and what we all did last year as well. The alternative might be getting bogged down and ending up with nothing, or with something that is not like what the initiators really wanted to do. Proposals are due two weeks from today. What could we realistically expect to do as a caucus in that time frame? I would suggest two things. First, we could try to organize and agree some stuff from scratch. I think the best chance for success here would be a proposal on the role and mandate of the IGF, which is a key issue of longstanding concern to many of us, and one that ought not to require a lot of difficult negotiation over the precise formulation since the issue is clear and we already have a descriptive paragraph from the consultation. Really, all one needs to do is repeat the TA mandate and say we want to have a conversation about what this means and whether and how to achieve it. If we can't agree that in two weeks we're really screwed. As I said, I'd be happy to collaborate with others on this. At the same time, others have expressed interest in caucus efforts related to public policy principles and to access. My sense is that these terms mean different things to different people and the caucus could struggle to sort out solid proposals in time, so I at least would be hesitant to try pushing those boulders up the hill in two weeks. Either way, we should try to reach rapid closure on whether and which to propose and do it. Second, the list could serve, as Karen suggests, as a clearinghouse. It would be good to know who's proposing what in order to identify synergies/overlaps, facilitate co-sponsoring coalitions of the interested, etc. Right now, all we know is that I'm working on the DA thing and you're working on the core resources/commons thing. If others could just give a head's up on what they're cooking, that'd whet our appetites and help us see what collectively CS is putting on the table. It would not mean that anyone would be obligated to take on board too many cooks, just info sharing. If in the days prior to the deadline, when we know what the menu looks like, any of the initiators wanted to seek a quick caucus endorsement of what they've assembled, they could do so. If this didn't work out, then they'd be covered and ready to submit anyway, because they already lined up selected co-sponsors, speakers, and texts. Additive, rather than alternative. BTW the DA WS would parallel a Giga panel on the same and offer synergies (academics in one, hopefully practitioners in the other) so I thought I'd redeploy a few sentences of the description rather than struggling to say the same things differently, but it's not a "Giga WS." We've never really discussed whether Giga could/should sponsor IGF workshops. My sense is that it'd be best not to position Giga as a "stakeholder group" with a particular orientation in this manner, and that Giga should be a neutral forum for the presentation of academic work of all flavors. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Jun 16 04:28:32 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:28:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Since Adam sent the below to the list after a series of private exchanges between us on the same, I'd like to give my view, with which he disagrees. Snipping.. On 6/15/07 10:38 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > My guess is demand for workshops will be higher > this year -- IGF's better known and more will > Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. > If demand for workshops is greater than the > number of available slots --even after merging of > like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject > some. I think demand may well exceed supply. > Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting > is the advisory group. And I suspect the first > criteria for judging proposals will be if the > workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing > team behind it. Proposals from the caucus will > be good, certainly would show broad civil society > support, but involving other stakeholders will be > essential. Regional diversity also positive. > Just my opinion. I believe it would a bit unfair and potentially problematic for many CS-initiated proposals if the mAG opts this year to strictly require that workshops truly have multistakeholder sponsorship in order to get approved, on the following grounds: 1. Precedent. Irrespective of what it said on the website, many workshops approved for Athens were not remotely multistakeholder in organization, in that they were sponsored by intra-species collaborations, single organizations (IOs, business, CS) or individuals. Aside from Adam's message to this list yesterday, two weeks before the submission deadline, there has been no public indication from the secretariat or mAG that the nominal rule so clearly ignored last time will be enforced this time. To me, that's in effect changing the game mid-stream with little notification, and people might understandably have been proceeding on the assumption they didn't have to worry too much about this. Adam disagrees. 2. Political Reality. It would be nice to believe that all stakeholders support the IGF serving as an open forum in which, per WGIG, any stakeholder can raise any issue, and hence are prepared to support any workshop initiative that is on an important topic. But as we have seen in many ways, most recently with the funding withdrawal threat, the actual support for free and open dialogue on any and all topics is rather variable. Some stakeholders may view proposed topics through the lens of their strategic postures, even though it's only dialogue and not a negotiation. One can readily imagine topics that CS groups might like to have discussed that would have a difficult time winning co-sponsorship from industry, technical/administrative groupings, or certain governments. I for example might have problems getting support from such quarters for a session on a development agenda because it's misconstrued as necessarily implying the same sort of 'controversial and divisive' negotiations that happened with the WIPO DA (it doesn't). The same might apply to resources as global commons, don't know. Conversely, many CS groups might be reluctant to sign onto an industry workshop on the glories of telecom liberalization and privatization, the COE convention as a boon to civil liberties, or whatever. Moreover, international organizations and governments might have additional constraints in considering co-sponsorship requests, e.g. turf considerations, the need to stay within agreed mandates, fear of being associated with a 'controversial' topic even if they like it, reticence about signing onto something initiated by CS, and so on. In sum, if now strictly applied, the rule would seem to favor anodyne topics and framings that all can support like capacity building or, for that matter, openness/diversity/security/access, over some tougher issues that really need to be worked through and that the IGF alone can provide space for. 3. Sponsorship vs Dialogue. To me, what really matters is the flavor of the dialogue, whether the speakers are MS and multi-perspective, not whether the formal sponsorship is. I cannot see why the names at the top of a proposal are more important than the names of the panelists and the actual discussion that ensues. And it it will be much easier to get government, IO, or industry people lined up as speakers than it is to get the same people to convince their minister, SG, or CEO to organizationally endorse a WS. Parminder would like CS mAG members to communicate his request for more time to the mAG and the secretariat (I'm agnostic on that---the deadline was announced some time ago). I would request in parallel that they communicate this request that the MS requirement be construed more with regard to the speakers and actual dialogue rather than the sponsorship. Thanks, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 16 06:20:27 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:50:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070616102035.A2BFDA6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> I agree. The MS principle can be only be applied in a somewhat loose spirit that the intention of the workshop is of an open dialogue with all stakeholders, and not a narrow, completely pre-conceived and closed assertion of partisan positions. There are obvious problem of getting business sector and government partners easily. Adding to what Bill says, I must say that the situation is even worse for CS entities in developing countries. - As for business sector, the main actor I have seen on the IGF stage is ICC, and it is not surprising because unlike the diversity of CS, business sector finds it easier to push common positions through better structured systems(which, since they aren't by nature public interest advocacy bodies, is somewhat predictable - in terms of pro-business, less-regulation, etc etc). I don't see any non ICC actor from developing counties in the IS forums I have been at, not many at least. And we have little contact with ICC, and its key personnel involved in IGF. This discourages less connected groups from advancing their agenda - even if only for discussion. - everyone would have noticed that developing countries governments are more difficult to approach by CS than developed countries. And we have few connections with developing country govs. Even if some bureaucrats are open to some ideas, the foreign ministry culture, and lack of precedents, may not allow them to sign on co-sponsorship. Again smaller, less connected groups are discouraged, more likely excluded. If this above looks unconvincing, I will request anyone to get me a private sector partner for discussing issues of a greater commons/public-ness of internet based Internet resource management. I am looking for one, and help will be greatly appreciated. Or else convince me that this is not a legitimate topic for a workshop. I think these all are structural issues regarding 'participation' and the MS issue is NOT the only participation issue. 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, June 16, 2007 1:59 PM > To: Governance > Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria > > Hi, > > Since Adam sent the below to the list after a series of private exchanges > between us on the same, I'd like to give my view, with which he disagrees. > > Snipping.. > > On 6/15/07 10:38 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > My guess is demand for workshops will be higher > > this year -- IGF's better known and more will > > > Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. > > > If demand for workshops is greater than the > > number of available slots --even after merging of > > like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject > > some. I think demand may well exceed supply. > > Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting > > is the advisory group. And I suspect the first > > criteria for judging proposals will be if the > > workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing > > team behind it. Proposals from the caucus will > > be good, certainly would show broad civil society > > support, but involving other stakeholders will be > > essential. Regional diversity also positive. > > Just my opinion. > > I believe it would a bit unfair and potentially problematic for many > CS-initiated proposals if the mAG opts this year to strictly require that > workshops truly have multistakeholder sponsorship in order to get > approved, > on the following grounds: > > 1. Precedent. Irrespective of what it said on the website, many > workshops > approved for Athens were not remotely multistakeholder in organization, in > that they were sponsored by intra-species collaborations, single > organizations (IOs, business, CS) or individuals. Aside from Adam's > message > to this list yesterday, two weeks before the submission deadline, there > has > been no public indication from the secretariat or mAG that the nominal > rule > so clearly ignored last time will be enforced this time. To me, that's in > effect changing the game mid-stream with little notification, and people > might understandably have been proceeding on the assumption they didn't > have > to worry too much about this. Adam disagrees. > > 2. Political Reality. It would be nice to believe that all stakeholders > support the IGF serving as an open forum in which, per WGIG, any > stakeholder > can raise any issue, and hence are prepared to support any workshop > initiative that is on an important topic. But as we have seen in many > ways, > most recently with the funding withdrawal threat, the actual support for > free and open dialogue on any and all topics is rather variable. Some > stakeholders may view proposed topics through the lens of their strategic > postures, even though it's only dialogue and not a negotiation. One can > readily imagine topics that CS groups might like to have discussed that > would have a difficult time winning co-sponsorship from industry, > technical/administrative groupings, or certain governments. I for example > might have problems getting support from such quarters for a session on a > development agenda because it's misconstrued as necessarily implying the > same sort of 'controversial and divisive' negotiations that happened with > the WIPO DA (it doesn't). The same might apply to resources as global > commons, don't know. Conversely, many CS groups might be reluctant to > sign > onto an industry workshop on the glories of telecom liberalization and > privatization, the COE convention as a boon to civil liberties, or > whatever. > Moreover, international organizations and governments might have > additional > constraints in considering co-sponsorship requests, e.g. turf > considerations, the need to stay within agreed mandates, fear of being > associated with a 'controversial' topic even if they like it, reticence > about signing onto something initiated by CS, and so on. In sum, if now > strictly applied, the rule would seem to favor anodyne topics and framings > that all can support like capacity building or, for that matter, > openness/diversity/security/access, over some tougher issues that really > need to be worked through and that the IGF alone can provide space for. > > 3. Sponsorship vs Dialogue. To me, what really matters is the flavor of > the dialogue, whether the speakers are MS and multi-perspective, not > whether > the formal sponsorship is. I cannot see why the names at the top of a > proposal are more important than the names of the panelists and the actual > discussion that ensues. And it it will be much easier to get government, > IO, or industry people lined up as speakers than it is to get the same > people to convince their minister, SG, or CEO to organizationally endorse > a > WS. > > Parminder would like CS mAG members to communicate his request for more > time > to the mAG and the secretariat (I'm agnostic on that---the deadline was > announced some time ago). I would request in parallel that they > communicate > this request that the MS requirement be construed more with regard to the > speakers and actual dialogue rather than the sponsorship. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 16 08:15:38 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:15:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: <20070616102035.A2BFDA6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070616102035.A2BFDA6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, bit busy at the moment (daughter's birthday :-) Will reply to various questions later. Related... information about the call for workshops has been updated on the IGF website: "An online workshop proposal form will be made available shortly for workshop proposers to fill in. It will contain the following questions " The questions are: Workshop proposal form questions 1. Please name of the organizers of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. 2. List the name and affiliations of panellists you are planning to invite. 3. List similar events you have organized in the past. 4. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. Proposals for open workshops on topics not related to the main themes should include an explanation as to why they should be discussed during the IGF meeting. 5. Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. 6. Why do you think the proposed theme is important? 7. Describe the main actors in the field and have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in the proposed workshop? The proposal should be as short and concise as possible. The online form will be made available shortly. (ends) 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 ca at rits.org.br Sat Jun 16 08:36:18 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:36:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: References: <20070616102035.A2BFDA6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4673D942.5040105@rits.org.br> Happy birthday to her! :) --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, bit busy at the moment (daughter's birthday :-) Will reply to > various questions later. > > Related... information about the call for workshops has been updated on > the IGF website: > > "An online workshop proposal form will be made available shortly for > workshop proposers to fill in. It will contain the following questions > " ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 16 09:17:41 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:17:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF financing Message-ID: <1670572820@web.de> Bertrand and others, I find it actually quite disturbing that some of us who always argued for a multi-stakeholder process now begin to make a distinction between "good" and "bad" stakes. Because I always thought that the basic idea of the IGF multi-stakeholder process is to go beyond the fences of a purely intergovernmental process and bring "real world" into the discussion. Like it or not, real world does come with economic and political pressure. And if the IGF wants to contribute to the solution for global Internet Governance problems, it's actually neccessary to have these pressure groups with us - and let them also pay their share of the costs. Of course, there is a direct link between the expected outcome of the IGF meetings and the level of economic and political pressure brought into the IGF: The more the IGF will move away from it's origins as a discussion group and become a place where people intend to draft (even non-binding) recommendations or resulutions, the more we will see lobbyi sts flocking to IGF meetings trying to make sure that the outcome is their outcome. Michael, Berlin _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From michael_leibrandt at web.de Sat Jun 16 09:55:56 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:55:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops Message-ID: <1670628561@web.de> Dear all, All IGF workshops concepts have to be multi-stakeholder concepts, otherwise they don't have any chance to get into the Rio agenda. So there is asolutely no way around finding "partners" from the private sector as well as governments. Why not drafting a few workshop programmes, putting them on the web (IGF website?), and by doing this make them publicly available for sponsorship offers? Michael, Berlin _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sat Jun 16 11:29:39 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:29:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops Message-ID: Bill, Michael, I agree with Michael co-sponsors should not be that hard to find once folks know what they might be invited/asked to co-sponsor. And not all co-sponsors will be burdensome. For example, I am happy to offer Wireless Grids Corporation (www.wgrids.com) or my consultancy Marengo Research LLC as 'co-sponsors of last resort' for practically any CS-initiated workshop. Just pick one and spell the name right. Finally, I agree with Parminder that it would be helpful to have a few more weeks to get this all settled; but if Markus is as clever as I believe he is he won't extend the deadline, until near the deadline, so folks should keep working on their proposals, and see if you can find more prestigious co-sponsors than a startup. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> michael_leibrandt at web.de 6/16/2007 9:55 AM >>> Dear all, All IGF workshops concepts have to be multi-stakeholder concepts, otherwise they don't have any chance to get into the Rio agenda. So there is asolutely no way around finding "partners" from the private sector as well as governments. Why not drafting a few workshop programmes, putting them on the web (IGF website?), and by doing this make them publicly available for sponsorship offers? Michael, Berlin _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jun 16 11:34:37 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:34:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed Message-ID: <4674030D.7050107@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) > > I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, > especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder groups, > which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on proposal text > and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving around > 3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to keep > the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is the > motive here. Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. jeanette > > This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing workshops. > Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and even in > this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving away > from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call for > IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. What > we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual > combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals of > IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different kinds > talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is > defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop proposals. > This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and > groups. > > I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no great > reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to > communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also > give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on > behalf of 'some CS members'. > > This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS groups > in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out to > new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I > thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this > problem. > > Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled > logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. But for > the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time available to > respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will both > improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the workshops. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sat Jun 16 11:41:21 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:41:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed In-Reply-To: <4674030D.7050107@wzb.eu> References: <4674030D.7050107@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070616154135.964CF19F810@mail.gn.apc.org> hi would it be possible to submit proposals with as many stake-holder partners as people can manage to bring together in the next 2 weeks, but be given an extra week or so to confirm partners? that way, i imagine some initial assessment work could be done by the MAG, with confirmed partners coming in a little later.. and one thing that still isn't clear to me - are we talking about a criteria that there must be *multiple stakeholders* (ie, more than one) or *all stakeholders* which would include specifically, CSOs, government, business and international organsiations? karen At 16:34 16/06/2007, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Parminder wrote: >>Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) >>I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, >>especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder groups, >>which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on proposal text >>and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving around >>3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to keep >>the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is the >>motive here. > >Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough >time for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that >well-known experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as >early as possible. >jeanette > >>This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing workshops. >>Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and even in >>this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving away >>from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call for >>IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. What >>we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual >>combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals of >>IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different kinds >>talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is >>defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop proposals. >>This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and >>groups. >>I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no great >>reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to >>communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also >>give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on >>behalf of 'some CS members'. >>This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS groups >>in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out to >>new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I >>thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this >>problem. >>Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled >>logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. But for >>the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time available to >>respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will both >>improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the workshops. >>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 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 wzb.eu Sat Jun 16 11:43:39 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:43:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4674052B.7070709@wzb.eu> Hi Bill, I agree with Adam here. We both advocated multi-stakeholderism as a selection criteria already last year. The fact that we did not get more applications as available slots for Athens doesn't mean that the selection criteria as such doesn't count. The Internet Governance Project co-organized a workshop with UNESCO last year. It is possible to cooperate with IOs even if its not always easy. I very much believe in this model of multi-stakeholder cooperation also or even especially on the level of _organizing_ discourse. I would therefore also first drop workshop proposals that are not multi-stakeholder in case there are more than slots available. jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > Since Adam sent the below to the list after a series of private exchanges > between us on the same, I'd like to give my view, with which he disagrees. > > Snipping.. > > On 6/15/07 10:38 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > >> My guess is demand for workshops will be higher >> this year -- IGF's better known and more will > >> Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. > >> If demand for workshops is greater than the >> number of available slots --even after merging of >> like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject >> some. I think demand may well exceed supply. >> Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting >> is the advisory group. And I suspect the first >> criteria for judging proposals will be if the >> workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing >> team behind it. Proposals from the caucus will >> be good, certainly would show broad civil society >> support, but involving other stakeholders will be >> essential. Regional diversity also positive. >> Just my opinion. > > I believe it would a bit unfair and potentially problematic for many > CS-initiated proposals if the mAG opts this year to strictly require that > workshops truly have multistakeholder sponsorship in order to get approved, > on the following grounds: > > 1. Precedent. Irrespective of what it said on the website, many workshops > approved for Athens were not remotely multistakeholder in organization, in > that they were sponsored by intra-species collaborations, single > organizations (IOs, business, CS) or individuals. Aside from Adam's message > to this list yesterday, two weeks before the submission deadline, there has > been no public indication from the secretariat or mAG that the nominal rule > so clearly ignored last time will be enforced this time. To me, that's in > effect changing the game mid-stream with little notification, and people > might understandably have been proceeding on the assumption they didn't have > to worry too much about this. Adam disagrees. > > 2. Political Reality. It would be nice to believe that all stakeholders > support the IGF serving as an open forum in which, per WGIG, any stakeholder > can raise any issue, and hence are prepared to support any workshop > initiative that is on an important topic. But as we have seen in many ways, > most recently with the funding withdrawal threat, the actual support for > free and open dialogue on any and all topics is rather variable. Some > stakeholders may view proposed topics through the lens of their strategic > postures, even though it's only dialogue and not a negotiation. One can > readily imagine topics that CS groups might like to have discussed that > would have a difficult time winning co-sponsorship from industry, > technical/administrative groupings, or certain governments. I for example > might have problems getting support from such quarters for a session on a > development agenda because it's misconstrued as necessarily implying the > same sort of 'controversial and divisive' negotiations that happened with > the WIPO DA (it doesn't). The same might apply to resources as global > commons, don't know. Conversely, many CS groups might be reluctant to sign > onto an industry workshop on the glories of telecom liberalization and > privatization, the COE convention as a boon to civil liberties, or whatever. > Moreover, international organizations and governments might have additional > constraints in considering co-sponsorship requests, e.g. turf > considerations, the need to stay within agreed mandates, fear of being > associated with a 'controversial' topic even if they like it, reticence > about signing onto something initiated by CS, and so on. In sum, if now > strictly applied, the rule would seem to favor anodyne topics and framings > that all can support like capacity building or, for that matter, > openness/diversity/security/access, over some tougher issues that really > need to be worked through and that the IGF alone can provide space for. > > 3. Sponsorship vs Dialogue. To me, what really matters is the flavor of > the dialogue, whether the speakers are MS and multi-perspective, not whether > the formal sponsorship is. I cannot see why the names at the top of a > proposal are more important than the names of the panelists and the actual > discussion that ensues. And it it will be much easier to get government, > IO, or industry people lined up as speakers than it is to get the same > people to convince their minister, SG, or CEO to organizationally endorse a > WS. > > Parminder would like CS mAG members to communicate his request for more time > to the mAG and the secretariat (I'm agnostic on that---the deadline was > announced some time ago). I would request in parallel that they communicate > this request that the MS requirement be construed more with regard to the > speakers and actual dialogue rather than the sponsorship. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 16 13:04:47 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:04:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: <4674052B.7070709@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi Jeanette, On 6/16/07 5:43 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > Hi Bill, I agree with Adam here. We both advocated multi-stakeholderism > as a selection criteria already last year. The fact that we did not get I of course am not aware of what has been advocated by whom in mAG or why, but that's not an argument. > more applications as available slots for Athens doesn't mean that the > selection criteria as such doesn't count. The fact remains that it wasn't applied last year and there's been no public notification until Adam's message yesterday that things will be different this year. > The Internet Governance Project co-organized a workshop with UNESCO last > year. It is possible to cooperate with IOs even if its not always easy. UNESCO's remit is precisely on freedom of expression so Milton was able to get them on board, but one happy alignment of interests hardly illustrates a generalizable principle. Does it logically follow that Parminder could get ICANN to support a ws on core resources as global public goods, that I could get the ITU to co-sponsor a ws on NGN's potential impact on net neutrality, and so on? I already went through this last year when I was talked out of submitting a proposal on implementation of the WSIS principles on the grounds that no governments, industry or IOs on or off the mAG would want such a ws to happen (you'd think I was proposing a ws on implementation of Comintern principles, rather than something repeatedly endorsed by 174 governments et al). > I very much believe in this model of multi-stakeholder cooperation also > or even especially on the level of _organizing_ discourse. I would Meaning that the only acceptable discourse in the IGF is that on which everyone agrees? To me, that's a repressive perversion of multistakeholderism, precisely the opposite of the opening up I thought we were working for. Maybe the IGF should use a smiley face as its logo. > therefore also first drop workshop proposals that are not > multi-stakeholder in case there are more than slots available. Good to know, thanks. If the principle is to be elevated to an absolute requirement this year, I do hope it will be applied equally to all proposals from all stakeholders. On 6/16/07 5:41 PM, "karen banks" wrote: > and one thing that still isn't clear to me - are we talking about a criteria > that there must be *multiple stakeholders* (ie, more than one) or *all > stakeholders* which would include specifically, CSOs, government, business and > international organsiations? We're following the underspecified rules that were largely ignored both by proposers and the mAG last year. Simple inferential process, Karen. Cheers, Bill > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Since Adam sent the below to the list after a series of private exchanges >> between us on the same, I'd like to give my view, with which he disagrees. >> >> Snipping.. >> >> On 6/15/07 10:38 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: >> >>> My guess is demand for workshops will be higher >>> this year -- IGF's better known and more will >> >>> Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. >> >>> If demand for workshops is greater than the >>> number of available slots --even after merging of >>> like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject >>> some. I think demand may well exceed supply. >>> Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting >>> is the advisory group. And I suspect the first >>> criteria for judging proposals will be if the >>> workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing >>> team behind it. Proposals from the caucus will >>> be good, certainly would show broad civil society >>> support, but involving other stakeholders will be >>> essential. Regional diversity also positive. >>> Just my opinion. >> >> I believe it would a bit unfair and potentially problematic for many >> CS-initiated proposals if the mAG opts this year to strictly require that >> workshops truly have multistakeholder sponsorship in order to get approved, >> on the following grounds: >> >> 1. Precedent. Irrespective of what it said on the website, many workshops >> approved for Athens were not remotely multistakeholder in organization, in >> that they were sponsored by intra-species collaborations, single >> organizations (IOs, business, CS) or individuals. Aside from Adam's message >> to this list yesterday, two weeks before the submission deadline, there has >> been no public indication from the secretariat or mAG that the nominal rule >> so clearly ignored last time will be enforced this time. To me, that's in >> effect changing the game mid-stream with little notification, and people >> might understandably have been proceeding on the assumption they didn't have >> to worry too much about this. Adam disagrees. >> >> 2. Political Reality. It would be nice to believe that all stakeholders >> support the IGF serving as an open forum in which, per WGIG, any stakeholder >> can raise any issue, and hence are prepared to support any workshop >> initiative that is on an important topic. But as we have seen in many ways, >> most recently with the funding withdrawal threat, the actual support for >> free and open dialogue on any and all topics is rather variable. Some >> stakeholders may view proposed topics through the lens of their strategic >> postures, even though it's only dialogue and not a negotiation. One can >> readily imagine topics that CS groups might like to have discussed that >> would have a difficult time winning co-sponsorship from industry, >> technical/administrative groupings, or certain governments. I for example >> might have problems getting support from such quarters for a session on a >> development agenda because it's misconstrued as necessarily implying the >> same sort of 'controversial and divisive' negotiations that happened with >> the WIPO DA (it doesn't). The same might apply to resources as global >> commons, don't know. Conversely, many CS groups might be reluctant to sign >> onto an industry workshop on the glories of telecom liberalization and >> privatization, the COE convention as a boon to civil liberties, or whatever. >> Moreover, international organizations and governments might have additional >> constraints in considering co-sponsorship requests, e.g. turf >> considerations, the need to stay within agreed mandates, fear of being >> associated with a 'controversial' topic even if they like it, reticence >> about signing onto something initiated by CS, and so on. In sum, if now >> strictly applied, the rule would seem to favor anodyne topics and framings >> that all can support like capacity building or, for that matter, >> openness/diversity/security/access, over some tougher issues that really >> need to be worked through and that the IGF alone can provide space for. >> >> 3. Sponsorship vs Dialogue. To me, what really matters is the flavor of >> the dialogue, whether the speakers are MS and multi-perspective, not whether >> the formal sponsorship is. I cannot see why the names at the top of a >> proposal are more important than the names of the panelists and the actual >> discussion that ensues. And it it will be much easier to get government, >> IO, or industry people lined up as speakers than it is to get the same >> people to convince their minister, SG, or CEO to organizationally endorse a >> WS. >> >> Parminder would like CS mAG members to communicate his request for more time >> to the mAG and the secretariat (I'm agnostic on that---the deadline was >> announced some time ago). I would request in parallel that they communicate >> this request that the MS requirement be construed more with regard to the >> speakers and actual dialogue rather than the sponsorship. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 16 13:14:16 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:44:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IGF workshops - more time is needed In-Reply-To: <4674030D.7050107@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070616171426.CF61EA6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time > for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known > experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. > jeanette Jeanette I accept the rationale, but as I put it, getting partners take time. And I argued that it takes more time operating from a developing country context - because of the nature of local private sector (non) participation, little linkages with the mostly-developed countries based private sector which does attend these forums, and wariness of governments to sign on co-sponsorship. That's a real problem. And it takes more time to get new players and partners in - which I am sure is what IGF will like to have. So, is it possible we can do a 2 week extension, even if only on terms mentioned by karen. And after all getting speakers for these workshops is the job or workshop organizers. MAG and IGF secretariat can go ahead with choosing speakers for main sessions. I re-assert that these are important 'participation' issues, and are also real, because we are facing it right now. 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 wzb.eu] > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:05 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Ken Lohento'; 'Qusai Al- > Shatti'; robin at ipjustice.org > Subject: Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed > > > > Parminder wrote: > > Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) > > > > I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, > > especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder > groups, > > which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on proposal > text > > and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving > around > > 3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to > keep > > the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is > the > > motive here. > > Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time > for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known > experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. > jeanette > > > > > This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing > workshops. > > Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and even > in > > this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving > away > > from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call > for > > IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. > What > > we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual > > combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals > of > > IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different > kinds > > talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is > > defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop > proposals. > > This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and > > groups. > > > > I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no > great > > reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to > > communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also > > give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on > > behalf of 'some CS members'. > > > > This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS > groups > > in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out > to > > new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I > > thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this > > problem. > > > > Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled > > logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. But > for > > the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time > available to > > respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will > both > > improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the > workshops. > > > > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jun 16 17:14:09 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:14:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed In-Reply-To: <20070616154135.964CF19F810@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <4674030D.7050107@wzb.eu> <20070616154135.964CF19F810@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <467452A1.7050307@wzb.eu> karen banks wrote: > hi > > would it be possible to submit proposals with as many stake-holder > partners as people can manage to bring together in the next 2 weeks, but > be given an extra week or so to confirm partners? We got several proposals with "to be confirmed" partners last year. I don't see a problem with that. > > that way, i imagine some initial assessment work could be done by the > MAG, with confirmed partners coming in a little later.. yes. > > and one thing that still isn't clear to me - are we talking about a > criteria that there must be *multiple stakeholders* (ie, more than one) > or *all stakeholders* which would include specifically, CSOs, > government, business and international organsiations? The way I interpret it (and probably took it for granted) is that we want cooperation between stakeholders, meaning boundary crossing interactions. For civil society this would mean to find a partner from the business sector, an international organization or a government. Several stakeholder is of course ok too. jeanette > > karen > > At 16:34 16/06/2007, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > >> Parminder wrote: >>> Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) >>> I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, >>> especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder >>> groups, >>> which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on >>> proposal text >>> and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving >>> around >>> 3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to keep >>> the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is the >>> motive here. >> >> Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time >> for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known >> experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. >> jeanette >> >>> This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing >>> workshops. >>> Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and >>> even in >>> this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving away >>> from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call for >>> IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. >>> What >>> we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual >>> combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals of >>> IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different kinds >>> talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is >>> defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop proposals. >>> This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and >>> groups. >>> I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no great >>> reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to >>> communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also >>> give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on >>> behalf of 'some CS members'. >>> This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS >>> groups >>> in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out to >>> new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I >>> thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this >>> problem. >>> Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled >>> logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. >>> But for >>> the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time >>> available to >>> respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will >>> both >>> improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the >>> workshops. >>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jun 16 17:21:49 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:21:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD94735AA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <4674030D.7050107@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD94735AA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4674546D.4060605@wzb.eu> The idea was not that all speakers/panelists have to be confirmed. We hoped that people could submit proposals for workshops in terms of themes and partners. I am sure the deadline can be extended. I will send a request to the MAG list if that is what you want. But I hope you see the problem: after we got the proposals for workshops the MAG needs some time to discuss them and create some structure, etc. How much extra time would you propose? jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hi, Jeanette, > This is somewhat hard to understand. If the important speakers are difficult to get it will be impossible to line them up firmly before July 1. It may not even be possible to contact some of them. I would support Parminder's call to extend the time a bit. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jeanette at wzb.eu [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] > Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time > for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known > experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. > jeanette > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/851 - Release Date: 6/16/2007 12:50 PM > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jun 16 17:34:31 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:34:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46745767.4060008@wzb.eu> William Drake wrote: > Hi Jeanette, > > On 6/16/07 5:43 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > >> Hi Bill, I agree with Adam here. We both advocated multi-stakeholderism >> as a selection criteria already last year. The fact that we did not get > > I of course am not aware of what has been advocated by whom in mAG or why, > but that's not an argument. > >> more applications as available slots for Athens doesn't mean that the >> selection criteria as such doesn't count. > > The fact remains that it wasn't applied last year and there's been no public > notification until Adam's message yesterday that things will be different > this year. It would have been applied last year if we have had more proposals. > >> The Internet Governance Project co-organized a workshop with UNESCO last >> year. It is possible to cooperate with IOs even if its not always easy. > > UNESCO's remit is precisely on freedom of expression so Milton was able to > get them on board, Actually it was me who organized the cooperation. but one happy alignment of interests hardly illustrates a > generalizable principle. It was much less easy than that. I am fully aware of the complications we run into when we try to put multi-stakeholder into practice. Still I believe it is important that we learn how to handle these matters. Does it logically follow that Parminder could get > ICANN to support a ws on core resources as global public goods, I am not sure ICANN is the only potential partner for such a topic but I am pretty sure ICANN would attend the workshop if Parminder would organize it. that I could > get the ITU to co-sponsor a ws on NGN's potential impact on net neutrality, > and so on? I feel tempted to point out basic truths: the simple reason why we advocate the multi-stakeholder approach is that many issues cannot be solved without boundary crossing cooperation involving multiple actors. The IGF is a space to facilitate this kind of exercise. There are plenty of venues for discussions we want to have among ourselves... I already went through this last year when I was talked out of > submitting a proposal on implementation of the WSIS principles That is different. And I certainly didn't talk you out of anything - I wouldn't. I am not censuring topics, I want the multi stakeholder approach to evolve. on the > grounds that no governments, industry or IOs on or off the mAG would want > such a ws to happen (you'd think I was proposing a ws on implementation of > Comintern principles, rather than something repeatedly endorsed by 174 > governments et al). > >> I very much believe in this model of multi-stakeholder cooperation also >> or even especially on the level of _organizing_ discourse. I would > > Meaning that the only acceptable discourse in the IGF is that on which > everyone agrees? No, it doesn't mean that. Not at all. jeanette To me, that's a repressive perversion of > multistakeholderism, precisely the opposite of the opening up I thought we > were working for. Maybe the IGF should use a smiley face as its logo. > >> therefore also first drop workshop proposals that are not >> multi-stakeholder in case there are more than slots available. > > Good to know, thanks. > > If the principle is to be elevated to an absolute requirement this year, I > do hope it will be applied equally to all proposals from all stakeholders. > > On 6/16/07 5:41 PM, "karen banks" wrote: > >> and one thing that still isn't clear to me - are we talking about a criteria >> that there must be *multiple stakeholders* (ie, more than one) or *all >> stakeholders* which would include specifically, CSOs, government, business and >> international organsiations? > > We're following the underspecified rules that were largely ignored both by > proposers and the mAG last year. Simple inferential process, Karen. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > >> William Drake wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Since Adam sent the below to the list after a series of private exchanges >>> between us on the same, I'd like to give my view, with which he disagrees. >>> >>> Snipping.. >>> >>> On 6/15/07 10:38 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: >>> >>>> My guess is demand for workshops will be higher >>>> this year -- IGF's better known and more will >>>> Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. >>>> If demand for workshops is greater than the >>>> number of available slots --even after merging of >>>> like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject >>>> some. I think demand may well exceed supply. >>>> Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting >>>> is the advisory group. And I suspect the first >>>> criteria for judging proposals will be if the >>>> workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing >>>> team behind it. Proposals from the caucus will >>>> be good, certainly would show broad civil society >>>> support, but involving other stakeholders will be >>>> essential. Regional diversity also positive. >>>> Just my opinion. >>> I believe it would a bit unfair and potentially problematic for many >>> CS-initiated proposals if the mAG opts this year to strictly require that >>> workshops truly have multistakeholder sponsorship in order to get approved, >>> on the following grounds: >>> >>> 1. Precedent. Irrespective of what it said on the website, many workshops >>> approved for Athens were not remotely multistakeholder in organization, in >>> that they were sponsored by intra-species collaborations, single >>> organizations (IOs, business, CS) or individuals. Aside from Adam's message >>> to this list yesterday, two weeks before the submission deadline, there has >>> been no public indication from the secretariat or mAG that the nominal rule >>> so clearly ignored last time will be enforced this time. To me, that's in >>> effect changing the game mid-stream with little notification, and people >>> might understandably have been proceeding on the assumption they didn't have >>> to worry too much about this. Adam disagrees. >>> >>> 2. Political Reality. It would be nice to believe that all stakeholders >>> support the IGF serving as an open forum in which, per WGIG, any stakeholder >>> can raise any issue, and hence are prepared to support any workshop >>> initiative that is on an important topic. But as we have seen in many ways, >>> most recently with the funding withdrawal threat, the actual support for >>> free and open dialogue on any and all topics is rather variable. Some >>> stakeholders may view proposed topics through the lens of their strategic >>> postures, even though it's only dialogue and not a negotiation. One can >>> readily imagine topics that CS groups might like to have discussed that >>> would have a difficult time winning co-sponsorship from industry, >>> technical/administrative groupings, or certain governments. I for example >>> might have problems getting support from such quarters for a session on a >>> development agenda because it's misconstrued as necessarily implying the >>> same sort of 'controversial and divisive' negotiations that happened with >>> the WIPO DA (it doesn't). The same might apply to resources as global >>> commons, don't know. Conversely, many CS groups might be reluctant to sign >>> onto an industry workshop on the glories of telecom liberalization and >>> privatization, the COE convention as a boon to civil liberties, or whatever. >>> Moreover, international organizations and governments might have additional >>> constraints in considering co-sponsorship requests, e.g. turf >>> considerations, the need to stay within agreed mandates, fear of being >>> associated with a 'controversial' topic even if they like it, reticence >>> about signing onto something initiated by CS, and so on. In sum, if now >>> strictly applied, the rule would seem to favor anodyne topics and framings >>> that all can support like capacity building or, for that matter, >>> openness/diversity/security/access, over some tougher issues that really >>> need to be worked through and that the IGF alone can provide space for. >>> >>> 3. Sponsorship vs Dialogue. To me, what really matters is the flavor of >>> the dialogue, whether the speakers are MS and multi-perspective, not whether >>> the formal sponsorship is. I cannot see why the names at the top of a >>> proposal are more important than the names of the panelists and the actual >>> discussion that ensues. And it it will be much easier to get government, >>> IO, or industry people lined up as speakers than it is to get the same >>> people to convince their minister, SG, or CEO to organizationally endorse a >>> WS. >>> >>> Parminder would like CS mAG members to communicate his request for more time >>> to the mAG and the secretariat (I'm agnostic on that---the deadline was >>> announced some time ago). I would request in parallel that they communicate >>> this request that the MS requirement be construed more with regard to the >>> speakers and actual dialogue rather than the sponsorship. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jun 16 17:36:44 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:36:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed Message-ID: <467457EC.90806@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: >> Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time >> for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known >> experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. >> jeanette > > Jeanette > > I accept the rationale, but as I put it, getting partners take time. And I > argued that it takes more time operating from a developing country context - > because of the nature of local private sector (non) participation, little > linkages with the mostly-developed countries based private sector which does > attend these forums, and wariness of governments to sign on > co-sponsorship. That's a real problem. And it takes more time to get new > players and partners in - which I am sure is what IGF will like to have. So, > is it possible we can do a 2 week extension, even if only on terms mentioned > by karen. And after all getting speakers for these workshops is the job or > workshop organizers. MAG and IGF secretariat can go ahead with choosing > speakers for main sessions. Ok, I will suggest a two weeks extension. Still I think finding co-sponsors for workshops is more important at this stage than confirming panelists. jeanette > > > I re-assert that these are important 'participation' issues, and are also > real, because we are facing it right now. > > 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 wzb.eu] >> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:05 PM >> To: Parminder >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Ken Lohento'; 'Qusai Al- >> Shatti'; robin at ipjustice.org >> Subject: Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed >> >> >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) >>> >>> I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, >>> especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder >> groups, >>> which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on proposal >> text >>> and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving >> around >>> 3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to >> keep >>> the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is >> the >>> motive here. >> Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time >> for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known >> experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. >> jeanette >> >>> This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing >> workshops. >>> Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and even >> in >>> this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving >> away >>> from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call >> for >>> IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. >> What >>> we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual >>> combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals >> of >>> IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different >> kinds >>> talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is >>> defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop >> proposals. >>> This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and >>> groups. >>> >>> I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no >> great >>> reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to >>> communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also >>> give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on >>> behalf of 'some CS members'. >>> >>> This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS >> groups >>> in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out >> to >>> new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I >>> thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this >>> problem. >>> >>> Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled >>> logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. But >> for >>> the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time >> available to >>> respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will >> both >>> improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the >> workshops. >>> 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 >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jun 16 18:33:59 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:33:59 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <01ff01c7b066$782bfd10$9300a8c0@IAN> Following Lee's lead - Happy to look at Internet Mark 2 Project or Ian Peter and Associates (or Internet History Project for that matter) co-sponsoring or co-operating in workshop proposals - just check with me first! Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Sent: 17 June 2007 01:30 To: William Drake; governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael_leibrandt at web.de Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops Bill, Michael, I agree with Michael co-sponsors should not be that hard to find once folks know what they might be invited/asked to co-sponsor. And not all co-sponsors will be burdensome. For example, I am happy to offer Wireless Grids Corporation (www.wgrids.com) or my consultancy Marengo Research LLC as 'co-sponsors of last resort' for practically any CS-initiated workshop. Just pick one and spell the name right. Finally, I agree with Parminder that it would be helpful to have a few more weeks to get this all settled; but if Markus is as clever as I believe he is he won't extend the deadline, until near the deadline, so folks should keep working on their proposals, and see if you can find more prestigious co-sponsors than a startup. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> michael_leibrandt at web.de 6/16/2007 9:55 AM >>> Dear all, All IGF workshops concepts have to be multi-stakeholder concepts, otherwise they don't have any chance to get into the Rio agenda. So there is asolutely no way around finding "partners" from the private sector as well as governments. Why not drafting a few workshop programmes, putting them on the web (IGF website?), and by doing this make them publicly available for sponsorship offers? Michael, Berlin _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 15/06/2007 11:31 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 15/06/2007 11:31 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Jun 16 20:14:14 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:14:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <01ff01c7b066$782bfd10$9300a8c0@IAN> References: <01ff01c7b066$782bfd10$9300a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <46747CD6.1010200@Malcolm.id.au> Ian Peter wrote: > Following Lee's lead - > > Happy to look at Internet Mark 2 Project or Ian Peter and Associates (or > Internet History Project for that matter) co-sponsoring or co-operating in > workshop proposals - just check with me first! Also Reynolds Technology Pty Ltd . -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 16 22:26:58 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:56:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IGF workshops - more time is needed In-Reply-To: <467457EC.90806@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070617022717.B133667819@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Ok, I will suggest a two weeks extension. Still I think finding > co-sponsors for workshops is more important at this stage than > confirming panelists. > jeanette 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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 3:07 AM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Ken Lohento'; 'Qusai Al- > Shatti'; robin at ipjustice.org > Subject: Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed > > > > Parminder wrote: > >> Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time > >> for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known > >> experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. > >> jeanette > > > > Jeanette > > > > I accept the rationale, but as I put it, getting partners take time. And > I > > argued that it takes more time operating from a developing country > context - > > because of the nature of local private sector (non) participation, > little > > linkages with the mostly-developed countries based private sector which > does > > attend these forums, and wariness of governments to sign on > > co-sponsorship. That's a real problem. And it takes more time to get new > > players and partners in - which I am sure is what IGF will like to have. > So, > > is it possible we can do a 2 week extension, even if only on terms > mentioned > > by karen. And after all getting speakers for these workshops is the job > or > > workshop organizers. MAG and IGF secretariat can go ahead with choosing > > speakers for main sessions. > > Ok, I will suggest a two weeks extension. Still I think finding > co-sponsors for workshops is more important at this stage than > confirming panelists. > jeanette > > > > > > I re-assert that these are important 'participation' issues, and are > also > > real, because we are facing it right now. > > > > 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 wzb.eu] > >> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:05 PM > >> To: Parminder > >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Ken Lohento'; 'Qusai Al- > >> Shatti'; robin at ipjustice.org > >> Subject: Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed > >> > >> > >> > >> Parminder wrote: > >>> Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) > >>> > >>> I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, > >>> especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder > >> groups, > >>> which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on > proposal > >> text > >>> and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving > >> around > >>> 3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to > >> keep > >>> the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is > >> the > >>> motive here. > >> Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time > >> for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known > >> experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. > >> jeanette > >> > >>> This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing > >> workshops. > >>> Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and > even > >> in > >>> this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving > >> away > >>> from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call > >> for > >>> IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. > >> What > >>> we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual > >>> combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals > >> of > >>> IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different > >> kinds > >>> talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective > is > >>> defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop > >> proposals. > >>> This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and > >>> groups. > >>> > >>> I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no > >> great > >>> reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to > >>> communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may > also > >>> give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated > on > >>> behalf of 'some CS members'. > >>> > >>> This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS > >> groups > >>> in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out > >> to > >>> new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I > >>> thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this > >>> problem. > >>> > >>> Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled > >>> logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. > But > >> for > >>> the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time > >> available to > >>> respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will > >> both > >>> improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the > >> workshops. > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 16 23:55:58 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:55:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed In-Reply-To: <467457EC.90806@wzb.eu> References: <467457EC.90806@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Parminder, I think this kind of communication is actually the job of the caucus coordinators. We can make arguments in the advisory group for civil society positions, and I am happy to take this matter to the list if Jeanette doesn't, but requests from the caucus should come from you and Vittorio to the secretariat. You can represent the caucus position: there hasn't been a vote, or very much discussion on this matter, but it is perfectly OK for the coordinators to raise issues you think important to the caucus with the secretariat. Where are we can only pass on general discussion from the list. Please note Robin wrote to the list about workshops on May 25th as soon as there was news from the IGF meeting, and the general description went on the IGF site shortly after that. I sent a note about workshops on May 27. Neither of those notes mentioned a multistakeholder requirement. It would be good to ask Markus for advice, rather than just present demands. Could you add Vittorio to this thread. Best, Adam At 5:18 AM +0200 6/17/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Parminder wrote: >>>Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time >>>for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known >>>experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. >>>jeanette >> >>Jeanette >> >>I accept the rationale, but as I put it, getting partners take time. And I >>argued that it takes more time operating from a developing country context - >>because of the nature of local private sector (non) participation, little >>linkages with the mostly-developed countries based private sector which does >>attend these forums, and wariness of governments to sign on >>co-sponsorship. That's a real problem. And it takes more time to get new >>players and partners in - which I am sure is what IGF will like to have. So, >>is it possible we can do a 2 week extension, even if only on terms mentioned >>by karen. And after all getting speakers for these workshops is the job or >>workshop organizers. MAG and IGF secretariat can go ahead with choosing >>speakers for main sessions. > >Ok, I will suggest a two weeks extension. Still I think finding >co-sponsors for workshops is more important at this stage than >confirming panelists. >jeanette >> >> >>I re-assert that these are important 'participation' issues, and are also >>real, because we are facing it right now. >>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 wzb.eu] >>>Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:05 PM >>>To: Parminder >>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Ken Lohento'; 'Qusai Al- >>>Shatti'; robin at ipjustice.org >>>Subject: Re: IGF workshops - more time is needed >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder wrote: >>>>Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) >>>> >>>>I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, >>>>especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder >>>groups, >>>>which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on proposal >>>text >>>>and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving >>>around >>>>3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to >>>keep >>>>the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is >>>the >>>>motive here. >>>Hi, the rationale for the deadline end of July is to give enough time >>>for asking speakers or panelists. The MAG thought that well-known >>>experts are difficult to get and need to be asked as early as possible. >>>jeanette >>> >>>>This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing >>>workshops. >>>>Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and even >>>in >>>>this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving >>>away >>>>from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call >>>for >>>>IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. >>>What >>>>we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual >>>>combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals >>>of >>>>IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different >>>kinds >>>>talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is >>>>defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop >>>proposals. >>>>This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and >>>>groups. >>>> >>>>I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no >>>great >>>>reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to >>>>communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also >>>>give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on >>>>behalf of 'some CS members'. >>>> >>>>This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS >>>groups >>>>in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out >>>to >>>>new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I >>>>thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this >>>>problem. >>>> >>>>Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled >>>>logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. But >>>for >>>>the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time >>>available to >>>>respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will >>>both >>>>improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the >>>workshops. >>>>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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 17 00:17:48 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:17:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF workshops - more time is needed In-Reply-To: <20070616060336.30F90E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070616060336.30F90E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 11:33 AM +0530 6/16/07, Parminder wrote: >Adam (and other CS members of the MAG) > >I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little, >especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder groups, >which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on proposal text >and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving around >3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to keep >the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is the >motive here. This goes to point in my last email (apologies, I didn't see the caucus list cc'd on the to line, wouldn't have changed anything I said --except about adding Vittorio to the thread-- but I would have written more) that the coordinators should be talking to the secretariat. I don't know if you are in regular contact with Markus but you should be: both seeking information and offering advice and help. All the issues you have raised here could and should be raised direct with him as soon as you and Vittorio feel they could be a problem for CS. It's what Jeanette and I did frequently. You don't have to demand anything, and suggesting that a process has been decided for some inappropriate purpose (to keep workshops manageable) isn't very responsible. Please explain the problems, offer solutions and seek his advice. >This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing workshops. >Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and even in >this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving away >from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call for >IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas. May 25 Robin made an announcement about workshops to this list as soon as they were mentioned during the meeting in Geneva, news for posted on the IGF site shortly after (saying more details in mid June, with the deadline end of June) and I sent a follow-up note on may 27. There were people from the PWD caucus in the IGF meeting. Why have they only passed on information now? And did people start work on workshops after Robin's note, or wait until last week. As Jeanette mentioned the shorter time scale is a response to feedback from workshop organizers that they needed more time after having their workshop confirmed to make arrangements. Yes it is short. And more worrying the way it has been handled does favor groups very close to the process. But again, a job of the coordinators is surely to coordinate with other caucus and WG? >What >we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual >combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals of >IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different kinds >talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is >defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop proposals. >This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and >groups.  > >I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no great >reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to >communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also >give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on >behalf of 'some CS members'. I think you as coordinators should be communicating this message and you do not need to ask the caucus when you want to have a conversation with the secretariat. I am not disagreeing with asking for an extension, and like Jeanette would be happy to take it to the advisory group list (other stakeholders may feel the same), but you should carry the main message to the secretariat and passing on information back to the caucus. Thanks, Adam >This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS groups >in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out to >new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I >thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this >problem. > >Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled >logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. But for >the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time available to >respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will both >improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the workshops. > >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 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 17 00:54:02 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:54:02 +0900 Subject: looking for workshop partners (Re: [governance] IGF workshops - more time is needed) In-Reply-To: References: <20070616060336.30F90E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: One thing the advisory group members could do is look for potential partners among other advisory group members, or ask other members for help finding partners in their networks. Imagine other stakeholders will be in the same position. People may not want draft ideas made public, but perhaps the coordinators could put the message that they will coordinate with advisory group members on finding partners for workshop proposal and developing workshop ideas? Kind of clearinghouse. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jun 17 01:05:52 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:05:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: <4673D942.5040105@rits.org.br> References: <20070616102035.A2BFDA6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> <4673D942.5040105@rits.org.br> Message-ID: At 9:36 AM -0300 6/16/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Happy birthday to her! :) thank you. She (Mizi) was 13, and not a bad teenager. Spent a very sunny birthday in her room doing homework so she'd have all of Sunday (today) to go out with friends. Shows a degree of maturity her father still cannot come close to matching! Adam >--c.a. > >Adam Peake wrote: >>Hi, bit busy at the moment (daughter's birthday :-) Will reply to >>various questions later. >> >>Related... information about the call for workshops has been >>updated on the IGF website: >> >>"An online workshop proposal form will be made available shortly >>for workshop proposers to fill in. It will contain the following >>questions " > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 17 01:57:30 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:57:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill, best I can remember all descriptions of workshop proposals included the multi-stakeholder principle. The document prepared before the May open consultations said in the section about workshops: "Each session will conform to the IGF principles of multi-stakeholder participation in both the project proposal and in its implementation." I have said *I* expect this will be an important criteria should demand for workshops be greater than the number of available slots. It is not an official position of the advisory group or secretariat for selecting between workshop proposals should that be required. So I have suggested that it would be a good idea to look for multistakeholder representation in the organizing group behind the workshop proposal. Geographic diversity also will (in my opinion) be important. This may make it easier for CS advisory group members to argue for workshops. At no time has anyone said the principles of multistakeholder organization and participation have not been applied, sorry if you reached a different conclusion. Perhaps also try to remember that last year was the first time anyone tried this. I'll copy what I said a few days ago below. How does the caucus suggest workshop proposals should be selected if demand exceeds the number of slots? Does the caucus want a beauty contest when CS is so under represented in the Advisory Group? There will be no time for complicated schemes involving more outreach and consultation, the schedule as we have noted is already too tight. More practical suggestions helpful. Thanks, Adam At 5:38 PM +0900 6/15/07, Adam Peake wrote: > >Parminder: good suggestion. > >None of the following has yet been discussed on the advisory group >list, my opinion only: > >My guess is demand for workshops will be higher this year -- IGF's >better known and more will notice it's an opportunity (free) to put >on a workshop in a quite prominent space. Workshops will have an >audience of between 200-300 people so are quite large events in >their own right. > >Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. The schedule was >adjusted so this was possible (workshops held over lunch, which was >not originally planned) A few on the same theme were asked to merge >(but that's reasonable, yes?) Some that better met the criteria >(multistakeholder organization, relevance to the main themes) were >given a choice of times or perhaps a larger room, but all could be >accepted. > >If demand for workshops is greater than the number of available >slots --even after merging of like themes-- then it will be >necessary to reject some. I think demand may well exceed supply. >Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting is the advisory >group. And I suspect the first criteria for judging proposals will >be if the workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing team >behind it. Proposals from the caucus will be good, certainly would >show broad civil society support, but involving other stakeholders >will be essential. Regional diversity also positive. Just my opinion. > >I do not believe "controversial" topics will be rejected simply >because some might consider them controversial. Last year there >were two workshop proposals on DNS related topics. Both had >multi-stakeholder organizers, they were accepted, and to the best of >my memory during advisory group discussions neither were challenged >at any time for any reason. > >Working on details of criteria for workshops would have been the >type of issue the advisory group discussed had it met in a closed >session last month. Just not easy to get into detail in an open >session. So the process is behind on issues such as this. > >About the themes and number of proposals the caucus might work on. >The deadline is 30 June 2007. The caucus is not very good at >reaching decisions. I suggest that the three you suggest: > >(1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions >(2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access, etc >(3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF. > >will likely be more than we can manage. If there is be competition >for slots, solid proposals will be necessary. > >Given Bill's comment that he's developing a proposal on development >agenda and tieing it to giganet etc, I suggest the caucus focus on 1 >and 3. It will be a lot of work for you and Vittorio to coordinate. > >I wouldn't expand into Access etc. Let CS groups expert on the area >do a job without confusion of the caucus' "consensus". And I think >privacy safe with the coalition (Ralf Bendrath etc.) > >But I am surprised you don't mention critical Internet resources. > >Adam > At 7:04 PM +0200 6/16/07, William Drake wrote: >Hi Jeanette, > >On 6/16/07 5:43 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > >> Hi Bill, I agree with Adam here. We both advocated multi-stakeholderism >> as a selection criteria already last year. The fact that we did not get > >I of course am not aware of what has been advocated by whom in mAG or why, >but that's not an argument. > >> more applications as available slots for Athens doesn't mean that the >> selection criteria as such doesn't count. > >The fact remains that it wasn't applied last year and there's been no public >notification until Adam's message yesterday that things will be different >this year. > >> The Internet Governance Project co-organized a workshop with UNESCO last >> year. It is possible to cooperate with IOs even if its not always easy. > >UNESCO's remit is precisely on freedom of expression so Milton was able to >get them on board, but one happy alignment of interests hardly illustrates a >generalizable principle. Does it logically follow that Parminder could get >ICANN to support a ws on core resources as global public goods, that I could >get the ITU to co-sponsor a ws on NGN's potential impact on net neutrality, >and so on? I already went through this last year when I was talked out of >submitting a proposal on implementation of the WSIS principles on the >grounds that no governments, industry or IOs on or off the mAG would want >such a ws to happen (you'd think I was proposing a ws on implementation of >Comintern principles, rather than something repeatedly endorsed by 174 >governments et al). > >> I very much believe in this model of multi-stakeholder cooperation also >> or even especially on the level of _organizing_ discourse. I would > >Meaning that the only acceptable discourse in the IGF is that on which >everyone agrees? To me, that's a repressive perversion of >multistakeholderism, precisely the opposite of the opening up I thought we >were working for. Maybe the IGF should use a smiley face as its logo. > >> therefore also first drop workshop proposals that are not >> multi-stakeholder in case there are more than slots available. > >Good to know, thanks. > >If the principle is to be elevated to an absolute requirement this year, I >do hope it will be applied equally to all proposals from all stakeholders. > >On 6/16/07 5:41 PM, "karen banks" wrote: > >> and one thing that still isn't clear to me - are we talking about a criteria >> that there must be *multiple stakeholders* (ie, more than one) or *all >> stakeholders* which would include specifically, CSOs, government, >>business and >> international organsiations? > >We're following the underspecified rules that were largely ignored both by >proposers and the mAG last year. Simple inferential process, Karen. > >Cheers, > >Bill > > >> >> William Drake wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Since Adam sent the below to the list after a series of private exchanges >>> between us on the same, I'd like to give my view, with which he disagrees. >>> >>> Snipping.. >>> >>> On 6/15/07 10:38 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: >>> >>>> My guess is demand for workshops will be higher > >>> this year -- IGF's better known and more will >>> >>>> Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. >>> >>>> If demand for workshops is greater than the >>>> number of available slots --even after merging of >>>> like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject >>>> some. I think demand may well exceed supply. >>>> Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting > >>> is the advisory group. And I suspect the first >>>> criteria for judging proposals will be if the >>>> workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing >>>> team behind it. Proposals from the caucus will >>>> be good, certainly would show broad civil society >>>> support, but involving other stakeholders will be >>>> essential. Regional diversity also positive. >>>> Just my opinion. >>> >>> I believe it would a bit unfair and potentially problematic for many >>> CS-initiated proposals if the mAG opts this year to strictly require that >>> workshops truly have multistakeholder sponsorship in order to get approved, >>> on the following grounds: >>> >>> 1. Precedent. Irrespective of what it said on the website, many workshops >>> approved for Athens were not remotely multistakeholder in organization, in >>> that they were sponsored by intra-species collaborations, single >>> organizations (IOs, business, CS) or individuals. Aside from >>>Adam's message >>> to this list yesterday, two weeks before the submission deadline, there has >>> been no public indication from the secretariat or mAG that the nominal rule >>> so clearly ignored last time will be enforced this time. To me, that's in >>> effect changing the game mid-stream with little notification, and people >>> might understandably have been proceeding on the assumption they >>>didn't have >>> to worry too much about this. Adam disagrees. >>> >>> 2. Political Reality. It would be nice to believe that all stakeholders >>> support the IGF serving as an open forum in which, per WGIG, any >>>stakeholder >>> can raise any issue, and hence are prepared to support any workshop >>> initiative that is on an important topic. But as we have seen in >>>many ways, >>> most recently with the funding withdrawal threat, the actual support for >>> free and open dialogue on any and all topics is rather variable. Some >>> stakeholders may view proposed topics through the lens of their strategic >>> postures, even though it's only dialogue and not a negotiation. One can >>> readily imagine topics that CS groups might like to have discussed that >>> would have a difficult time winning co-sponsorship from industry, >>> technical/administrative groupings, or certain governments. I for example >>> might have problems getting support from such quarters for a session on a >>> development agenda because it's misconstrued as necessarily implying the >>> same sort of 'controversial and divisive' negotiations that happened with >>> the WIPO DA (it doesn't). The same might apply to resources as global >>> commons, don't know. Conversely, many CS groups might be reluctant to sign >>> onto an industry workshop on the glories of telecom liberalization and >>> privatization, the COE convention as a boon to civil liberties, >>>or whatever. >>> Moreover, international organizations and governments might have additional >>> constraints in considering co-sponsorship requests, e.g. turf >>> considerations, the need to stay within agreed mandates, fear of being >>> associated with a 'controversial' topic even if they like it, reticence >>> about signing onto something initiated by CS, and so on. In sum, if now >>> strictly applied, the rule would seem to favor anodyne topics and framings >>> that all can support like capacity building or, for that matter, >>> openness/diversity/security/access, over some tougher issues that really > >> need to be worked through and that the IGF alone can provide space for. >>> >>> 3. Sponsorship vs Dialogue. To me, what really matters is the flavor of >>> the dialogue, whether the speakers are MS and multi-perspective, >>>not whether >>> the formal sponsorship is. I cannot see why the names at the top of a >>> proposal are more important than the names of the panelists and the actual > >> discussion that ensues. And it it will be much easier to get government, >>> IO, or industry people lined up as speakers than it is to get the same >>> people to convince their minister, SG, or CEO to organizationally endorse a >>> WS. >>> >>> Parminder would like CS mAG members to communicate his request >>>for more time >>> to the mAG and the secretariat (I'm agnostic on that---the deadline was > >> announced some time ago). I would request in parallel that they >communicate >>> this request that the MS requirement be construed more with regard to the >>> speakers and actual dialogue rather than the sponsorship. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >*********************************************************** >William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland >http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html >*********************************************************** > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Jun 17 03:16:59 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:16:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: <46745767.4060008@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi Jeanette, On 6/16/07 11:34 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > I feel tempted to point out basic truths: the simple reason why we > advocate the multi-stakeholder approach is that many issues cannot be > solved without boundary crossing cooperation involving multiple actors. > The IGF is a space to facilitate this kind of exercise. There are plenty > of venues for discussions we want to have among ourselves... Nobody would argue with these points, but the co-sponsorship principle does not necessarily follow from them. They are arguments for multistakeholder panels and dialogues. This was achieved last year by many workshops that had single species or entity sponsorship, and there's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true this year if organizers were simply told that they need multistakeholder, multi-perspective panels. Parminder and I raised several concerns and I don't feel that anyone has really tried to respond to them seriously. Instead we've gotten religious statements that it must be this way because it must be this way, or assurances that it's really not hard (I'm guessing, from people who are not presently engaged in trying to line up MS for "controversial" topics), or offers that one could meet the requirement by simply listing someone's private consultancy as representing industry (would the mAG really accept, say, Lee McKnight Ltd. as a substitute for the ICC or Cisco? If so great, any of us who consult can just list ourselves as representing both CS and private sector). Sorry if I don't find such statements responsive and persuasive. Anyway, please do get an extension then. Thanks, BIll ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From michael_leibrandt at web.de Sun Jun 17 06:23:05 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:23:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria Message-ID: <1671485195@web.de> Hi all, Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I have actually the feeling that positions on that questions aren't that fare apart. Do we all agree, that a workshop on a controversial issue with only CS colleagues on the panel and probably only CS people as in the meeting room would be in contradiction with the IGF philosophy of being a multi-stakeholder forum? What we need is cross-constituency discussion, not just an "world exhibition of IG positions". So: If we find PS government people willing to sit on a particular workshop panel we will also be able to let them sponsor the workshop concept by signing the proposal. I don't see any rational for IGF workshops in which other constituencies don't have any interest at all. Cheers, Michael, Berlin _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sun Jun 17 06:37:59 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:07:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070617103748.649236781A@smtp1.electricembers.net> I too think that the jump from 'cooperation amongst multiple stakeholders' to 'co-sponsorship of multiple stakeholders' is a bit too long and also does not follow. And I too had the same thought .... To form ITfC Inc (or Guru Inc) and make it a co-sponsor too!! To make it critical for CS groups based in the south to have private players as co-sponsors is in a way (without intending to) making their participation quite difficult. Considering that some of us have consistently advocated a relook at the business / market roles in the governance spaces, it would be unrealistic to expect big private players to rush to embrace us. Specially where we do not have any real or lasting interactions/relationships with any of them to expect that they would develop any great understanding or sympathy for our positions. It would be far more meaningful to instead if we could rather insist on multistakeholder panels so that we hear views from different groups .... Regards Guru -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:47 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria Hi Jeanette, On 6/16/07 11:34 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > I feel tempted to point out basic truths: the simple reason why we > advocate the multi-stakeholder approach is that many issues cannot be > solved without boundary crossing cooperation involving multiple actors. > The IGF is a space to facilitate this kind of exercise. There are plenty > of venues for discussions we want to have among ourselves... Nobody would argue with these points, but the co-sponsorship principle does not necessarily follow from them. They are arguments for multistakeholder panels and dialogues. This was achieved last year by many workshops that had single species or entity sponsorship, and there's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true this year if organizers were simply told that they need multistakeholder, multi-perspective panels. Parminder and I raised several concerns and I don't feel that anyone has really tried to respond to them seriously. Instead we've gotten religious statements that it must be this way because it must be this way, or assurances that it's really not hard (I'm guessing, from people who are not presently engaged in trying to line up MS for "controversial" topics), or offers that one could meet the requirement by simply listing someone's private consultancy as representing industry (would the mAG really accept, say, Lee McKnight Ltd. as a substitute for the ICC or Cisco? If so great, any of us who consult can just list ourselves as representing both CS and private sector). Sorry if I don't find such statements responsive and persuasive. Anyway, please do get an extension then. Thanks, BIll ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From michael_leibrandt at web.de Sun Jun 17 07:09:45 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:09:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria Message-ID: <1671534154@web.de> Dear list, After so much procedural stuff, I was tempted to produce something on a substantive issue. Looking at the ICANN San Juan agenda, I expect the GeoTLD discussion to be of some interest, not only because I live in one of the "target cities", but because this issue touches many of the core IG questions that have been around for quite a while. So, in case somebody else is into that, I attach the latest version of a paper I circulated two weeks ago on the German list. As usual, comments always welcome. Cheers, Michael, Berlin _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GeoTLD-300507.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39936 bytes Desc: not available URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Jun 17 07:17:58 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:17:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: <1671485195@web.de> Message-ID: On 6/17/07 12:23 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" wrote: > Hi all, > > Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I have actually the feeling that positions on > that questions aren't that fare apart. Do we all agree, that a workshop on a > controversial issue with only CS colleagues on the panel and probably only CS > people as in the meeting room would be in contradiction with the IGF > philosophy of being a multi-stakeholder forum? What we need is > cross-constituency discussion, not just an "world exhibition of IG positions". Not to belabor this any longer, but nobody has ever argued that panels should not have to be MS or for events with one stakeholder group in the room. We are debating whether only co-sponsorship makes something MS, and on this the positions are far apart and asymmetrically represented in the decision making process. > So: If we find PS government people willing to sit on a particular > workshop panel we will also be able to let them sponsor the workshop concept > by signing the proposal. I don't see any rational for IGF workshops in which > other constituencies don't have any interest at all. If it were that easy we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. But per previous, getting government, industry and IO people on panels is much easier than getting their bosses/institutions to agree to co-sponsor. If you'd like to offer Germany as a co-sponsor of last resort, we can put the issue to rest right now;-) BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Sun Jun 17 08:09:11 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:09:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: <4674052B.7070709@wzb.eu> References: <4674052B.7070709@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <46752467.8070203@bertola.eu> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > Hi Bill, I agree with Adam here. We both advocated multi-stakeholderism > as a selection criteria already last year. The fact that we did not get > more applications as available slots for Athens doesn't mean that the > selection criteria as such doesn't count. > The Internet Governance Project co-organized a workshop with UNESCO last > year. It is possible to cooperate with IOs even if its not always easy. > > I very much believe in this model of multi-stakeholder cooperation also > or even especially on the level of _organizing_ discourse. I would > therefore also first drop workshop proposals that are not > multi-stakeholder in case there are more than slots available. Perhaps we can put the discussion in positive terms, rather than in negative ones: e.g., rather than discussing about how to drop them, the AG should find ways to help incomplete proposals to become complete. The distinction is not, in my opinion, whether the workshop is multistakeholder in terms of sponsorship (a requirement which, I agree, disadvantages those of us who do not have extensive connections in governmental or business circles, and makes it difficult to deal with controversial issues that some stakeholders might not want to see on the agenda). It is rather whether the workshop *wants* to be multistakeholder, or not. In the former case, the organizers - even if not a MS group yet - could be required to open up and complete the workshop: for example, the stakeholder groups that are not represented yet could be asked to suggest speakers, or the AG could put out a summarization of which workshops still need panelists from a given stakeholder group. Or maybe, the AG will receive two non-MS proposals on the same matter by two different stakeholder groups, so it'll be enough to merge them; but if you reject non-MS proposals out of hand, you'll lose this chance. It's the latter case that is undesirable, IMHO - e.g. some workshops I noticed last year, which were conceived as 85 minutes of showcasing of how good was the work by one given organization. That's when the AG should reply "either you open it up, or we reject it". (To that extent, I hope that the AG takes seriously the suggestions we made in February: for example, to require all workshop moderators to allocate at least half of the time for open floor discussion.) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Sun Jun 17 08:18:53 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:18:53 +0200 Subject: looking for workshop partners (Re: [governance] IGF workshops - more time is needed) In-Reply-To: References: <20070616060336.30F90E04F2@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <467526AD.30302@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > One thing the advisory group members could do is look for potential > partners among other advisory group members, or ask other members for > help finding partners in their networks. > > Imagine other stakeholders will be in the same position. > > People may not want draft ideas made public, but perhaps the > coordinators could put the message that they will coordinate with > advisory group members on finding partners for workshop proposal and > developing workshop ideas? Kind of clearinghouse. This would be a good idea, and I don't see anything particularly secret in tentative proposals for workshops. I must confess that this is not just a very tight timeline, but also an extremely bad 2-week set for some of us to organize workshops - one of the two weeks will be spent at the ICANN meeting, and the other one doing all the work that you need to do to be able to spare that week for ICANN. (I'm sure that this affects you as well, for the ICANN Nomcom.) But in any case people who need partners should be free to contact the coordinators and the AG members and ask for help. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Jun 17 10:33:58 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: 1671485195@web.de Message-ID: Michael, Would you please explain the Geo-gTDL concept in its basic 'Users-Manifestation', I am imagining that the Geo-gTDL is a-kin to using the zip/postal codes and turning them into alphabetic extentions. expl.: 10115 - 14199 Berlin/DE -> .berlin M4B 1V4 - M4C 5E5 Toronto/CA -> .toronto 37501 - 38197 Memphis/USA -> .memphis etc. etc. ... The Universal Postal Union (UPU) uses such a system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union So an adaptation by ICANN would be simulare to that of "the ccTLD concept ... in the ISO 3166 list." as stated in your paper. Although there maybe some problems with this, in which Cites have the same names. expl: Springfield/USA there are several. Please describe the end result (user's experiance) in layman's terms. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Jun 17 10:48:50 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:48:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: References: <20070616102035.A2BFDA6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> <4673D942.5040105@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <467549D2.4080607@rits.org.br> A bright future for the Earth will be the work of people like Mizi! A warm hug to her --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > At 9:36 AM -0300 6/16/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Happy birthday to her! :) > > > thank you. She (Mizi) was 13, and not a bad teenager. Spent a very > sunny birthday in her room doing homework so she'd have all of Sunday > (today) to go out with friends. Shows a degree of maturity her father > still cannot come close to matching! > > 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 mlmuelle at syr.edu Sun Jun 17 10:52:58 2007 From: mlmuelle at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:52:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria In-Reply-To: <46745767.4060008@wzb.eu> References: <46745767.4060008@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD94735B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Just to follow up on this: -----Original Message----- From: jeanette at wzb.eu [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] >> UNESCO's remit is precisely on freedom of expression >>so Milton was able to get them on board, > >Actually it was me who organized the cooperation. Yes, it was Jeanette who had the contact to a German UNESCO person. The initial contact came in mid-June at the Giganet meeting in Dresden area, It took two months of discussions and back and forth to find the right person in UNESCO, get them to commit, etc. The point here is that Bill is right that it is difficult and Jeanette is right that it can be done and needs to be done. And I am right that we will need a bit more time to do it. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Jun 17 13:34:15 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:34:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop deadline In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD94735B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <46745767.4060008@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD94735B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I talked to Markus about the deadline. While there is a reticence about changing the deadline since it was one of the things that was decided at the meeting, he wants people to understand that this deadline is a deadline for the declaration of intent. The month of July will be a month for match making among various workshop proposers with an intent to promoting cooperation as required by the original call's: "readiness to cooperate with others". The month of July can also be used to complete the proposal with the additon of partners and panelists. Some rewording of the call for proposal regarding the deadline to clarify this will most probably be done next week. What is important for June 30 is that people provide as much information as possible, with careful attention to the questions found at: http://www.intgovforum.org/wks_qest_r.htm. thanks a. (speaking as consultant to the IGF secretariat) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 18 06:01:08 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:31:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC sponsored IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <46747CD6.1010200@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070618100119.976C2E1014@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi It is to once gains seek comments on whether IGC will like to do workshops as a main sponsor, and/or partnerships. There are two proposals on the table, and members may give comments on them together/ separately. Most support till now has come for a workshop on the role and mandate of IGF. The text for this theme form the May submission to IGF is put below. Bill has expressed willingness to work on it, if people pour in their comments/ suggestions. (Begins) The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this main session would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. (ends) Another workshop for which there has been support from IGP is on the issue "Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions". Its text as our earlier statement was (begins) A call to "discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance" is the first point in the IGF mandate in the Tunis agenda. The Agenda deals at length with the question of new global public policy issues regarding IG, the possibility of new frameworks and structures, and the role of existing ones (e.g, paragraphs 61, 69). We therefore believe that an IGF main session should explore the following topics: a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to use global institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy and the "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy concerns are closely linked to technical administration? b) What was intended by the Tunis Agenda's call for the "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and how can this goal be pursued? (ends) Milton, will you like to coordinate this one? 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Jun 18 08:01:25 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:01:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I understand this list is now rather busy with the workshops issue, and their approval criteria, but this discussion on IGF financing and structuring should remain an important concern. As a matter of fact, "The role and mandate of the IGF" has been proposed by Parminder as one of possible themes for workshop proposal by this caucus. The discussion on approval criteria is also linked to this thread: who will approve workshops proposals? A MAG without any mandate? Unless I missed the annoucement of the current MAG being confirmed, it seems that the it doesn't exist anymore, although some of its members are currently making strong affirmations on what they would accept and what they would reject: this situation is surrealistic. As for the ongoing discussion: Le 15 juin 07 à 17:05, Milton Mueller a écrit : > Meryem et al > >>>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 6/13/2007 12:52:38 PM >>> >> the best answer would remain making the IGF structure as >> light as possible, thus as cheap as possible. > > Yes, indeed, we are in complete agreement here. I am just talking > about > funding the Secretariat. Which is less than US$ 1 million/year. So in > that case, the idea of stakeholder quotas is not so crazy. The problem with the stakeholder quotas idea (or contributions or shares, if the word 'quota' is likely to drift us away from the main discussion issue) is that it turns - sooner or later - the IGF into a shareholders-owned body. With or without fixed or maximum shares, collected through micro-funding or giga-funding, this would institutionalize the IGF as a privatized governance body. This privatized governance may be tuned or balanced among different categories of shareholders, through imposed diversification of money sources, or indeed through quotas, this is only a scaling process, but the main principle remains the same. Obviously, the weight of lobbies cannot be ignored, even with the current IGF funding structure ("extra-budgetary contributions paid into a multi-donor Trust Fund administered by the United Nations", as we can read from IGF website). Yet, this remains "classical" lobbying, very different from institutionalized privatization. > E.g., if the > civil society portion of it is 20% it is not inconceivable that we > find > two or three foundations willing to pony up $100-200,000 per year, or > develop some other aggregation of civil society capacity to fundraise. > (Think of MoveOn.org) Again, the main issue is not really how much funding CS can collect. I simply expressed doubts on its capacity to contribute, on a stable basis, as a side issue. You suggest MoveOn.org as an example of campaign fundraising. There are many others, but this cannot apply to IGF. We're not talking here of a like-minded group of people and organizations (how broad it can be), with identified objectives and identified _common_ advocacy goals, we're rather dealing with a global governance body, which aim is to (ultimately) make or help making public policy, if only through putting (or not) these issues on the table. If this supposedly highly innovative and desirable model of public policy shareholders should be adopted by the IGF, why not extending it to other UN bodies and programmes, e.g. to UNEP (UN Environment Programme) or any other, instead of the current system of fundations, the UNFIP (UN Fund for International Partnerships)? BTW, UNFIP "supports and complements the work of the United Nations departments, offices, conferences and summits, and their follow-up mechanisms which are engaged in similar efforts, including: [...] The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)". >> Can't we learn from existing examples? e.g. ITU. > > It's good to bring up this example, but it's not close to what I > had in > mind, as the discussion above makes clear. In particular, I am not > talking about membership fees being a precondition of participation -- > which it is in the ITU. I brought this example because you added to your MS quotas funding suggestion this wise comment: "Maybe this requires some kind of "membership" in which participants get certified as belonging to some sector and once so recognized, assume some kind of honorary obligation to meet those quotas.", and indeed I agree that this funding system would require this. Maybe this wouldn't make it a sharp prerequisite for participation, as the IGF is not an agency like the ITU, but rather a yet loosely defined forum, but in practice and through this kind of institutionalization, this would eventually become a necessary condition. Even in its current form, participation to the IGF meetings requires registration, and registration approval is based on criteria. >> [and speaking of learning from existing examples, setting up >> something new outside of the UN system may well look like >> ICANN, even leaving aside the US DoC issue. Would anyone >> (except Veni:)) here argue that ICANN would be the example > > You can't compare ICANN to IGF because ICANN really does authoritative > governance [...]. IGF would do none of > those things. In exactly the same way and for the same reasons as we cannot compare ITU to IGF. The point is not to make comparisons, but to provide examples of risks to be avoided. How long do you think it would take to IGF doing actual governance, as soon as privatized governance is institutionalized through a shareholders funding system? > >> Why IGF financing would necessarily require huge amounts of >> money? > > It doesn't, who said it does? So, we agree on this, just like we agree that the point is funding a secretariat. Not grants for participation from less developed countries, not sponsorship of particular events, etc., which should remain funded through other means. And this leads us to the IGF structuring, as the issues are closely interrelated. If you don't mind, I'd repeat below the last part of my previous mail, which remained unanswered: === This is not a financing question only. This is closely related to the IGF institutional structure discussion ("bureau or not bureau"). All the proposals and ideas droped on this list started with a very complex structure trying to ensure representation of all stakeholders while denying this representation objectives, and ended by ensuring that this bureau/secretariat/whatever shouldn't of course have any decision-making powers. Why then should they obey a so thoroughly devised membership? Let's try to answer a very simple question: wouldn't it be possible to organize the whole IGF activities with a secretariat composed by X persons, who can be civil servants delegated by some governments in turn, plus some project officers from various concerned IGOs, also in turn, plus local logistics provided by the host country for each annual meeting (with sponsors of _this_ particular event if needed, from any economic sector: after all, such international events are good for e.g. the tourism sector, probably more than for the Internet sector, given their achievements...). These people skills should only be organizational, administrative. Substance (agenda setting, etc.) provided by contributions from anyone/any group/any institution interested. We only need some rules to organize all this and to guarantee that anyone/any group/any institution has equal/equitable access to resources. Working on such rules would be far more interesting that discussing ways of structuring and financing IGF. === To make my point clearer, why do we need a MAG or a bureau? Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jun 18 08:21:26 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:21:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC sponsored IGF workshops In-Reply-To: <20070618100119.976C2E1014@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070618100119.976C2E1014@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <467678C6.2020306@wzb.eu> > Another workshop for which there has been support from IGP is on the issue > "Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions". Its text as our > earlier statement was > > (begins) A call to "discuss public policy issues related to key elements of > Internet governance" is the first point in the IGF mandate in the Tunis > agenda. The Agenda deals at length with the question of new global public > policy issues regarding IG, the possibility of new frameworks and > structures, and the role of existing ones (e.g, paragraphs 61, 69). We > therefore believe that an IGF main session should explore the following > topics: > > a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to use global > institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between > "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy and the > "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet > governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy > concerns are closely linked to technical administration? > > b) What was intended by the Tunis Agenda's call for the "development of > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the > coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and how can this > goal be pursued? (ends) > > Milton, will you like to coordinate this one? I have talked with Ayesha Hassan about a workshop on public policy principles. I don't know if the business sector would co-sponsor it but there is certainly interest in being on the panel. jeanette > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jun 18 11:51:55 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:51:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: [Expression] Fwd: Re: [Privacy-coalition] IGF: workshop proposals? References: <466DBDC5.7050206@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20070615082221.2959C1BB4A2@mail.gn.apc.org> <46725250.5050709@linx.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D56A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> There was also a discussion to have a workshop on "Censorship as a Trade Barrier?". Probably this could be discussed in the below mentioned context. Or we could have a workshop with several parts. Regards Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: expression-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Christian Moeller Gesendet: Mo 18.06.2007 17:35 An: expression at ipjustice.org Betreff: [Expression] Fwd: Re: [Privacy-coalition] IGF: workshop proposals? Dear all, let me forward a mail Malcolm sent to the Privacy Coalition mailing list - apologies for cross posting. When it comes to workshops I like the idea to have a workshop on 'Freedom of expression as a security measure'. This is just to add another topic to the proposed ICANN-DNS theme. I am looking forward to your comments, best regards, Christian >>> Malcolm Hutty 15/06/2007 10:48 >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 karen banks wrote: > -The balance of privacy rights and freedom of expression with security > needs. Actually, Karen, I don't like the framing of this last bullet much: the "balance" word is too often a codeword for "why we need to give up individual rights in the name of collective security". I'd rather be promoting the idea of privacy-supporting security techniques (e.g. how the much maligned pre-paid debit cards enable online transactions without identify theft, why giving out our personal data unnecessarily puts it at risk of security breaches etc etc). As for freedom of expression, when we're told to "balance" security interests by censoring certain views, it needs to be said that this is exactly what leads to terrorism. This is not only because of the sense of grievance censorship creates or because of the (often spurious) legitimacy censorship appears to confer on the censored opinions, but also because censorship cuts off the option of legitimate democratic alternatives. In a more "e-crime" context, banning the distribution of tools that might help hackers (as the UK has done, and the whole of Europe is now considering) will only harm the legitimate security professionals who use and study them, not the criminals. So as a counter-suggestion (I think they're two different issues): - - Privacy as a security measure - - Freedom of expression as a security measure Malcolm. Speaking above for myself, not for my employer. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: GnuPT 2.6.2.1 by EQUIPMENTE.DE Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGclJQ8eI1VdeGp60RAgOuAKDf8ts3oRpz7JRgliULbfADx5qeTQCfRYld xNXhkuRPFMLF0dN3B7AmfWw= =DFbu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Privacy-coalition mailing list Privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/privacy-coalition _______________________________________________ You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s To be removed from this list send an email to Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and you will be removed. Or - click on this: mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe To change your options: %(user_optionsurl)s Expression mailing list Expression at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Jun 18 20:08:07 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:08:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46771E67.6020207@Malcolm.id.au> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Substance (agenda setting, etc.) > provided by contributions from anyone/any group/any institution > interested. We only need some rules to organize all this and to > guarantee that anyone/any group/any institution has equal/equitable > access to resources. Working on such rules would be far more interesting > that discussing ways of structuring and financing IGF. > === > > To make my point clearer, why do we need a MAG or a bureau? It's a fair question. Last year I advocated the use of a multi-stakeholder nominations committee that would be open to anyone/any group/any institution, and which would have the responsibility of appointing the Advisory Group. This would give the Advisory Group more legitimacy than it presently has and thereby allow its mandate to be expanded into other substantive areas that are currently wanting of institutionalisation. But the kinds of procedures that are required to enable such an open and diverse group to reach agreement are expensive, and come with no guarantee. Yes, we could create those procedures. But who are "we"? Certainly not civil society alone. Then, the open consultation meetings? Then we have a chicken-and-egg situation, because they are not structured in such a way as to facilitate grassroots decision-making either. -- 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 robin at ipjustice.org Mon Jun 18 21:28:04 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:28:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] request IG Caucus to join coalition / sign global petition to protect free expression at ICANN Message-ID: <46773124.2010003@ipjustice.org> Dear Internet Governance Caucus, I am writing to invite the WSIS Internet Governance Caucus to sign-on to a global petition to the ICANN Board to protect freedom of expression and innovation in domain name policy at ICANN. The petition is below. The "Keep the Core Neutral" campaign will officially launch on 27 June at the San Juan ICANN Board meeting. We would like to have an initial set of coalition members who have signed the petition upon launch on the 27th. There is more detailed info on this issue at: http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/internet-governance/icann/gtlds/ http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ Also, please keep an eye on the coalition webpage in the next week as we gather coalition members and initial signatures to the petition: http:www.keep-the-core-neutral.org Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions on this campaign or petition. Thank you very much! Robin ================== Global Petition to ICANN Board of Directors: “Keep the Core Neutral” Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without interference through any media, including cyberspace. As the new generic top-level domain name space emerges and policy choices are made about how ideas may be expressed at the Internet’s top-level, we ask ICANN to keep the core neutral of non-technical disputes and choose policies that respect freedom of expression and permit innovation in the new domain name space. Encouraging the free flow of information is a foundational principle of public policy decisions related to information and communication technology. Freedom of expression rights, which are fundamental in an Information Society, foster democratic participation, individual empowerment, and economic development. Cyberspace remains a unique and special place that bridges ancient divisions, where diverse communities interact readily, and all views are welcome. But only if these attributes are valued by policymakers who set Internet governance rules and incorporated into policies about how ideas may be expressed in domain names. We ask that ICANN stay within its technical mandate and refrain from embedding particular national, regional, moral, or religious policy objectives into global rules over the use of language in domain names. It would be dangerous “mission-creep” for ICANN to adjudicate between conflicting policy objectives and set global standards for expression that are enforced through ICANN’s technical function. Please do not allow ICANN to become a convenient lever of global control by those seeking to censor unpopular or controversial expression on the Internet. We urge ICANN to resist any attempt to limit what ideas may be expressed at any level of the Internet hierarchy. Please keep the Internet’s technical core neutral from national or other ideological conflicts, allowing freedom and innovation to flourish in cyberspace. Signed, [Individuals or groups may sign.] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 23:58:14 2007 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fw: 2nd AFRICAN CIVIL SOCEITY FORUM-WHICH WAY FORWARD-PETITION BY NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS Message-ID: <937309.62181.qm@web34310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Colleaques, Sorry for any cross posting. 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) National Coordinator-WSIS/ACSIS Nigerian Chapter Convener-Nigerian Stakeholders' Forum 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) +1-347-243-8242 FAX:+234-1-493-7203 Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.4t.com ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS To: RENATE BLOEM ; CONGO - Philippe Dam ; ADINA FULGARADI ; ACSF NIGERIA ; ACSF NIGERIA ACSF ; AFRICA WSIS ; CONGO NGO ; wsis bureau ; Governance cpsr ; olarenwaju banjo ; FEMI ABORISADE ; CLS CLS ; DR YAHYA OYEWOLE ; RUTH AGWAI ; IDEMUDIA MARTIN ; Martins Aghedosa Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:31:07 PM Subject: 2nd AFRICAN CIVIL SOCEITY FORUM-WHICH WAY FORWARD-PETITION BY NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS Dr. Renate Bloem President, Conference of NGOS in Consultative Status with the UN (CONGO )Geneva Dear Madam, Please find attached to this mail, a formal protest letter by Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative against the bad blood the issue of organizing the Second African Civil Society Forum is drawing. We believe that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands, and we strongly rely on your leadership and all other members of CONGO Board to steer the ship of CONGO to an enviable standard befitting an organization as CONGO We shall be at CONGO Board Meeting coming up next August to defend every statement contained in our Protest Letter. It shall be appreciated if the Secretariat shall forward this Protest Letter to every member of CONGO and the Board. Remain yours fraternally, Pastor Peters OMORAGBON 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____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Page 1.jpg Type: image/pjpeg Size: 358239 bytes Desc: 854405456-Page 1.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Page 2-6.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 bytes Desc: 1856636496-Page 2-6.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Page 7.jpg Type: image/pjpeg Size: 233025 bytes Desc: 3582577155-Page 7.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPENDIX 1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23040 bytes Desc: 697826567-APPENDIX 1.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPENDIX 2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: 1937593427-APPENDIX 2.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPENDIX 3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 20480 bytes Desc: 2599268542-APPENDIX 3.doc URL: From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 23:31:07 2007 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] 2nd AFRICAN CIVIL SOCEITY FORUM-WHICH WAY FORWARD-PETITION BY NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS Message-ID: <575149.62642.qm@web34312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dr. Renate Bloem President, Conference of NGOS in Consultative Status with the UN (CONGO )Geneva Dear Madam, Please find attached to this mail, a formal protest letter by Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative against the bad blood the issue of organizing the Second African Civil Society Forum is drawing. We believe that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands, and we strongly rely on your leadership and all other members of CONGO Board to steer the ship of CONGO to an enviable standard befitting an organization as CONGO We shall be at CONGO Board Meeting coming up next August to defend every statement contained in our Protest Letter. It shall be appreciated if the Secretariat shall forward this Protest Letter to every member of CONGO and the Board. Remain yours fraternally, Pastor Peters OMORAGBON 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Page 1.jpg Type: image/pjpeg Size: 358239 bytes Desc: 854405456-Page 1.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Page 2-6.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 bytes Desc: 1856636496-Page 2-6.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Page 7.jpg Type: image/pjpeg Size: 233025 bytes Desc: 3582577155-Page 7.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPENDIX 1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23040 bytes Desc: 697826567-APPENDIX 1.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPENDIX 2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: 1937593427-APPENDIX 2.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPENDIX 3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 20480 bytes Desc: 2599268542-APPENDIX 3.doc URL: From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Jun 19 11:38:55 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:38:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Financing (and structuring) In-Reply-To: <46771E67.6020207@Malcolm.id.au> References: <46771E67.6020207@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <40A5326D-BFF9-41C0-BDC6-8C372756DF4F@ras.eu.org> Le 19 juin 07 à 02:08, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Substance (agenda setting, etc.) provided by contributions from >> anyone/any group/any institution interested. We only need some >> rules to organize all this and to guarantee that anyone/any group/ >> any institution has equal