From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 15 10:39:51 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:09:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: <20070415142838.70CC84EDBB@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20070415143940.254F8C97B6@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Trying to build a "new beast" like ICANN is, in my opinion, the only > > possible forward-looking solution that should be tried. > > I strongly agree. > > Greetings, > Norbert. I have no doubt ICANN will have an important role in any future IG dispensation. However, it is important to develop appropriate public policy principles and processes to interface with ICANN so that it can deal with its technical-public policy dilemma better, and in a more legitimate manner. 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu May 31 17:15:22 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:15:22 -0700 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: <465F3AEA.1000203@cavebear.com> I feel that I need to follow up to my own posting my mentioning certain things: - Individual people tend to be more effective if they create or join an aggregate. I know that I have reduced the strength of my own voice by trying to remain an independent actor in these matters. And I believe such aggregates, such as those under the "civil society" umbrella do a very fine job articulating and advocating the interests of many, perhaps most, users of the net. And sometimes governments or their agencies also reasonably represent their citizens (but more than often governments are instead articulating, often repeating, commercial concerns.) - I don't deprecate commercial concerns, indeed my own personal wealth, such as it is, is based largely on commercial things and intellectual property. But those are really just repackaging of the personal interests of those natural people who run (and sometimes own) those commercial enterprises. - My advocacy of "the individual" is to permit an "escape valve" so that there is a means, perhaps only a thin one, to counter what I fear will be excessive concentrations of virtually plenary authority, such as ICANN has become, in bodies of internet governance. - Milton and others are right in saying that we can not solve all the problems at once, nor can we be all inclusive at once. Milton didn't say it in so may words, but he is expressing the wisdom that "the perfect is the enemy of the good". - And finally, I know, perhaps better than most, how expensive it is to act as a lone individual in these matters. I really doubt that more than a few of us will ever be out there to the degree that we have. But just as a hurricane is formed by the coalescing of water vapor around tiny, individual grains of dust or sea salt, it strikes me as exceedingly important to never lose sight of the fact that at the bottom of everything are real people living real lives. (Wow, I hope that that badly mixed metaphor didn't run off of a cliff.) --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 wcurrie at apc.org Thu May 31 18:50:53 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:50:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <465F3AEA.1000203@cavebear.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> <465F3AEA.1000203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <920267600-1180651935-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-857459286-@bwe053-cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> 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 oversight models that gave no role to the ITU in the management of critical internet resources. So far so good. A key recommendation of the Tunis Agenda was to establish an IGF in response to a WGIG proposal for a space for policy dialogue on IG. Functions are attached to the IGF in TA paragraph 72 that go beyond simple dialogue. Bearing in mind the abrasive debates in WSIS on oversight and the 'perfidy' of the EU in proposing a different model of oversight to the hegemonic model of the US, the private sector and the internet technical community which led to the watered down inclusion of 'enhanced cooperation' in the TA, the hegemonic bloc had a bit of a shock and acted to neutralise the MAG and by extension the IGF by getting powerful US, private sector and internet community representatives selected to the MAG. Civil society did not put up a sufficiently diversified and experienced group of nominees and lost out in the cut. This led to the first IGF meeting in Athens being conducted solely as a policy dialogue without reference to the specific provisions of paragraph 72. So IGF Athens was given a free pass and that was a good thing in terms of establishing the IGF on a stable footing. But come IGF 2 in Rio, developing country governments bring the issue of critical internet resources back with a vengeance. The IGC, hot from its fierce reaction to ICANN's .xxx decision also proposes internet critical resources as a theme for debate. This all collides at the IGF open 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 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 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 strategy are completely missing here and the proxy war with the US continues, a pointless waste of time compared to what could be focused on if developing countries took a more strategic approach to paragraph 72 and picked up other provisions that go beyond policy dialogue to action for example 72e on access where a balance between market and non-market approaches to access could be created in dialogue. So we watch Brazil and Russia make an argumnt for outcomes or a declaration, China make a demand for a framework to emerge from IGF Rio at the second day of what were supposed to be a closed MAG consultation, were it not for the inexplicable failure by the UN SG to reappoint the MAG. The obvious rejoinder is just how can the IGF produce outcomes .of any sort other than debate. Brazil has no answer to this. 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: 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'? 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. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:15:22 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc:Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) I feel that I need to follow up to my own posting my mentioning certain things: - Individual people tend to be more effective if they create or join an aggregate. I know that I have reduced the strength of my own voice by trying to remain an independent actor in these matters. And I believe such aggregates, such as those under the "civil society" umbrella do a very fine job articulating and advocating the interests of many, perhaps most, users of the net. And sometimes governments or their agencies also reasonably represent their citizens (but more than often governments are instead articulating, often repeating, commercial concerns.) - I don't deprecate commercial concerns, indeed my own personal wealth, such as it is, is based largely on commercial things and intellectual property. But those are really just repackaging of the personal interests of those natural people who run (and sometimes own) those commercial enterprises. - My advocacy of "the individual" is to permit an "escape valve" so that there is a means, perhaps only a thin one, to counter what I fear will be excessive concentrations of virtually plenary authority, such as ICANN has become, in bodies of internet governance. - Milton and others are right in saying that we can not solve all the problems at once, nor can we be all inclusive at once. Milton didn't say it in so may words, but he is expressing the wisdom that "the perfect is the enemy of the good". - And finally, I know, perhaps better than most, how expensive it is to act as a lone individual in these matters. I really doubt that more than a few of us will ever be out there to the degree that we have. But just as a hurricane is formed by the coalescing of water vapor around tiny, individual grains of dust or sea salt, it strikes me as exceedingly important to never lose sight of the fact that at the bottom of everything are real people living real lives. (Wow, I hope that that badly mixed metaphor didn't run off of a cliff.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu May 31 21:32:56 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:32:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <465F7748.1090700@Malcolm.id.au> 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. > * 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." In fact the Tunis Agenda is very confused on this, sometimes speaking of "international organizations", sometimes of "intergovernmental organisations", and sometimes even speaking of one when it is obviously intending to refer to the other or both. On balance, the most consistent interpretation is that the Tunis Agenda identifies intergovernmental organisations as a fourth stakeholder, and excludes the Internet technical community as a separate stakeholder. I agree with Milton that there are problems with this, particularly with treating governments and intergovernmental organisations separately, however we are asking for trouble if we are to argue against the words of the Tunis Agenda. > 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). Yes, and this is also really the only basis upon which I can justify to myself the separate involvement of intergovernmental organisations; ie. you can't really do international public policy governance without them. > 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; Not really. As long as all material interests are represented within the structure, there is no reason why it cannot make non-binding decisions thorough a consensual process. This is the fallacy of Nitin's for which I have the least patience. > 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. The roles are distinct, yes, but not exclusive. The WGIG report refers to them as "policy-setting" and "coordination". Given that "policy-setting" sounds a bit scary, but you can use any less threatening synonym that you prefer, such as policy-shaping. The distinction between the two is never black and white anyway. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue May 1 02:07:12 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:07:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <46368044.9000906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hi, The focus is once again on issues rather than institutions, challenges and priorities generally rather than actual IG mechanisms and practices specifically. So, for example, the session on Access reads like an Enabling Environment discussion of the need for flexible, pro-innovation national policies to tackle digital divides, rather than of internationally applicable shared rule systems, or the lack thereof in some dimensions, that impact access. The same goes for the other themes. International frameworks (public and private sector) may get mentioned as part of a broader mix, but there will not be a focused debate on what are the applicable IG mechanisms, how well do they work, how might they be improved, how do they hang together and what sort of ordering do they create collectively, etc. Which is not to say that the proposed topics are not interesting and important, or that we won't all have a good time in Rio. It's just not about IG as defined and debated in WSIS, or the IGF mandate as proposed by WGIG and evolved in Tunis. I don't recall for sure but think it was Vint Cerf who suggested that we ought to change the name of the IGF to Internet Facilitation Forum or some such thing. I remember thinking at the time, here's yet another effort to take governance off the table. But now I'm warming to the idea, since it generally makes sense to have some correspondence between categories and meaning. Why say you're doing x when you're really doing y? If x is just too 'controversial' and 'sensitive' for the parties to agree to even discuss in a public setting, pretending otherwise just dilutes the conception of x confuses things in a way that impedes coherent discussion elsewhere. It feels like we're moving back to the status quo ante-WSIS. Anyway, this would seem to have two practical consequences. First, given the way that the program is specified in the 6th section on Content, I don't see how any of the themes we've discussed proposing could be accommodated in the main sessions. All four themes are probably too orthogonal no matter how we wordsmith their descriptions. So the choices would seem to be a) abandon the effort, b) adapt the proposal to reality, or c) frame it in a sort of "we would have liked to have had plenary discussions on the following but see this won't be happening' sort of manner, which I imagine some would say is too negative etc. Moreover, given the diversity of views now reflected in the caucus, I suspect that to approve language we'd have to use the voting mechanism. Since the consultation's in just a couple of weeks and these things would take time, I would suggest that there's no more room for languid discussion involving only a handful of people, and that our co-chairs would need to take the temperature and actively drive the process, now, if it seems that there's sufficient interest to try something. 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. Cheers, Bill On 5/1/07 1:48 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > For those who haven't seen them, the IGF Secretariat has just released a > draft programme outline and schedule for the Rio meeting which are > linked from its Web site at http://www.intgovforum.org. > > As we might have expected, they do not provide any plenary sessions for > the discussion of the IGF's role, Internet resource management, or > future Internet governance arrangements. And rather than reducing the > overlap between sessions, there is now more overlap; with between six > and seven concurrent streams. These include a new session for meetings > of dynamic coalitions, and a new "open forum/best practices forum". > > I don't think that I have said so yet, but I am happy with Parminder's > suggestions for input into the May consultations, as amended in the > light of others' comments, and would hope that consensus can be reached > on it before 17 May so that it can be reflected in the synthesis paper > rather than only being presented verbally. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Tue May 1 02:19:13 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:19:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF Rio: Draft program and meeting schedule now available - 23 May Open Consultation Message-ID: <4636DBE1.2020800@ipjustice.org> A new draft program and meeting schedule for the Rio IGF meeting are now available on the IGF website. See the details below and please provide feedback on the draft documents to the IGF. And remember to register for the Open Consultation on 23 May at the UN in Geneva and make your written contribution by 17 May. Thank you, Robin -------- *Preparing for the Second Meeting of the IGF * [NEW] A draft programme outline and meeting schedule for the Rio de Janeiro Meeting are available for comment. The documents aim to provide an input into the open round of consultations on 23 May 2007 to discuss programme and agenda for the second meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro. The programme outline will be revised in light of comments received. Comments submitted to the IGF Secretariat ( igf at unog.ch ) or posted in our online discussion section by 17 May 2007 will be reflected in a revised version. Open Consultations The second round of consultations will be part of a cluster of WSIS related events which will take place in Geneva from 15-25 May, 2007. All entities involved agreed to pool resources to smooth the logistics and the ITU offered to take care of registration. All stakeholders interested in attending are invited to register online now. The meeting will be held at the ITU Tower, Room C. There will be interpretation into all six UN languages and real-time transcription. *Contributions:* Stakeholders are invited to send in contributions, as an input into these consultations to : igf at unog.ch or post their comments in our online discussion section . Contributions and discussion posts received by 14 May, 2007 will be reflected in a synthesis paper summarizing the input received. The paper will be made available on this Web site prior to the consultations. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue May 1 03:01:08 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:01:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4636E5B4.2060705@Malcolm.id.au> William Drake wrote: > Anyway, this would seem to have two practical consequences. First, given > the way that the program is specified in the 6th section on Content, I don't > see how any of the themes we've discussed proposing could be accommodated in > the main sessions. All four themes are probably too orthogonal no matter > how we wordsmith their descriptions. So the choices would seem to be a) > abandon the effort, b) adapt the proposal to reality, or c) frame it in a > sort of "we would have liked to have had plenary discussions on the > following but see this won't be happening' sort of manner, which I imagine > some would say is too negative etc. Not at all, in my view. There is no reason why we should regard the draft programme as particularly authoritative. From what Adam has said, I doubt the acting Advisory Group spent much time on it. It is more likely something that Marcus and Nitin drew up. If we disagree with it, let's say so. Indeed, the draft programme outline itself makes it clear that it "is conceived a rolling document", to be amended in light of comments submitted by 17 May and made at the consultations the following week. So I don't see why we need to adapt our proposal to reality. Rather, let's endeavour to adapt reality to our proposal. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue May 1 03:22:48 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:22:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeremy, Bill: thanks for spotting the draft programme outline and schedule were online -- I had an old page stuck in cache and didn't see them. Draft program description Draft schedule Most important to note these words describing these two drafts: "The documents aim to provide an input into the open round of consultations on 23 May 2007 to discuss programme and agenda for the second meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro. The programme outline will be revised in light of comments received. Comments submitted to the IGF Secretariat (igf at unog.ch) or posted in our online discussion section by 17 May 2007 will be reflected in a revised version." It will be revised. Had we got comments in earlier, perhaps we'd have less to complain about now. A couple of points. 1. Does the caucus wish to see "Internet resource management" as a theme for a main session? Unless someone can suggest why such issues are not appropriate as core elements of the IGF agenda, I suggest the caucus sends email as soon is reasonable to the IGF Secretariat saying something to the effect that "core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session". Just send the email now. It does not need to be embellished if there is general agreement that such discussion is essential. Other recommendations can be made later. Don't make it complicated, if we agree these issues need to be on the agenda, send email within a few days saying so. Don't waste months as we did trying to get a simple questions out about enhanced cooperation. 2. Bill don't give up on what are good ideas. In February, the caucus wrote: "For example, Comments F and I required the IGF to discuss the good principles of Internet governance as agreed in Tunis and how to fully implement them inside all existing governance processes, including how to facilitate participation by disadvantaged stakeholders such as developing countries, civil society, and individual users." Para 72 remains the mandate of the the IGF. Seems agreement of a simple statement about these issues should not be hard to produce. Simple language. Might slightly harder to draft than a comment on the need for discussion about "core resources" but not hard. Once a recommendation is agreed, let's send it. We're wasting time. Perhaps request they be part of emerging issues (30 minutes, with associated sub-theme workshops?) Don't limit comments for workshops to the 4 main themes (that's a good suggestion: we propose sub-theme workshops for each main theme), what should be discussed in emerging issues? And a "Topical Issue" in Internet Governance, what might that be? There are a bunch of them here (see also the email Brenden sent to the list earlier, item 8 in the newsletter), but if we don't propose them we'll probably see it develop as a session discussing more access related issues. Thanks, Adam At 8:07 AM +0200 5/1/07, William Drake wrote: >Hi, > >The focus is once again on issues rather than institutions, challenges and >priorities generally rather than actual IG mechanisms and practices >specifically. So, for example, the session on Access reads like an Enabling >Environment discussion of the need for flexible, pro-innovation national >policies to tackle digital divides, rather than of internationally >applicable shared rule systems, or the lack thereof in some dimensions, that >impact access. The same goes for the other themes. International >frameworks (public and private sector) may get mentioned as part of a >broader mix, but there will not be a focused debate on what are the >applicable IG mechanisms, how well do they work, how might they be improved, >how do they hang together and what sort of ordering do they create >collectively, etc. Which is not to say that the proposed topics are not >interesting and important, or that we won't all have a good time in Rio. >It's just not about IG as defined and debated in WSIS, or the IGF mandate as >proposed by WGIG and evolved in Tunis. > >I don't recall for sure but think it was Vint Cerf who suggested that we >ought to change the name of the IGF to Internet Facilitation Forum or some >such thing. I remember thinking at the time, here's yet another effort to >take governance off the table. But now I'm warming to the idea, since it >generally makes sense to have some correspondence between categories and >meaning. Why say you're doing x when you're really doing y? If x is just >too 'controversial' and 'sensitive' for the parties to agree to even discuss >in a public setting, pretending otherwise just dilutes the conception of x >confuses things in a way that impedes coherent discussion elsewhere. It >feels like we're moving back to the status quo ante-WSIS. > >Anyway, this would seem to have two practical consequences. First, given >the way that the program is specified in the 6th section on Content, I don't >see how any of the themes we've discussed proposing could be accommodated in >the main sessions. All four themes are probably too orthogonal no matter >how we wordsmith their descriptions. So the choices would seem to be a) >abandon the effort, b) adapt the proposal to reality, or c) frame it in a >sort of "we would have liked to have had plenary discussions on the >following but see this won't be happening' sort of manner, which I imagine >some would say is too negative etc. Moreover, given the diversity of views >now reflected in the caucus, I suspect that to approve language we'd have to >use the voting mechanism. Since the consultation's in just a couple of >weeks and these things would take time, I would suggest that there's no more >room for languid discussion involving only a handful of people, and that our >co-chairs would need to take the temperature and actively drive the process, >now, if it seems that there's sufficient interest to try something. > >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. > >Cheers, > >Bill > >On 5/1/07 1:48 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > >> For those who haven't seen them, the IGF Secretariat has just released a >> draft programme outline and schedule for the Rio meeting which are >> linked from its Web site at http://www.intgovforum.org. >> >> As we might have expected, they do not provide any plenary sessions for >> the discussion of the IGF's role, Internet resource management, or >> future Internet governance arrangements. And rather than reducing the >> overlap between sessions, there is now more overlap; with between six >> and seven concurrent streams. These include a new session for meetings >> of dynamic coalitions, and a new "open forum/best practices forum". >> >> I don't think that I have said so yet, but I am happy with Parminder's >> suggestions for input into the May consultations, as amended in the >> light of others' comments, and would hope that consensus can be reached >> on it before 17 May so that it can be reflected in the synthesis paper >> rather than only being presented verbally. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue May 1 03:41:55 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:41:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 5/1/07 9:22 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > It will be revised. Had we got comments in earlier, perhaps we'd > have less to complain about now. Was observing, not complaining. As I said, y is interesting and important, it's just not x. > Unless someone can suggest why such issues are not appropriate as > core elements of the IGF agenda, I suggest the caucus sends email as > soon is reasonable to the IGF Secretariat saying something to the > effect that "core Internet resources should be discussed as a main > session". Just send the email now. It does not need to be > embellished if there is general agreement that such discussion is > essential. Other recommendations can be made later. Don't make it > complicated, if we agree these issues need to be on the agenda, send > email within a few days saying so. We already have texts on three of the four themes, and while I find the bit on global public policies a bit hard to get my mind around as stated, I could roll with it. So if someone would draft three sentences for #2 on ICANN, we'd be done. But we can't "just send the email now" without giving people at least a specific time window to respond or we could have post hoc "wait I didn't agree to that" battles. > 2. Bill don't give up on what are good ideas. In February, the caucus wrote: Not giving up, just being a member of the reality-based community. As I said, if people agree let's propose the themes, but we might also consider proposing workshops if we want in-depth discussion of the four. Even in the most optimistic scenario, it seems unlikely they will each be treated extensively in plenary, given the other preferences on mAG and probably elsewhere with which they'd have to be blended. 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 Tue May 1 03:49:08 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:49:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <4636E5B4.2060705@Malcolm.id.au> References: <4636E5B4.2060705@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: >William Drake wrote: >>Anyway, this would seem to have two practical consequences. First, given >>the way that the program is specified in the 6th section on Content, I don't >>see how any of the themes we've discussed proposing could be accommodated in >>the main sessions. All four themes are probably too orthogonal no matter >>how we wordsmith their descriptions. So the choices would seem to be a) >>abandon the effort, b) adapt the proposal to reality, or c) frame it in a >>sort of "we would have liked to have had plenary discussions on the >>following but see this won't be happening' sort of manner, which I imagine >>some would say is too negative etc. > >Not at all, in my view. There is no reason why we should regard the >draft programme as particularly authoritative. From what Adam has >said, I doubt the acting Advisory Group spent much time on it. It >is more likely something that Marcus and Nitin drew up. If we >disagree with it, let's say so. Indeed, the draft programme outline >itself makes it clear that it "is conceived a rolling document", to >be amended in light of comments submitted by 17 May and made at the >consultations the following week. So I don't see why we need to >adapt our proposal to reality. Rather, let's endeavour to adapt >reality to our proposal. Yes. And there is no need to spend all our time up to May 17 trying to agree on a single comprehensive comment. If there is something the caucus agrees on write it up and send it. For example, why is discussion of "core resources" missing from the main agenda (again). To get such a comment in quickly might encourage others to say the same. Adam >-- >Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue May 1 04:37:42 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 01:37:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4636FC56.9010309@cavebear.com> William Drake wrote: > ... Which is not to say that the proposed topics are not > interesting and important, or that we won't all have a good time in Rio. My initial reaction was somewhat parallel to yours. Let me, by way of indirection say that I live in a town in which political correctness is a way of life - people here don't own "pets", rather animals have "guardians", etc. So I'm pretty familiar with euphemisms that lead to nothing but discussions that endlessly and repeatedly swirl along, going nowhere, like a Faulkner story about being adrift in a Mississippi flood. Now, I have spent the last two weeks dealing with the hard technical reality of making an enterprise-size multivendor VOIP system work - or rather making it work and then clobbering it to explore, for a constructive purpose, how to make it not work. (A few photos of the test rig are up at http://www.cavebear.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=122 ) One thing that becomes immediately apparent when dealing with the internet at that level is that technology and reality are not waiting around waiting for governance. Expediency is the order of the day. Choices are being made in a vacuum of policy, and those choices rapidly ossify into economic irreversibility. Has anyone here, for instance, been noticing how ARIN is making (with very public and reasoned deliberation) some pretty serious choices about IP address allocations? We *do* need effective institutions of internet governance. There are real jobs to be done. The risk is that if left undone someone (human) or something (mother nature) will cause real internet outages or failures of adequate service. And avarice of simple - and I include in this the inability of countries that have invested in net infrastructures to adequately utilize those infrastructures because governance has been lacking. (See for example my proposal a while back about governance to help assure adequate end-to-end path quality to sustain certain applications, especially VOIP.) All in all what this says to me is this - the existing vacuum of governance is real and unless things get concrete really fast that vacuum will be filled by the those who move the fastest with the mostest - which means well financed US, European, and certain Asian industrial interests. It may be the traditional language of diplomatic discourse, but my sense is that the euphemisms and indirections, and delays to engage on the real issues of internet governance is going to lead to an future internet that is so laden with toll gates and cull-outs for incumbent industrial segments (such as the intellectual property protection industry) that it will make the old telco's green with envy. I had hope for an program that was more concrete and firmly addresses the following matters: A) The jobs to be done B) The principles to be applied to those jobs C) the concrete engines to perform those jobs --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 1 05:47:21 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 11:47:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <4636FC56.9010309@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Tue, 01 May 2007 01:37:42 -0700) References: <4636FC56.9010309@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070501094721.4E6BA56703@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > All in all what this says to me is this - the existing vacuum of > governance is real and unless things get concrete really fast that > vacuum will be filled by the those who move the fastest with the mostest > - which means well financed US, European, and certain Asian industrial > interests. > > It may be the traditional language of diplomatic discourse, but my sense > is that the euphemisms and indirections, and delays to engage on the > real issues of internet governance is going to lead to an future > internet that is so laden with toll gates and cull-outs for incumbent > industrial segments (such as the intellectual property protection > industry) that it will make the old telco's green with envy. I agree wholeheartedly. > I had hope for an program that was more concrete and firmly addresses > the following matters: > > A) The jobs to be done > > B) The principles to be applied to those jobs > > C) the concrete engines to perform those jobs While I can't claim to ever have been so optimistic to expect the IGF to adopt that kind of concrete goal-oriented work-programme, I strongly agree with you that that is what is needed. I think it is very obvious by now that unless strong pressure is applied to the IGF process, that kind of work-programme certainly isn't going to happen within the IGF process. I would suggest that the only way in which it is feasible to apply such pressure is to start working on creating a competing process focused on the three-point work-programme which Karl outlined. This process should be designed so that it defers to the IGF process and other existing internet governance processes to the extent that those processes do what needs to be done, BUT will compete in all areas where those processes fail to do what needs to be done. 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Tue May 1 08:55:47 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:55:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS accredited NGOs and ECOSOC Consultative Status: update Message-ID: <200705011255.l41Ct6Rk023446@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, As previously circulated on this list, the UN Economic and Social Council in its resolution 2006/46 and in its recent decision on the follow up to WSIS provided that WSIS accredited civil society entities will be allowed to participate in the two next sessions of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (May 2007 and May 2008). Let me remind that this is a transitional arrangement only, based on the idea that civil society entities will have to individually apply for the ECOSOC Consultative Status to continue to participate in the CSTD sessions from 2009 onward. The ECOSOC resolution also specified that applications for Consultative Status by WSIS accredited entities should be considered as expeditiously as possible. As you might know, the application process for ECOSOC Consultative Status is processed by the NGO Section of UN DESA. It is therefore time to start considering the application process for the ECOSOC consultative status for your respective WSIS accredited CS entities. Indeed, complete application must be received by the UN Secretariat (DESA NGO Section) before June 1st 2007 in order to be considered by the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs at its 2008 Session. The application of an NGO for the ECOSOC consultative status is a two step process: - First, an official letter of intent must be sent to the UN DESA NGO Section; - Then, the application questionnaire and all supporting documents must be submitted to the UN DESA NGO Section. You can find some further details in the attached informal document prepared by CONGO, for your information (in English et en Français). Comprehensive and official information on the application for the ECOSOC Consultation Status can be found on the following United Nations websites: UN DESA NGO Section website: http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/ UN Office in Geneva NGO Liaison Office: www.unog.ch/ngo. More details on how to obtain Consultative Status: http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/howtoapply.htm For your information as well, the full list of NGOs accredited to WSIS is still available here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/accreditation/lists/civil-society.pdf. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Background on ECOSOC Status for WSIS accredited entities.doc Type: application/msword Size: 58880 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Tue May 1 14:43:43 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:43:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released Message-ID: >>> Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au 5/1/2007 3:01 AM >>> >So I don't see why we need to adapt our proposal to reality. >Rather, let's endeavour to adapt reality to our proposal. I agree. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From riazt at iafrica.com Tue May 1 15:00:45 2007 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:00:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: <4636FC56.9010309@cavebear.com> References: <4636FC56.9010309@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46378E5D.6070501@iafrica.com> http://panos.blogs.com/iwitnesses/2007/04/index.html April 2007 25 April 2007 US ‘bans’ access to Google Earth in Sudan Only days after Google joined up with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to map the conflict in Darfur, the US Treasury has apparently banned access to images from Google Earth in Sudan as part of its ongoing export controls and economic sanctions against the country. The Treasury states that “except for information or informational materials and donated articles intended to relieve human suffering, such as food, clothing and medicine, and the licensed export of agricultural commodities… no goods, technology, or services may be exported from the United States to Sudan”. The US Bureau of Industry prohibits the export of software to Sudan, unless it is pre-loaded onto a ‘commodity’ such as a mobile phone or computer. As Google Earth is hosted in the United States, downloading the software in Sudan is also subject to these restrictions. However, Stefan Geens of the Ogle Earth blog notes that the internet has the tools to circumvent this ban – for example, through proxy servers and peer-to-peer networks. Perhaps more importantly, Stefan raises a pertinent question: where does ‘information’ end and ‘software’ begin? Technorati Tags: darfur, google, google earth, sudan, united states ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 1 15:10:19 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:10:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released Message-ID: >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 5/1/2007 3:22 AM >>> >I suggest the caucus sends email as soon is reasonable to the >IGF Secretariat saying something to the effect that "core >Internet resources should be discussed as a main >session". Just send the email now. Agree with Adam that we need to act. It seems that one obstacle was the precise wording of the first two parts of Parminder's four-part proposal. Here is some polished wording: (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy 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 Plenary 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of individual users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue May 1 15:34:12 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:34:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46379634.2000301@cavebear.com> Milton Mueller wrote: > (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the > IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in > the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and > number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet > Registries. I'd insert the word "some" after "Currently, ". Part of the IANA function is performed by ICANN under a contract from the US Gov't. That says to me that ICANN in that regard is merely a subordinate operational contractor acting behalf of a principal. A prudent regard for reality suggests that we should recognize the principal not the subordinate. Moreover, some of the IANA function derives from the IETF, a body that has recently organized its own support mechanisms and has made noises of displeasure with the status quo. Again, we should recognize the IETF as the primary in that aspect of protocol numbers assignment rather than the nearly-clerical and clearly subordinate secondary. In addition, the IEEE, W3C, and even the ITU are also major, and perhaps actually the dominant in certain regards, sources of internet protocol numbers. Many folks are simply avoiding number assignment altogether and simply self-assigning protocol numbers. There is also the fact that on the internet, not every "core" number resource needs to be centrally administered. For example, in the case of IP multicast address use occasional collisions are anticipated as part of the normal nature of things. And, of course, we have the ongoing, but technically incorrect, belief that domain name consistency on the net requires exactly one DNS root. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue May 1 16:41:14 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:41:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <095D4EC4-AD7A-4A13-8C1D-C754B082EC0D@psg.com> hi, i would argue that there isn't actually a reality yet, only potentials. so yes, now seems like the time to get the IGC's recommendations for a program into the mix so they can be taken into account when the synopsis is created by the secretariat. a. On 1 maj 2007, at 14.43, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >>>> Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au 5/1/2007 3:01 AM >>> >> So I don't see why we need to adapt our proposal to reality. >> Rather, let's endeavour to adapt reality to our proposal. > > I agree. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Tue May 1 16:48:49 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:48:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> I hope we can try to be more constructive, and decide first what COULD be discussed, and not use try to define what the IGF SHOULD do, and stressing that several times (see below quotes)? Also, would be good to constantly read the Tunis agenda. As someone who has been part of this whole process, I see some dangerous side paths, that one could take, and there certainly are mechanisms to prevent that from happening, including in the Tunis agenda. As for the idea that the IGF can decide what's the intention of the WSIS in the quoted call, that also goes beyond the mandate of the IGF. I think the Tunis agenda is pretty clear - in all of its points, and one of the major rules, is that article 72, for example, should be read fully, not sentence by sentence, and not half sentences only. Here's a simple example: 72 point a says: 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 it's very tempting to say that it actually says, "Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance", however this will not be true. And as for the "critical Internet resources", the quote is actually as follows: 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. 70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles. Taking any of these sentences, on their own, change the meaning of the TA. best, Veni At 15:10 5/1/2007 -0400, you wrote: >We therefore believe that an IGF Plenary session should [here and >further all bold font is mine - Veni] explore the >following topics: >[cut] > >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? > > >[cut] Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the >IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in >the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and >number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet >Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy >making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status >as an international organization, its representation of individual >users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be >discussed. -------------- 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 Tue May 1 17:12:44 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:12:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4637AD4C.4090609@wz-berlin.de> Yes, I agree with Adam, Avri and Milton. It is important that the caucus comes up with clear and strong statement that refers to the Tunis Agenda. jeanette Milton Mueller wrote: >>>>ajp at glocom.ac.jp 5/1/2007 3:22 AM >>> >> >>I suggest the caucus sends email as soon is reasonable to the >>IGF Secretariat saying something to the effect that "core >>Internet resources should be discussed as a main >>session". Just send the email now. > > > Agree with Adam that we need to act. It seems that one obstacle was the > precise wording of the first two parts of Parminder's four-part > proposal. > > Here is some polished wording: > > (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy > > 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 Plenary 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 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? > > > (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the > IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in > the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and > number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet > Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy > making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status > as an international organization, its representation of individual > users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be > discussed. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue May 1 17:49:34 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:49:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4637B5EE.4040600@rits.org.br> Veni Markovski wrote: > I hope we can try to be more constructive, and decide first what COULD > be discussed, and not use try to define what the IGF SHOULD do, and > stressing that several times (see below quotes)? Interesting point of view... who determines the "could"? Is this a multistakeholder environment or a bunch of order followers?? > ...article 72, for example, should be read > fully, not sentence by sentence, and not half sentences only. Here's a > simple example: > > 72 point a says: 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 and point "j" says: j. Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; Read it in full, as per your own recommendation, Veni. --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue May 1 17:42:19 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:42:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4637B43B.3090006@rits.org.br> I guess the caucus is catching up (or waking up?). I am sorry I am unable to participate more, given tasks here. Looks good, Milton! The IGF must be a product of the ensemble of stakeholders, not just a de facto ritual and formal routine to which we just keep wanting to add our wishes -- which remain so. We need to make a strong point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from the main debates -- especially now that even an internal high-level committee is telling ICANN it should seriously consider internationalization. Can we afford (a matter of accountability to our peers) to agree on leaving this out of the main debate again? --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 5/1/2007 3:22 AM >>> >> I suggest the caucus sends email as soon is reasonable to the >> IGF Secretariat saying something to the effect that "core >> Internet resources should be discussed as a main >> session". Just send the email now. > > Agree with Adam that we need to act. It seems that one obstacle was the > precise wording of the first two parts of Parminder's four-part > proposal. > > Here is some polished wording: > > (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy > > 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 Plenary 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 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? > > > (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the > IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in > the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and > number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet > Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy > making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status > as an international organization, its representation of individual > users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be > discussed. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 veni at veni.com Tue May 1 18:24:06 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:24:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released Message-ID: <20070501222411.6DE6A3378CB@mxr.isoc.bg> At 18:49 5/1/2007 -0300, you wrote: >Veni Markovski wrote: >>I hope we can try to be more constructive, and decide first what >>COULD be discussed, and not use try to define what the IGF SHOULD >>do, and stressing that several times (see below quotes)? > >Interesting point of view... who determines the "could"? Is this a >multistakeholder environment or a bunch of order followers?? exactly, even if the orders come from Milton, we could, but should we follow them ;) May be it's a misunderstanding. My point about the "could" is that certainly we may discuss everything, but there are aspects of the discussion, which were set in the TA, and we can't escape from that framework. If we try to go beyond that framework, this could be easily used to undermine all the efforts of the civil society... You don't want that, do you? > > ...article 72, for example, should be read >>fully, not sentence by sentence, and not half sentences only. >>Here's a simple example: >>72 point a says: 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 > >and point "j" says: > >j. Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; > >Read it in full, as per your own recommendation, Veni. That's exactly the point I was making - no one could try to interpete the TA. Instead, we just need to follow it - in its full text. Not by sentences, or by paragraphs. And we might - just might - allow people, who have been part of the process, to give some ideas. 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue May 1 18:26:37 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:26:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <4637B5EE.4040600@rits.org.br> References: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> <4637B5EE.4040600@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Carlos, I take as the overall objective of whatever the IGF does as focusing on issues relating to Internet governance, defined in the broad sense, to serve the purpose of economic and social development. Clearly there are multiple dimensions of IG, and reasonable people may differ in their assessment regarding how important the issues in each dimension are to accomplish that goal. Within that scope, I could argue that each of the subparagraphs of para. 72 has the capability of meeting a set of overall long term goals. However, I think that for most of the subparagraphs below, I could imagine activities that are believed (by someone) to be consistent with the Tunis agenda, but that I believe would not meet those goals and would be counterproductive. The problem with the Tunis agenda as a guide is that it can be read in different ways by different people, very much like complex religious documents such as the Bible. Now para. 72 prescribes the initiation of actions or activities. Rather than trying to define activities as good or relevant, or alternatively bad or irrelevant, i would like to focus on goals, and for each activity, ask whether it produces good or bad results with respect to those goals. This reflects my consequentialist leanings in which the concepts of good and bad are the major focus rather than the concepts of right or wrong. An action is 'right' if its consequences are good, and vice-versa. So while I do not dismiss para. 72, I would argue that the interpretation and implementation of the specific activities chosen under each of its sub-paragraphs does need to be subjected to a test of whether it meets overall development goals which the IGF was established to promote. Each of those sub-paragraphs can give rise to activities that I believe would be consistent with and supportive of those goals. Likewise each can give rise to activities that are inconsistent with or destructive with respect to those goals. Opinions will clearly differ on these points. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 6:49 PM -0300 5/1/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Veni Markovski wrote: >>I hope we can try to be more constructive, and decide first what >>COULD be discussed, and not use try to define what the IGF SHOULD >>do, and stressing that several times (see below quotes)? > >Interesting point of view... who determines the "could"? Is this a >multistakeholder environment or a bunch of order followers?? > >> ...article 72, for example, should be read >>fully, not sentence by sentence, and not half sentences only. >>Here's a simple example: >> >>72 point a says: 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 > >and point "j" says: > >j. Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; > >Read it in full, as per your own recommendation, Veni. > >--c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Tue May 1 19:43:06 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:43:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> <4637B5EE.4040600@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20070501234527.C30CC3379CA@mxr.isoc.bg> George, I agree with you, and I also think that could be a good way to approach the TA, and all different paragraphs. If we, the civil society, focus on the substential issues, and have some governments focus there too, each of us will do a little, but we all will do a lot. So, can we try to reach an agreement on what are the important, and useful for the users, things? I already named some, but here are they, and some more (in no specific order): - Affordability of the access to the Internet (prices for end-users, cross-subsidizing, interconnectivity) - building the right framework for development, deployment, and promotion of Internet (including dealing with IP/DNS - case studies; how important it is, etc.) - SPAM and impact on developing countries (heavy load on slow bandwidth, etc.) - cybersecurity - IDN veni At 18:26 5/1/2007 -0400, you wrote: >Carlos, > >I take as the overall objective of whatever the IGF does as focusing >on issues relating to Internet governance, defined in the broad >sense, to serve the purpose of economic and social development. >Clearly there are multiple dimensions of IG, and reasonable people >may differ in their assessment regarding how important the issues in >each dimension are to accomplish that goal. > >Within that scope, I could argue that each of the subparagraphs of >para. 72 has the capability of meeting a set of overall long term >goals. However, I think that for most of the subparagraphs below, >I could imagine activities that are believed (by someone) to be >consistent with the Tunis agenda, but that I believe would not meet >those goals and would be counterproductive. > >The problem with the Tunis agenda as a guide is that it can be read >in different ways by different people, very much like complex >religious documents such as the Bible. Now para. 72 prescribes the >initiation of actions or activities. Rather than trying to define >activities as good or relevant, or alternatively bad or irrelevant, >i would like to focus on goals, and for each activity, ask whether >it produces good or bad results with respect to those goals. This >reflects my consequentialist leanings in which the concepts of good >and bad are the major focus rather than the concepts of right or >wrong. An action is 'right' if its consequences are good, and vice-versa. > >So while I do not dismiss para. 72, I would argue that the >interpretation and implementation of the specific activities chosen >under each of its sub-paragraphs does need to be subjected to a test >of whether it meets overall development goals which the IGF was >established to promote. Each of those sub-paragraphs can give rise >to activities that I believe would be consistent with and supportive >of those goals. Likewise each can give rise to activities that are >inconsistent with or destructive with respect to those goals. > >Opinions will clearly differ on these points. > >George ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue May 1 21:36:50 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 09:36:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <46379634.2000301@cavebear.com> References: <46379634.2000301@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4637EB32.1080100@Malcolm.id.au> Karl Auerbach wrote: > Milton Mueller wrote: > >> (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources >> >> Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the >> IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in >> the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and >> number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet >> Registries. > > I'd insert the word "some" after "Currently, ". ...snip... > In addition, the IEEE, W3C, and even the ITU are also major, and perhaps > actually the dominant in certain regards, sources of internet protocol > numbers. If we were to take such a broader view, why not change "name and number resources are administered by" to "technical coordination and standards development takes place through", and then add another couple of your examples such as the IETF and W3C. In favour of this is that the development of standards and protocols is an Internet governance issue, which frequently does have public policy implications just as ICANN's role of technical coordination does. Think of the W3C's P3P and PICS, and the IETF's policy on wiretapping, not to mention IPsec, Punycode, ENUM and SPF, just off the top of my head. Against it is that the TA only explicitly talks about critical Internet resources, which has always been taken as a reference to domain names and IP addresses rather than other Internet protocol numbers and standards and protocols in general. But certainly the TA is general enough in paragraphs 72(b) and (c) to encompass a broader role. (To avoid confusion, if this suggestion does not find favour then I am equally happy to abide by Milton's revision and/or Karl's amendment to 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 karl at cavebear.com Tue May 1 22:37:20 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:37:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <4637EB32.1080100@Malcolm.id.au> References: <46379634.2000301@cavebear.com> <4637EB32.1080100@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4637F960.7010201@cavebear.com> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: . >> In addition, the IEEE, W3C, and even the ITU are also major, and >> perhaps actually the dominant in certain regards, sources of internet >> protocol numbers. > > If we were to take such a broader view, why not change "name and number > resources are administered by" to "technical coordination and standards > development takes place through", and then add another couple of your > examples such as the IETF and W3C. Sure - my purpose was only to try to accurately reflect reality. However, should we not ask of every matter: "Is this something that needs governance or oversight as part of *internet* governance?" For instance: there has not been any problem with protocol numbers (as distinct from addresses.) It is not a contentious subject - nobody really cares whether they get protocol option number 345 or 648. (Well, that's usually they do not care - For example I do not mind that I have "enterprise" number 12. And once, way back in the fun days of the net we got IANA to assign his and hers protocol numbers as a wedding gift, the value being the date of the wedding.) So for the most part there really isn't any need for oversight/governance of the assignment of protocol numbers. It just needs somebody to pay for the clerical job of doing it. The IEEE pays its own costs as does the W3C and the ITU. It seems that we simply ought to say "IETF, you can pay for your own protocol number assignment services just like every other standards body does." Remember, the reason why protocol numbers got thrown into the soup was to provide some security for Jon Postel (who, if anyone on the net did, most certainly deserved it.) The question that I suggested that we ask, i.e. "Is X something that needs governance or oversight as part of *internet* governance?" is a gating question we should always ask. For example, is the relationship of trademarks to domain names something that needs *internet* governance? Certainly it needs governance, but does it need *internet* governance or is it something better left to better established national and international processes? The same goes for a recently made suggestion that one of the issues that ought to be considered is "Affordability of the access to the Internet" - using my proposed gating question, that is certainly an issue, but are price controls something that ought to be a subject of *internet* governance. I can see such a topic being an endless black hole with considerable wrestling between north and south that distracts us from things we can actually accomplish. --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 Tue May 1 22:53:01 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:53:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released Message-ID: >>> ca at rits.org.br 5/1/2007 5:42:19 PM >>> > especially now that even an internal high-level committee is >telling ICANN it should seriously consider internationalization. Just an aside. We must be careful and precise in our use of words and concept in this area. By "internationalization" ICANN's management basically means "how do we escape US law and litigation and free ourselves even more from political accountability?" By "internationalization" I (and probably most of us on this list) mean, "how do we _increase_ global accountability by replacing US unilateral oversight with a more globalized governance arrangement?" ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 1 22:56:03 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 22:56:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released Message-ID: Jeremy, True, standards and protocols are part of IG, but to throw ICANN discussions (which deal with resource assignment and allocation issues) into the same pot as IETF/W3C/IEEE, which deals with a completely different set of issues, would broaden the discussion to the point that it would lose focus and loosen its relation to the Tunis Agenda significantly. >>> Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au 5/1/2007 9:36:50 PM >>> If we were to take such a broader view, why not change "name and number resources are administered by" to "technical coordination and standards development takes place through", and then add another couple of your examples such as the IETF and W3C. In favour of this is that the development of standards and protocols is an Internet governance issue, which frequently does have public policy implications just as ICANN's role of technical coordination does. Think of the W3C's P3P and PICS, and the IETF's policy on wiretapping, not to mention IPsec, Punycode, ENUM and SPF, just off the top of my head. Against it is that the TA only explicitly talks about critical Internet resources, which has always been taken as a reference to domain names and IP addresses rather than other Internet protocol numbers and standards and protocols in general. But certainly the TA is general enough in paragraphs 72(b) and (c) to encompass a broader role. (To avoid confusion, if this suggestion does not find favour then I am equally happy to abide by Milton's revision and/or Karl's amendment to 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 2 04:39:22 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:39:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: >I hope we can try to be more constructive, and >decide first what COULD be discussed, and not >use try to define what the IGF SHOULD do, and >stressing that several times (see below quotes)? > >Also, would be good to constantly read the Tunis >agenda. As someone who has been part of this >whole process, I see some dangerous side paths, >that one could take, and there certainly are >mechanisms to prevent that from happening, >including in the Tunis agenda. > >As for the idea that the IGF can decide what's >the intention of the WSIS in the quoted call, >that also goes beyond the mandate of the IGF. I >think the Tunis agenda is pretty clear - in all >of its points, and one of the major rules, is >that article 72, for example, should be read >fully, not sentence by sentence, and not half >sentences only. Here's a simple example: > >72 point a says: 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 > >it's very tempting to say that it actually says, >"Discuss public policy issues related to key >elements of Internet governance", however this >will not be true. > >And as for the "critical Internet resources", >the quote is actually as follows: > Actually, no it's not. Paragraph 72 provides the mandate of the IGF, not 69 or any other paragraph. "The mandate of the Forum is to: [a through i not included] j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources." Very clear. Thanks, Adam >69. We further recognize the need for enhanced >cooperation in the future, to enable >governments, on an equal footing, to carry out >their roles and responsibilities, in >international public policy issues pertaining to >the Internet, but not in the day-to-day >technical and operational matters, that do not >impact on international public policy issues. > >70. Using relevant international organizations, >such cooperation should include the development >of globally-applicable principles on public >policy issues associated with the coordination >and management of critical Internet resources. >In this regard, we call upon the organizations >responsible for essential tasks associated with >the Internet to contribute to creating an >environment that facilitates this development of >public policy principles. > >Taking any of these sentences, on their own, change the meaning of the TA. > >best, >Veni > >At 15:10 5/1/2007 -0400, you wrote: > >>We therefore believe that an IGF Plenary >>session should [here and further all bold font >>is mine - Veni] explore the >>following topics: >>[cut] >> >>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? >> >> >>[cut] Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the >>IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic  in >>the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and >>number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet >>Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy >>making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status >>as an international organization, its representation of individual >>users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be >>discussed. >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed May 2 02:39:34 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:39:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <4637AD4C.4090609@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi, On 5/1/07 11:12 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > Yes, I agree with Adam, Avri and Milton. It is important that the caucus > comes up with clear and strong statement that refers to the Tunis Agenda. Just for the record, again, in saying yesterday that one of the options was to adapt the proposal to reality, I didn't mean to suggest we shouldn't make a clear and strong statement. Probably I should have said we should adapt our expectations of its likely impact to reality, which doesn't mean don't fight the good fight first. More precise language will undoubtedly increase the chances of getting a decent hearing, and Milton's reformulation of the global public policy bit helps in that regard. And if our mAG friends think there's greater latitude to fundamentally change the orientation from what was done last year and reflected in the draft programme outline for Rio, great, I'll be happy to have my expectations proven wrong. I don't think the texts on the four themes have been collated before, so I've done so below. Maybe it'd make sense to tweak them collectively for overall coherence etc. The first one is a lot longer than the others, if that matters, and the framing/formatting is variable. Cheers, Bill -------- (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy 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 Plenary 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of individual users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet." (4) role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 2 04:46:38 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:46:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:39 AM +0200 5/2/07, William Drake wrote: >Hi, > >I don't think the texts on the four themes have been collated before, so >I've done so below. Maybe it'd make sense to tweak them collectively for >overall coherence etc. The first one is a lot longer than the others, if >that matters, and the framing/formatting is variable. Bill, thanks. >Cheers, > >Bill >-------- I think it may take while to agree on exact wording (if ever :-) but this is very helpful. I don't think we need to wait to get agreement on all these ideas and should send a simple statement about core resources as soon as possible. > >(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Add a sentence at the beginning to say (something along the lines of) Thank you for posting draft programme outline and meeting schedule for the Rio de Janeiro IGF and providing the opportunity to comment. The IGC's initial response is >Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the >IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in >the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. adding: A clear intention of the IGF was to facilitate discussion of such issues, every consultation has heard comments from many different stakeholders requesting such discussion. We request the draft programme prepared for the May 23rd consultation include critical Internet resources as the theme of a "main session". Signed by our two coordinators and sent. I don't see how this can be controversial. Consistent with everything the caucus has agreed since WGIG (perhaps before.) I don't agree with the following part of the draft on core resources so would not send it. Needs more discussion. But I think we do agree that "critical Internet resources" should be the topic of a main session, so let's say that now. >Currently, name and >number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet >Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy >making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status >as an international organization, its representation of individual >users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be >discussed. > Above is too specific, I would not like to see a main session discussing ICANN, individual users in ICANN, GAC or anything so narrow. For discussion in a workshop is fine. Main session, waste of time. ICANN is minute detail, simply isn't important enough. In my personal opinion. Thanks, Adam >(3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the >Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG > >"Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary session >devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and >practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective >use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to >identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, >resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing >mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on >access to, and effective use of, the Internet." > > >(4) role and mandate of IGF > >The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate >discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international >public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing >body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other >institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, >bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, >and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an >ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance >processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot >be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual >conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the >purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on >how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 2 08:08:32 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 09:08:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46387F40.2020503@rits.org.br> Milton might know unpublished details of the committee's report I do not, but what has been published says only what the model would not be -- "treaty" or "intergovernmental" organization. It does not imply what Milton concludes. It is up to the internal debate within ICANN to define this outcome, and I hope at least NCUC and ALAC (spaces for civil society) will fight for an internationalization with clear global and multistakeholder accountability. --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>> ca at rits.org.br 5/1/2007 5:42:19 PM >>> >> especially now that even an internal high-level committee is >> telling ICANN it should seriously consider internationalization. > > Just an aside. We must be careful and precise in our use of words and > concept in this area. > > By "internationalization" ICANN's management basically means "how do we > escape US law and litigation and free ourselves even more from political > accountability?" > > By "internationalization" I (and probably most of us on this list) > mean, "how do we _increase_ global accountability by replacing US > unilateral oversight with a more globalized governance arrangement?" > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed May 2 08:24:29 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 09:24:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> <4637B5EE.4040600@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <463882FD.0@rits.org.br> Grande George, George Sadowsky wrote: > Carlos, > > I take as the overall objective of whatever the IGF does as focusing on > issues relating to Internet governance, defined in the broad sense, to > serve the purpose of economic and social development. Clearly there are > multiple dimensions of IG, and reasonable people may differ in their > assessment regarding how important the issues in each dimension are to > accomplish that goal. I can live with this :) > > Within that scope, I could argue that each of the subparagraphs of para. > 72 has the capability of meeting a set of overall long term goals. > However, I think that for most of the subparagraphs below, I could > imagine activities that are believed (by someone) to be consistent with > the Tunis agenda, but that I believe would not meet those goals and > would be counterproductive. The use of the verb "believe" here is most appropriate, but even Hegel would admit the Tunis Agenda exists and cannot be dismissed, independently of our beliefs or perceptions. > > The problem with the Tunis agenda as a guide is that it can be read in > different ways by different people, very much like complex religious > documents such as the Bible. Now para. 72 prescribes the initiation of > actions or activities. Rather than trying to define activities as good > or relevant, or alternatively bad or irrelevant, i would like to focus > on goals, and for each activity, ask whether it produces good or bad > results with respect to those goals. This reflects my consequentialist > leanings in which the concepts of good and bad are the major focus > rather than the concepts of right or wrong. An action is 'right' if its > consequences are good, and vice-versa. Here we have to recall IGF was created carry out, as a forum, the mandate expressed by the Tunis agenda, para 72 included *in its entirety*, whatever our beliefs or religious inclinations (like the belief that the current ICANN structure is untouchable and not subject to external debate towards its revamping or modification). > > So while I do not dismiss para. 72, I would argue that the > interpretation and implementation of the specific activities chosen > under each of its sub-paragraphs does need to be subjected to a test of > whether it meets overall development goals which the IGF was established > to promote. Each of those sub-paragraphs can give rise to activities > that I believe would be consistent with and supportive of those goals. > Likewise each can give rise to activities that are inconsistent with or > destructive with respect to those goals. As pointed out above, neither the MAG (with its strong pro-ICANN-status-quo presence) nor the organizers of the IGF process have any authority to just dismiss any part of the Tunis agenda. This has been the result of gross manipulation in the Athens phase which we hope will not be repeated in Rio. > > Opinions will clearly differ on these points. You can say that again! :) fraternal regards --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Wed May 2 11:04:56 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 11:04:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <463882FD.0@rits.org.br> References: <20070501204911.9544A337979@mxr.isoc.bg> <4637B5EE.4040600@rits.org.br> <463882FD.0@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Estimado Carlos, Perhaps I wasn't clear. Each of the points in paragraph 72 can be addressed by a range of possible activities. I'm proposing that how we choose which of those activities or processes to execute should depend crucially upon whether its execution will move toward desirable goals or not. As a simple beginning to stating the goals, it's my belief that 99.99+% of the Internet community -- and here I refer to the Internet community in its broadest sense -- will be satisfied with a set of Internet governance arrangements that will: - provide them with accessible, available and affordable Internet service; - treat their communications as private and confidential; and - not block in any way their access to communication or content or their ability to "speak" freely over the Internet. In other words, they want unrestricted access, pure and simple, with guarantees of privacy, and that is both necessary and sufficient. I suggest that governance arrangements that fulfill these three criteria belong in a set of good governance arrangements, while those violating any of these criteria are to be avoided. I also suggest that how the elements of para. 72 are approached will determine whether the exercise promotes the above goals or not. The goals should drive the means for achieving them. I hope that this helps. Amitiés, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 9:24 AM -0300 5/2/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Grande George, > >George Sadowsky wrote: >>Carlos, >> >>I take as the overall objective of whatever the >>IGF does as focusing on issues relating to >>Internet governance, defined in the broad >>sense, to serve the purpose of economic and >>social development. Clearly there are multiple >>dimensions of IG, and reasonable people may >>differ in their assessment regarding how >>important the issues in each dimension are to >>accomplish that goal. > >I can live with this :) > >> >>Within that scope, I could argue that each of >>the subparagraphs of para. 72 has the >>capability of meeting a set of overall long >>term goals. However, I think that for most of >>the subparagraphs below, I could imagine >>activities that are believed (by someone) to be >>consistent with the Tunis agenda, but that I >>believe would not meet those goals and would be >>counterproductive. > >The use of the verb "believe" here is most >appropriate, but even Hegel would admit the >Tunis Agenda exists and cannot be dismissed, >independently of our beliefs or perceptions. > >> >>The problem with the Tunis agenda as a guide is >>that it can be read in different ways by >>different people, very much like complex >>religious documents such as the Bible. Now >>para. 72 prescribes the initiation of actions >>or activities. Rather than trying to define >>activities as good or relevant, or >>alternatively bad or irrelevant, i would like >>to focus on goals, and for each activity, ask >>whether it produces good or bad results with >>respect to those goals. This reflects my >>consequentialist leanings in which the concepts >>of good and bad are the major focus rather than >>the concepts of right or wrong. An action is >>'right' if its consequences are good, and >>vice-versa. > >Here we have to recall IGF was created carry >out, as a forum, the mandate expressed by the >Tunis agenda, para 72 included *in its >entirety*, whatever our beliefs or religious >inclinations (like the belief that the current >ICANN structure is untouchable and not subject >to external debate towards its revamping or >modification). > >> >>So while I do not dismiss para. 72, I would >>argue that the interpretation and >>implementation of the specific activities >>chosen under each of its sub-paragraphs does >>need to be subjected to a test of whether it >>meets overall development goals which the IGF >>was established to promote. Each of those >>sub-paragraphs can give rise to activities that >>I believe would be consistent with and >>supportive of those goals. Likewise each can >>give rise to activities that are inconsistent >>with or destructive with respect to those goals. > >As pointed out above, neither the MAG (with its >strong pro-ICANN-status-quo presence) nor the >organizers of the IGF process have any authority >to just dismiss any part of the Tunis agenda. >This has been the result of gross manipulation >in the Athens phase which we hope will not be >repeated in Rio. > >> >>Opinions will clearly differ on these points. > >You can say that again! :) > >fraternal regards > >--c.a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Wed May 2 14:41:19 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:41:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <46368044.9000906@Malcolm.id.au> References: <46368044.9000906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On 4/30/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For those who haven't seen them, the IGF Secretariat has just released a > draft programme outline and schedule for the Rio meeting which are > linked from its Web site at http://www.intgovforum.org. It reads as if they have a location in mind. Do we know where? All I've heard is Barra. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Wed May 2 14:48:14 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 18:48:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: References: <46368044.9000906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4638DCEE.6050001@panos-ao.org> Hotel Windsor Barra was envisaged as venue (March 2007). I don't know if it has changed Ken Lohento Sylvia Caras a écrit : > On 4/30/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> For those who haven't seen them, the IGF Secretariat has just released a >> draft programme outline and schedule for the Rio meeting which are >> linked from its Web site at http://www.intgovforum.org. > > It reads as if they have a location in mind. Do we know where? All > I've heard is Barra. > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 2 18:00:13 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question Message-ID: IF the INTERNET had a Capital, like the District of Columbia (Washington D.C. mall area). Where in the World (geolocal) would you put the Capital? *Note/Rule The Capital could be in one place (All of it in one geolocal / where?) Or It could be in several places, depending on the branches of Government (Several geolocals / where?) -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 2 19:11:45 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 16:11:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 3:00 PM -0700 5/2/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: >IF the INTERNET had a Capital, like the District of Columbia (Washington D.C. >mall area). > >Where in the World (geolocal) would you put the Capital? > >*Note/Rule >The Capital could be in one place (All of it in one geolocal / where?) >Or >It could be in several places, depending on the branches of Government >(Several geolocals / where?) Just for fun answer: Nowhere and Everywhere. It would be a Virtual/Cyber-Capital. Preferably open source and distributed architecture supporting a full-fledged wiki-governance platform. ;-) Real answer (sort of): The Internet's Capital would have to be where the World's Capital is, because Internet Governance (in the broad sense) cannot be truly distinguished from World Governance at the end of the day. So where would you put a World Capital? I couldn't say, until some sort of World Government emerges from the cacophony of the present day. And I don't see that happening in my lifetime, if ever. Bottom line answer: Nowhere. Forget about the "and Everywhere" part. 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 nb at bollow.ch Thu May 3 03:22:54 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:22:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: (yehudakatz@mailinator.com) References: Message-ID: <20070503072255.04B8CAD08C@quill.bollow.ch> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > IF the INTERNET had a Capital, like the District of Columbia (Washington D.C. > mall area). > > Where in the World (geolocal) would you put the Capital? Zurich, Switzerland. Justifications: 1. It's a pleasant and reasonably safe city. 2. Switzerland has a long-established hostory of democracy, rule of law, respect of human rights and non-imperialism. 3. Zurich is a center of technological research. This is important because having a "Capital of Internet Governance" will be very harmful for the internet unless internet governance processes are well-informed by listening to technologists. 4. Zurich is far enough away from Geneva that geographical proximity to a seat of the U.N. is not going to result in unduly strong U.N. influence on internet governance. Gruss, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch Pr�sident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Die SIUG engagiert sich f�r Privatsph�re und Mitgestaltungsm�glichkeiten in der Informationsgesellschaft. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 3 09:07:50 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 22:07:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: For consideration: ICC BASIS preliminary input on IGF Rio topics Message-ID: >From the private sector, their initial contribution for the may 23rd consultation. I've not included the attachments mentioned below, see If we've something to say we can agree on we should say so. Full response can wait. Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >Subject: For consideration: ICC BASIS preliminary input on IGF Rio topics >Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 14:52:54 +0200 >Thread-Topic: For consideration: ICC BASIS preliminary input on IGF Rio topics >Thread-Index: AceNgfdk2FNC2mOeSNqEI7LMlZnAXg== > > > >Dear colleague, ><07.pdf>>   <12 01 07.pdf>> >The attached document (pdf. 5 pages) ICC BASIS >preliminary input on IGF Rio topics, has been >prepared by the global business community of the >International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), and its >initiative, Business Action to Support the >Information Society (BASIS) and has been >submitted to the IGF secretariat, and national >governments as well as other stakeholders, for >consideration ahead of the Internet Governance >Forum (IGF) consultation scheduled for 23 May >2007 in Geneva. > >This business input outlines the priority >sub-themes for the main meeting topics of >Openness, Security, Diversity and Access for the >IGF in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November >2007. It also includes recommendations for >consideration by other stakeholders and the IGF >secretariat and advisory group, in formulating a >productive and focused agenda for the second IGF >that builds upon the success of the first IGF in >Athens. Supplementary input on the draft >programme and schedule will be submitted ahead >of the IGF consultation. > >This document can also be found on our website at the following address: >http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/Preliminary_BASIS_IGF_Rio_topics_03_05_07.pdf > >We are also including, for your information, >the ICC/BASIS input on the IGF in Athens, as >reference is made to this document on the first >page of the preliminary input on the IGF Rio >topics document. > >Thank you in advance for your consideration of >the reflections and priorities of global >business on these important issues. > > >Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > >Best regards, > > Ayesha Hassan >International Chamber of Commerce >Senior Policy Manager >Electronic Business, IT, and Telecommunications >Executive in charge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy >38 Cours Albert 1er >75008 Paris, France >tel: +33 1 49 53 30 13 >fax: +33 1 49 53 28 59 > >Email: ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org >website: www.iccwbo.org >================================ > > > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; > name="Preliminary BASIS IGF Rio topics 03 05 07.pdf" >Content-Description: Preliminary BASIS IGF Rio topics 03 05 07.pdf >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="Preliminary BASIS IGF Rio topics 03 05 07.pdf" > > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; > name="ICCBASIS input on IGF Athens Final 12 01 07.pdf" >Content-Description: ICCBASIS input on IGF Athens Final 12 01 07.pdf >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="ICCBASIS input on IGF Athens Final 12 01 07.pdf" > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu May 3 10:04:34 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: 20070503072255.04B8CAD08C@quill.bollow.ch Message-ID: I would choose three locations Because 3 orbital satellites are required to encompass the globe, So the Capitals would have to be nearly direct below one of the three satellites orbiting in an equilateral triangle in geosynchronous orbit, for uplinks. Having three Capitals would also decrees the distance too the local of 1/3rd to 1/6th the distance in any direction, as opposed to � way around the globe. (carbon footprint reduction) Stability, having three locals would provide redundancy. I would have three Branches of Government, with all three equally represented at each location, but each local would have it specialty: Euro-Occidental � Legislative Branch [tell me] The Americas � Justice Branch [show me] The East � Executive Branch [trust me] - Zurich [Euro-Occidental � Legislative] Love it!, saw my first �Smart Car� there. Vienna would have been sweet, only because I love Mozart Kuggels (sweet tooth). Chicago � [The Americas � Justice] American mid-westerners are: straight forward, easy to understand and have a balanced hard-work ethic. Ooh and the Univ. of Chicago., enough said. Xian / Kuala Lumpur / Katmandu [The East � Executive] Xian - the eastern end of the Silk Road, I suppose if they pull a thread of fiber-optics down the Silk Road, this may be a good place. or Kuala Lumpur make s good hub. or Although Nepal�s Katmandu might have just what we need, some Transcendental Executives. -- I was wandering the halls at a university and overheard heard a Lecturer speaking about �How Business Men of differing Cultures think�. The Oriental says �Trust Me� (lets build trust together) The European says �Tell Me� (lets talk it over) The American says �Show Me� (lets see justifying proof it) In some way we must address these sorts of Cultural differences in Internet Governance. The bottom line for all is: Access to Government, that�s what counts most. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu May 3 10:17:27 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 16:17:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Chicago – [The Americas – Justice] > American mid-westerners are: straight forward, easy to understand and have a > balanced hard-work ethic. Ooh and the Univ. of Chicago., enough said. > we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds - can we for a change do something without having to feel that the Americans MUST get an important role????? Why couldn;t the three points be South America, Africa and somewhere in South-East Asia? And let's move on from the thinking that "they" started/ invented/ introduced/ the internet - that is history - the Romans pioneered roadworks and piped water, but I don't see Rome demanding to be included in all dicussions about roads and water regulation/ control etc just for fun .... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu May 3 11:42:03 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 08:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: ec8caada0705030717n51a8c01fv14d1a9212d371d68@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: > we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds My apologies. Your right, �For me�, I choose Chicago because it is the home of American Civil Rights Movement. But you are right, absolutely! There are plenty of other significant places where Justice found a home. South Africa (in his way Mandela�s / Anti-Apartheid Movement), South America (in his way Che), Caribbean (in his way Fidel), India (in his way Ghandi), Poland (The Solidarity Movement) � etc�etc � Enlighten me , where would �You� put the home of Justice? -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Thu May 3 15:28:01 2007 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:28:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: References: ec8caada0705030717n51a8c01fv14d1a9212d371d68@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <00dc01c78db9$2c048b70$6500a8c0@JOVAN> What about Axum in Northern Ethiopia? -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 17:42 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question > we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds My apologies. Your right, For me, I choose Chicago because it is the home of American Civil Rights Movement. But you are right, absolutely! There are plenty of other significant places where Justice found a home. South Africa (in his way Mandelas / Anti-Apartheid Movement), South America (in his way Che), Caribbean (in his way Fidel), India (in his way Ghandi), Poland (The Solidarity Movement)  etcetc  Enlighten me , where would You put the home of Justice? -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu May 3 17:47:32 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 14:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: 00dc01c78db9$2c048b70$6500a8c0@JOVAN Message-ID: Excellent suggestion, love to go http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=15 If I recall correctly, there is a marvelous project near by (in Asmara, Eritrea) wherein local villages are reclaiming the tidal coastal desert with mangroves. http://www.eritreadaily.net/news/article20041823.htm http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/manzanar/eritreadaily.htm I've heard it said that "cultures barrow from one-to-another selectively". So in the coming of global warming and the expansion of arid lands (such as those of Ethiopia) Axum and it People have a lot to offer. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Thu May 3 19:45:06 2007 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:45:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: <00dc01c78db9$2c048b70$6500a8c0@JOVAN> References: ec8caada0705030717n51a8c01fv14d1a9212d371d68@mail.gmail.com <00dc01c78db9$2c048b70$6500a8c0@JOVAN> Message-ID: <4F99F52ADB98F941DFF9C4F6@as-paul.apnic.net> I have to suggest Barcaldine in Central Queensland, Australia, where the Australian Labor Party was born in 1891. That auspicious event happened under a eucalypt later called the Tree of Knowledge, which survived until last year when it was poisoned. So, the town does need a morale boost right now, and world government would doubtless do the trick. Here it is: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&ll=-23.550,145.295&t=h&z=16 (it has all mod cons - note the gold course to the east :-) Paul --On Thursday, 3 May 2007 9:28 PM +0200 Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > What about Axum in Northern Ethiopia? > > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 17:42 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question > >> we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds > > My apologies. Your right, > > For me, I choose Chicago because it is the home of American Civil Rights > Movement. > But you are right, absolutely! > There are plenty of other significant places where Justice found a home. > > South Africa (in his way Mandelas / Anti-Apartheid Movement), South > America (in his way Che), Caribbean (in his way Fidel), India (in his way > Ghandi), Poland (The Solidarity Movement)  etcetc  > > Enlighten me , where would You put the home of Justice? > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson email: pwilson at apnic.net Director General, APNIC sip: apnic at voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri May 4 02:37:05 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:37:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi > Enlighten me , where would "You" put the home of Justice? I wouldn't call it enlightnment, but will give it a shot. How about Botswana (Courts)? They have over the years shown courage in the face of admirable odds, especially the recent ruling in favour of the San community that had been evicted from their ancestral lands in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Although the fact went fairly unreported in the world media, it is a victory for minorities and indigenous/ aboriginal peoples all over the world. On the opposing side were the Government of Botswana and the powerful De Beers group, much as they might want to convince that their mining interests in the area have nothing to do with the government's decision to evict the San (commonly known as "The Bushmen", made 'famous' in the movie "The Gods must be Crazy" and sequels. The San are themselves a paragon of justice, one of the humblest people on earth, with a moral-philosophical tradition that commands respect and admiration. So, whereas it would be impractical to have this 'capital' in the Game Reserve, the city of Lobatse, seat of the Botswana High Court, would be my virtual vote. Regards, Rui PS: I tried googling for a "justice world ranking", such as there is one for press freedom (and yesterday was World Press Freedom Day), but could find only ranking that take crime and justice together, which distorts reality. You could have a very criminal or law-abiding society in a country with an exemplary or rotten adminitration of justice. So, if anyone knows of a ranking that evaluates administration of justice only, please enlighten. ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From akigua at telia.com Fri May 4 06:46:42 2007 From: akigua at telia.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ann-Kristin_H=E5kansson?=) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 12:46:42 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Sv: Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question Message-ID: <21669737.1178275602610.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps2-sn2> Dear Rui, and to be really proud of Botswana it would be good if you can influence the government to vote in favour of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Best regards, Ann-kristin Indigenous ICTtf ----Ursprungligt meddelande---- Från: correia.rui at gmail.com Datum: May 4, 2007 8:37:05 AM Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org, yehudakatz at mailinator.com, Modise Maphanyane Ärende: Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question Hi > Enlighten me , where would "You" put the home of Justice? I wouldn't call it enlightnment, but will give it a shot. How about Botswana (Courts)? They have over the years shown courage in the face of admirable odds, especially the recent ruling in favour of the San community that had been evicted from their ancestral lands in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Although the fact went fairly unreported in the world media, it is a victory for minorities and indigenous/ aboriginal peoples all over the world. On the opposing side were the Government of Botswana and the powerful De Beers group, much as they might want to convince that their mining interests in the area have nothing to do with the government's decision to evict the San (commonly known as "The Bushmen", made 'famous' in the movie "The Gods must be Crazy" and sequels. The San are themselves a paragon of justice, one of the humblest people on earth, with a moral-philosophical tradition that commands respect and admiration. So, whereas it would be impractical to have this 'capital' in the Game Reserve, the city of Lobatse, seat of the Botswana High Court, would be my virtual vote. Regards, Rui PS: I tried googling for a "justice world ranking", such as there is one for press freedom (and yesterday was World Press Freedom Day), but could find only ranking that take crime and justice together, which distorts reality. You could have a very criminal or law-abiding society in a country with an exemplary or rotten adminitration of justice. So, if anyone knows of a ranking that evaluates administration of justice only, please enlighten. ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri May 4 08:52:18 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 05:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <545181.44022.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Since Rui has already taken the "alas, again the forgotten Africa as always" out of my mouth, I'll just vote for fun part: Zanzibar, once crossroad for spices and melting pot for African and Oriental cultures, today a holiday spot for our dear colleague McTim. For the recognition of both (and especially to put him on permanent vacation :-))... --- Rui Correia wrote: > > Chicago – [The Americas – Justice] > > American mid-westerners are: straight forward, easy to > understand and have a > > balanced hard-work ethic. Ooh and the Univ. of Chicago., > enough said. > > > > we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds - can we > for a > change do something without having to feel that the Americans > MUST get > an important role????? Why couldn;t the three points be South > America, > Africa and somewhere in South-East Asia? > > And let's move on from the thinking that "they" started/ > invented/ > introduced/ the internet - that is history - the Romans > pioneered > roadworks and piped water, but I don't see Rome demanding to > be > included in all dicussions about roads and water regulation/ > control > etc > > just for fun .... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri May 4 09:01:13 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:01:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: <545181.44022.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <545181.44022.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Never had the pleasure of visiting the great island imbued in wafts of clove ... Will not oppose your vote!!!, Mawaki On 04/05/07, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Since Rui has already taken the "alas, again the forgotten > Africa as always" out of my mouth, I'll just vote for fun part: > Zanzibar, once crossroad for spices and melting pot for African > and Oriental cultures, today a holiday spot for our dear > colleague McTim. For the recognition of both (and especially to > put him on permanent vacation :-))... > > --- Rui Correia wrote: > > > > Chicago – [The Americas – Justice] > > > American mid-westerners are: straight forward, easy to > > understand and have a > > > balanced hard-work ethic. Ooh and the Univ. of Chicago., > > enough said. > > > > > > > we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds - can we > > for a > > change do something without having to feel that the Americans > > MUST get > > an important role????? Why couldn;t the three points be South > > America, > > Africa and somewhere in South-East Asia? > > > > And let's move on from the thinking that "they" started/ > > invented/ > > introduced/ the internet - that is history - the Romans > > pioneered > > roadworks and piped water, but I don't see Rome demanding to > > be > > included in all dicussions about roads and water regulation/ > > control > > etc > > > > just for fun .... > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 4 09:21:07 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:21:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Message-ID: Hello Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can we ACT, please? === (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy 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 Plenary 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of individual users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet." (4) role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 4 09:30:56 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 21:30:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463B3590.40405@Malcolm.id.au> Milton Mueller wrote: > Hello > > Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the > statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it > accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can > we ACT, please? A yes from me. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guyversonv at hotmail.com Thu May 3 12:04:14 2007 From: guyversonv at hotmail.com (Guyverson Vernous) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:04:14 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f?=. : Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question References: Message-ID: Not for fun, I would add Haiti the first independent black country with Toussaint Louverture. Guyverson Vernous -------Message original------- De : yehudakatz at mailinator.com Date : 5/3/2007 11:44:44 AM A : governance at lists.cpsr.org Sujet : Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question > we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds My apologies. Your right, For me, I choose Chicago because it is the home of American Civil Rights Movement. But you are right, absolutely! There are plenty of other significant places where Justice found a home. South Africa (in his way Mandelas / Anti-Apartheid Movement), South America (in his way Che), Caribbean (in his way Fidel), India (in his way Ghandi), Poland (The Solidarity Movement)  etcetc  Enlighten me , where would You put the home of Justice? -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: imstp_pets_cat1_fr.gif Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From karl at cavebear.com Fri May 4 22:23:20 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:23:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463BEA98.3060908@cavebear.com> Milton Mueller wrote: > Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the > statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it > accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can > we ACT, please? I'm willing to accept the draft statement and use it as a basis for moving forward. I wish it had a stronger subtext of action rather than discussion and wish it were rather more specific about particular matters and principles. However, this is a good formulation for this round. --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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat May 5 02:27:38 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 15:27:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Message-ID: Milton, thanks for persevering with this.  I think the statement must also say what we do support -- what parts of the proposed program are we pleased to see (attempt to make a more coherent agenda, while still allowing open workshops and general "open call", better suggestions about duration of sessions? Multi-stakeholder principles reinforced. etc.) Do we agree with the basic "Basic Meeting Structure" (section 2 of the draft program). Do we have anything to say about dynamic coalitions? I would say yes to all of this section, except I think discussion of core resources must be the subject of a main session. Are we OK with "3 Meeting Types" (only thought is "best" practise must also include lessons learned, hearing about what not to do can be as valuable as people boosting their own work.) I am not sure I understand "speed dialogue" but why not hear more about it. "6. Content" seems to be what our statement focuses on. I hope we can propose "core resources" as a main session.  I do not support the way we propose to address "critical Internet resources" at the moment: At 9:21 AM -0400 5/4/07, Milton Mueller wrote: >(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > >Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the >IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in >the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and >number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet >Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy >making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status >as an international organization, its representation of individual >users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be >discussed. ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a subject for a main session. The only people who care about individual participation in ICANN are a few of us on this list and a hand full of others. It will be dismissed as "enhance cooperation", it's gift for anyone who wants to make sure "critical Internet resources" are not discussed. Would be naive to propose in this way. If you want to make sure "critical Internet resources" is buried, this is the way to do it. Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement. Rest of the statement's fine. Although seems overlapping. I think the response to (3) will be, "good, propose is as a workshop". About (4). I think this is extremely important. Can we propose the "Topical Issue" session become a session discussing the IGF mandate to see if it's providing the right direction for the following years. Associated workshops would flesh out some of the items in 72 and bring them to the main session. (Discussing topical issues might be interesting in workshops or could become part of best practise: what were the best ways to cope with Taiwan earth quake and cut cables...) 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 karl at cavebear.com Sat May 5 03:15:46 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 00:15:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463C2F22.4090907@cavebear.com> Adam Peake wrote: > I am not sure I understand "speed dialogue" but why not hear more about it. I assumed that this was reflecting a method in which people are given some strictly limited number of minutes at the microphone - typically 10 to 15 - to say whatever they want, either informally or formally, often extremely informally. In many cases this is the best part of conferences that use this method. But I could be making an incorrect assumption. --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 correia.rui at gmail.com Sat May 5 03:32:19 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 09:32:19 +0200 Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?R=E9f?=. : Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting book on Louverture here: Rui ____________________________________________________________ Toussaint Louverture, "simultaneously a devout Catholic, a Freemason and a secret practitioner of voodoo." Now, that's my kind of man. In another place, another time, he might have been simultaneously a devout Muslim, a feminist, and a secret practioner of historical materialism -- with that combination, a man would know better than to take a perfidious empire's offer of negotiations. :-> -- Yoshie February 25, 2007 The Black Napoleon By ADAM HOCHSCHILD TOUSSAINT LOUVERTURE A Biography. By Madison Smartt Bell. Illustrated. 333 pp. Pantheon Books. $27. Quick, what was the second country in the New World to win full independence from its colonial masters in the Old? Mexico? Brazil? Some place liberated by Bolívar? The answer, Madison Smartt Bell reminds us, is Haiti — which actually gave Bolívar some help. The years of horrendous warfare that culminated in Haiti's birth in 1804 is one of the most inspiring and tragic chapters in the story of the Americas. For one thing, it was history's only successful large-scale slave revolt. The roughly half a million slaves who labored on the plantations of what was then the French territory of St. Domingue had made it the most lucrative colony anywhere in the world. Its rich, well irrigated soil, not yet overworked and eroded, produced more than 30 percent of the world's sugar, more than half its coffee and a cornucopia of other crops. When the slaves there rose up in 1791, they sent shock waves throughout the Atlantic world. But the rebels did more than win. In five years of fighting, they also inflicted a humiliating defeat on a large invasion force from Britain, which, at war with France, wanted to seize this profitable territory for itself. And later they did the same to a vast military expedition sent by Napoleon, who vainly tried to recapture the colony and restore slavery. The long years of race-based mass murder (which included a civil war between blacks and gens de couleur, as those of mixed race were known) left more than half the population dead or exiled, and Haiti lives with that legacy of violence still. Seldom have people anywhere fought so hard for their freedom. Seldom, too, have they so much owed success to one extraordinary man. Toussaint Louverture, a short, wiry coachman skilled in veterinary medicine, had been freed some years before the upheaval. About 50 when the revolt began, he was one of those rare figures — Trotsky is the only other who comes to mind — who in midlife suddenly became a self-taught military genius. He welded the rebel slaves into disciplined units, got French deserters to train them, incorporated revolution-minded whites and gens de couleur into his army and used his legendary horsemanship to rush from one corner of the colony to another, cajoling, threatening, making and breaking alliances with a bewildering array of factions and warlords, and commanding his troops in one brilliant assault, feint or ambush after another. Finally lured into negotiations with one of Napoleon's generals in 1802, he was captured and swiftly whisked off to France. Deliberately kept alone, cold and underfed deep inside a fortress in the Jura mountains, he died in April 1803. Toussaint's is an epic story, and it lies at the heart of a much praised trilogy by Bell, the prolific American novelist. Bell's new biography, "Toussaint Louverture," is resolutely nonfiction, however. And welcome it is, for the existing biographies, from Ralph Korngold's 1944 effort (dated, uncritical and unsourced) to Pierre Pluchon's 1989 book (quirky, negative and only in French) are mostly unsatisfactory. Bell knows the primary and scholarly literature well, carefully sifts fact from myth and generally maintains a sober and responsible understated tone. Maybe a little too sober and understated. I can't help wondering whether Bell, so well known for his novels of Haiti, is bending over backward to show that as a biographer he is not making anything up. I wish he had given more rein to his novelist's skills — not by inventing things, but by making more narrative use of the wealth of detail there is about this time and place. Part of the problem is that almost none of that detail has to do with the life of Toussaint himself, about whose first 50 years we know next to nothing. Bell points this out, and so the sources he quotes are almost entirely from after Toussaint's sudden emergence as a leader: his letters and proclamations, and the relatively few eyewitness accounts of him. But this largely leaves out the rich array of documentary testimony we have about life in brutal, high-living colonial St. Domingue, about people ranging from the planter Jean-Baptiste de Caradeux, who entertained his guests by seeing who could knock an orange off a slave's head with a pistol shot at 30 paces, to the French prostitute who came to the colony looking for wealthy white clients and then complained to a newspaper that she found too much competition. And both British and French officers left diaries and memoirs about fighting the unexpectedly skilled rebel slaves — accounts as searing and vivid in their frustration as those by American soldiers blogging from Iraq. Such things are not precisely about Toussaint, but they flesh out the world in which he lived and fought, and American readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of Haitian history need all the help they can get. Still, this is the best biography of Toussaint yet, in large part because Bell does not shy away from the man's contradictions. Although a former slave, he had owned slaves himself. Although he led a great slave revolt, he was desperate to trade export crops for defense supplies and so imposed a militarized forced labor system that was slavery in all but name. He was simultaneously a devout Catholic, a Freemason and a secret practitioner of voodoo. And although the monarchs of Europe regarded him with unalloyed horror, he in effect turned himself into one of them by fashioning a constitution making himself his country's dictator for life, with the right to name his successor. "Within Haitian culture," Bell writes, "there are no such contradictions, but simply the actions of different spirits which may possess one's being under different circumstances and in response to vastly different needs. There is no doubt that from time to time Toussaint Louverture made room in himself for angry, vengeful spirits, as well as the more beneficent" ones. Of such contradictions are great figures made; just think of our own Thomas Jefferson — who, incidentally, ordered money and muskets sent to his fellow slave owners to suppress Toussaint's drive for freedom, saying of it, "Never was so deep a tragedy presented to the feelings of man." Adam Hochschild's most recent book is "Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves." On 03/05/07, Guyverson Vernous wrote: > > Not for fun, I would add Haiti the first independent black country with > Toussaint Louverture. > > Guyverson Vernous > > *-------Message original-------* > > *De :* yehudakatz at mailinator.com > *Date :* 5/3/2007 11:44:44 AM > *A :* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sujet :* Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question > > > we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds > > My apologies. Your right, > > For me, I choose Chicago because it is the home of American Civil Rights > Movement. > But you are right, absolutely! > There are plenty of other significant places where Justice found a home. > > South Africa (in his way Mandelas / Anti-Apartheid Movement), South > America > (in his way Che), Caribbean (in his way Fidel), India (in his way Ghandi), > Poland (The Solidarity Movement)  etcetc  > > Enlighten me , where would You put the home of Justice? > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > [image: Binettes GRATUITES pour vos courriels - par IncrediMail! Cliquez > ici!] > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: imstp_pets_cat1_fr.gif Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Sat May 5 04:19:03 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 10:19:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463C3DF7.6070904@bertola.eu> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > Hello > > Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the > statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it > accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can > we ACT, please? Ok, don't jump. First, we need to transform the draft in something coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48 hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be scheduled for, say, May 13-16. This is something that Parminder and I can do (not having spoken with Parminder yet), but first I would like to clear the substance of what we are going to say. As per the draft, we would be asking to: 1) have a "plenary session" on some cross-cutting theoretical issues about what is or is not public policy etc.; 2) have a "main session" on ICANN (with people suggesting either to broaden it to IETF/W3C/ITU etc, or not to make it so focused on specific details such as GAC, individual user representation etc); 3) have a "plenary session" on access for disadvantaged people; 4) copy and paste of para 72. About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please advise. About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main session" and "plenary session", but I assume that the proposers mean a big session like one of the four devoted to each theme in Athens. Now, could the AG members please tell me whether that's a reasonable request to make? It doesn't look so - I mean, I guess that even if the draft programme is flexible, it's unlikely that more plenary sessions (apart from those already scheduled) can be added, specifically if on specialized issues as opposed to the main themes. The only timeslot I see theoretically available is the early one on Monday 14:00-16:00. The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts, and perhaps also "where is the IGF going". For 2) and 3), I think that reasonable suggestions would be to put these as one of a few main points in the main session for the related theme (3) is access, 2)... ok, not totally clear, but perhaps access as well? or security?). Alternately, propose workshops (BTW - any idea on workshop selection criteria?) Or, there is a slot labelled "topical issue" which I guess is still TBD - can people from the AG enlighten on what it is? Should we propose topics for it? Finally, given that the draft schedule came out, I guess that comments on it would be helpful. I can pick up what we said in February and extract / summarize a few practical suggestions, would that be useful? Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 5 13:45:29 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 23:15:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: <46378E5D.6070501@iafrica.com> Message-ID: <20070505174531.925955C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Riaz > The Treasury states that "except for information or informational > materials and donated articles intended to relieve human suffering, such > as food, clothing and medicine, and the licensed export of agricultural > commodities. no goods, technology, or services may be exported from the > United States to Sudan". > Wonder if it means that, legally, ICANN cant export its services to Sudan.... >the US Treasury has apparently banned > access to images from Google Earth in Sudan as part of its ongoing > export controls and economic sanctions against the country. Google is now almost as universal and monopolistic an element of Internet's architecture as ICANN. Its control by US government is a matter of great concern. The problem is that other countries can only control/ regulate google at and within their digital gates (as china does), i.e. if they can afford good gates, but US can do it for other countries as well. And here we are still arguing whether there is any need at all for globally acceptable Internet policies... Parminder ________________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Riaz K. Tayob [mailto:riazt at iafrica.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:31 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? > > http://panos.blogs.com/iwitnesses/2007/04/index.html > > April 2007 > 25 April 2007 > US 'bans' access to Google Earth in Sudan > > Only days after Google joined up with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum > to map the conflict in Darfur, the US Treasury has apparently banned > access to images from Google Earth in Sudan as part of its ongoing > export controls and economic sanctions against the country. > > The Treasury states that "except for information or informational > materials and donated articles intended to relieve human suffering, such > as food, clothing and medicine, and the licensed export of agricultural > commodities. no goods, technology, or services may be exported from the > United States to Sudan". > > The US Bureau of Industry prohibits the export of software to Sudan, > unless it is pre-loaded onto a 'commodity' such as a mobile phone or > computer. As Google Earth is hosted in the United States, downloading > the software in Sudan is also subject to these restrictions. > > However, Stefan Geens of the Ogle Earth blog notes that the internet has > the tools to circumvent this ban - for example, through proxy servers > and peer-to-peer networks. Perhaps more importantly, Stefan raises a > pertinent question: where does 'information' end and 'software' begin? > > Technorati Tags: darfur, google, google earth, sudan, united states > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 5 13:47:50 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 23:17:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070505174748.E6CC6C948C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote > >Not at all, in my view. There is no reason why we should regard the > >draft programme as particularly authoritative. From what Adam has > >said, I doubt the acting Advisory Group spent much time on it. It > >is more likely something that Marcus and Nitin drew up. If we > >disagree with it, let's say so. Especially so when the document makes it clear at the start itself that it focuses 'more on structure than content'. When the document itself is tentative and defensive about its content part, why should we treat it as something given.... Lets just tell them what we think is right. Let them bother if they can accommodate it. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:19 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released > > >William Drake wrote: > >>Anyway, this would seem to have two practical consequences. First, > given > >>the way that the program is specified in the 6th section on Content, I > don't > >>see how any of the themes we've discussed proposing could be > accommodated in > >>the main sessions. All four themes are probably too orthogonal no > matter > >>how we wordsmith their descriptions. So the choices would seem to be a) > >>abandon the effort, b) adapt the proposal to reality, or c) frame it in > a > >>sort of "we would have liked to have had plenary discussions on the > >>following but see this won't be happening' sort of manner, which I > imagine > >>some would say is too negative etc. > > > >Not at all, in my view. There is no reason why we should regard the > >draft programme as particularly authoritative. From what Adam has > >said, I doubt the acting Advisory Group spent much time on it. It > >is more likely something that Marcus and Nitin drew up. If we > >disagree with it, let's say so. Indeed, the draft programme outline > >itself makes it clear that it "is conceived a rolling document", to > >be amended in light of comments submitted by 17 May and made at the > >consultations the following week. So I don't see why we need to > >adapt our proposal to reality. Rather, let's endeavour to adapt > >reality to our proposal. > > > Yes. > > And there is no need to spend all our time up to May 17 trying to > agree on a single comprehensive comment. If there is something the > caucus agrees on write it up and send it. For example, why is > discussion of "core resources" missing from the main agenda (again). > To get such a comment in quickly might encourage others to say the > same. > > Adam > > > > >-- > >Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > >Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > >host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 5 15:22:19 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 21:22:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released In-Reply-To: <20070505174748.E6CC6C948C@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070505174748.E6CC6C948C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <463CD96B.8070403@wz-berlin.de> I agree with Jeremy and Parminder. The secretariat has published a draft for people to comment on. Nothing of it should be taken as really given. However, the secretariat got the impression at the february consultation that most people liked the four themes and suggested to stick to them. Thus, it would probably be difficult to entirely change the four themes. However, is is unclear yet what exactly will be discussed under these broad umbrellas. Regarding selection criteria for workshops: the understanding after the February consultation was that at least some of the workshops should be tied more closely to the main themes. However, there will also be space for workshops that don't reflect the main themes (presumably just less than last year). Multi-stakeholder organization of workshops should be again one of the selection criteria. In addition to the main themes there are the topical session and the emerging issues section. We should propose subjects for both. jeanette Parminder wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote > >>>Not at all, in my view. There is no reason why we should regard the >>>draft programme as particularly authoritative. From what Adam has >>>said, I doubt the acting Advisory Group spent much time on it. It >>>is more likely something that Marcus and Nitin drew up. If we >>>disagree with it, let's say so. > > > Especially so when the document makes it clear at the start itself that it > focuses 'more on structure than content'. When the document itself is > tentative and defensive about its content part, why should we treat it as > something given.... > > Lets just tell them what we think is right. Let them bother if they can > accommodate it. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:19 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: Re: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released >> >> >>>William Drake wrote: >>> >>>>Anyway, this would seem to have two practical consequences. First, >> >>given >> >>>>the way that the program is specified in the 6th section on Content, I >> >>don't >> >>>>see how any of the themes we've discussed proposing could be >> >>accommodated in >> >>>>the main sessions. All four themes are probably too orthogonal no >> >>matter >> >>>>how we wordsmith their descriptions. So the choices would seem to be a) >>>>abandon the effort, b) adapt the proposal to reality, or c) frame it in >> >>a >> >>>>sort of "we would have liked to have had plenary discussions on the >>>>following but see this won't be happening' sort of manner, which I >> >>imagine >> >>>>some would say is too negative etc. >>> >>>Not at all, in my view. There is no reason why we should regard the >>>draft programme as particularly authoritative. From what Adam has >>>said, I doubt the acting Advisory Group spent much time on it. It >>>is more likely something that Marcus and Nitin drew up. If we >>>disagree with it, let's say so. Indeed, the draft programme outline >>>itself makes it clear that it "is conceived a rolling document", to >>>be amended in light of comments submitted by 17 May and made at the >>>consultations the following week. So I don't see why we need to >>>adapt our proposal to reality. Rather, let's endeavour to adapt >>>reality to our proposal. >> >> >>Yes. >> >>And there is no need to spend all our time up to May 17 trying to >>agree on a single comprehensive comment. If there is something the >>caucus agrees on write it up and send it. For example, why is >>discussion of "core resources" missing from the main agenda (again). >>To get such a comment in quickly might encourage others to say the >>same. >> >>Adam >> >> >> >> >>>-- >>>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >>>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >>>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat May 5 22:06:14 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 04:06:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Programme outline and schedule released Message-ID: <200705060206.l4626EtA023113@muse.enst.fr> On Sat, 05 May 2007 21:22:19 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >The secretariat has published a draft for people to comment on. Nothing of it should be taken as really given. That's right. Let's remember that the MAG's mandate was to help convene the IGF inaugural meeting in Athens: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sga1006.doc.htm At this time the MAG doesn't have any mandate, does it ? But, as distinguished fellow stakeholders, their input is welcome. Cheers ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat May 5 22:06:15 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 04:06:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Message-ID: <200705060206.l4626FH9023142@muse.enst.fr> On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:27:38 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a subject for a main session. >The only people who care about individual participation in ICANN are a >few of us on this list and a hand full of others. It will be dismissed >as "enhance cooperation", it's gift for anyone who wants to make sure >"critical Internet resources" are not discussed. Would be naive to >propose in this way. >If you want to make sure "critical Internet resources" is buried, this is the way to do it. The text related to this topic (submitted by Bill Drake on 2 May 2007 08:39:34 +0200) reads: >(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources >Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. > Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the >Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number >resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. > This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making >processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an >international organization, its representation of individual users, and >the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. I'd suggest a slight expansion of the last sentence: « In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of individual users, its monopolistic aggregation of conflictual functions, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. » Rationale: a- Name resources administered by ICANN are not inclusive. They are limited to those approved by ICANN. b- Administering the introduction of new names, coupled with the selection of registries, and the resulting financing of ICANN is a highly questionable instance of conflict of interests. c- The monopoly enjoyed by ICANN, backed by the US gov, is detrimental to users interests. Competition should be explored. Would this make for a sleeper session ? Cheers ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 6 01:10:06 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 08:10:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: <20070505174531.925955C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <46378E5D.6070501@iafrica.com> <20070505174531.925955C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 5/5/07, Parminder wrote: > > Riaz > > > The Treasury states that "except for information or informational > > materials and donated articles intended to relieve human suffering, such > > as food, clothing and medicine, and the licensed export of agricultural > > commodities. no goods, technology, or services may be exported from the > > United States to Sudan". > > > > Wonder if it means that, legally, ICANN cant export its services to > Sudan.... It might, if ICANN "exported services", but since they don't, it's moot. >the US Treasury has apparently banned > > access to images from Google Earth in Sudan as part of its ongoing > > export controls and economic sanctions against the country. > > > Google is now almost as universal and monopolistic an element of > Internet's > architecture as ICANN. Google provides services that run on the architecture, it's not the architecture itself. Its control by US government is a matter of great > concern. The problem is that other countries can only control/ regulate > google at and within their digital gates (as china does), i.e. if they can > afford good gates, but US can do it for other countries as well. and fair play to them. Are you suggesting that the Internet trumps sovereignty? And here we are still arguing whether there is any need at all for globally > acceptable Internet policies... No, we are arguing about what is subject to those policies. There are already global policies in place, and processes to determine same. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From tracey at traceynaughton.com Sun May 6 01:03:20 2007 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:03:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] speed dialogue (speed geeking) References: <6FC438A3-1CDA-4E0C-9303-008ACEED4F65@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <134AD54D-AC20-4353-877F-6A8013AFB02B@traceynaughton.com> The concept of 'speed' in group process / debate / discussion: I am not sure what the intended meaning was in this context but the general concept of 'speed ...[process]' emerged in participatory process parlance a few years ago. It's based on the concept of 'speed dating' where the exchange is fast, compact and salient. It can be used to good effect in the right situations. It is important to have a good facilitator to manage the process. I have used it in situations where you want to have a discussion and make decisions but you need all the participants to have an understanding of a number of inter-related ideas, projects, research results etc. so you don't have to spend time bringing the whole group up to speed on current updates and angles on your overall topic context. It's a good mechanism for information sharing and for bringing a diverse group of people closer to having a shared understanding of the basics or recent developments etc around the topic you are dealing with. The effect is to give people a conference quantity of key information without them sitting through three days of papers and forgetting most of the content anyway. Here is the outline of how it works - you can adapt it of course: You set up information stations around a room where one person is located to speak / demonstrate / present on a topic, and idea, a relevant research project - things that are relevant to the overall topic at hand. These speed station attendants (speed geeks) have prepared themselves to present, in a way they choose, the key features of their topic, recent research etc. They only have 5-10 minutes. You need to determine the overall structure depending on how many speed geeking stations you are having and the time available. The speed geeks need to be the most knowledgeable people on the subject for that station and be good communicators too. The facilitator will have worked with them beforehand on content and process. A strong team of speed geeks is key to the success of speed geeking. The overall group is split into smaller groups and they travel from one speed geek station to the next. They stay at each one for the 5-10 minutes you have allocated for the exercise and then at the facilitators signal, the groups move on to the next station. Within an hour you can easily have a large group of people taking in 6 - 8 key ingredients to lay the basis for a well informed discussion. Happy speed geeking Tracey Naughton Tracey Naughton Country Director, Pact Mongolia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracey at pact.mn land line: +976 11 460 901 x108 cell: +976 9911 5717 fax: +976 11 461 047 ah: +976 11 315 379 skype: tracey_naughton <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< physical: Peace Avenue, 24 Ulaanbaatar postal: PO Box 761, Ulaanbaatar 49 Mongolia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pact website: www.pactworld.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 6 03:56:01 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:26:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070506075622.2C6CFC94CD@smtp1.electricembers.net> My apologies for not being here for the last few days. Was caught up in work, and was traveling in low connectivity areas... Meanwhile, Milton, Bill and Adam, thanks for pushing this along. Adam, I have a few responses to your email. While I agree with you can we should also address issues of form apart from content, and specifically take up stuff from the IGF secretariat document, I have a proposal - we should separate the key thematic agenda we propose from the other stuff. I mean separate them for IGC's internal processes of acceptance.... Otherwise we may get caught into too many loops... I will make the precise proposal in a separate email. Meanwhile, I will address the issue you have raised in the 'content' part - whether the theme 2 should be 'ICANN and core internet resources' as present or just 'core resources' as you suggest. You seem to suggest that ICANN is a minor details of the 'core resources' picture, and others seem to imply that the non-ICANN is a detail elaboration of the main public policy issues in this realm that are today best represented in ICANN's role and activities. (though no one denies that the standard setting role played by many other agencies as having important public policy aspects, but there seems to be relatively less political/ policy controversy over these, at present) Neither side is wrong. And what is important depends on whether one is approaching the issue from a technical management side or public policy side. The issue here is not what is inherently important, it is what has important public policy implications, which rent people's minds today. (That which has greater possibility for conflicts of interests between different groups is what is more political, and therefore becomes more important form a public policy angle) In this light, I can t agree with your observation that >The only people who > care about individual participation in ICANN are > a few of us on this list and a hand full of > others. The view you take in this regard will depends on which people you spend time with.... I think we need to understand the nature and rationale of IGF. If it were enough that the present set determined Internet policies, we wouldn't need WSIS and IGF. It is precisely because it was recognized that Internet implicates everyone's interests, and with increasing intensity, that these institutions came into being. And therefore the purpose of IGF is to give those people who don't have access to present IG regimes greater involvement. So, we need to take up and talk about issues that this 'greater constituency' wants taken up - and name the issues in a manner they understand. We have had a long discussion on this list about public policy implications of .xxx issue, for instance. Now if you insist that the name of the theme should be 'core resources' I think you should be expanding on what public policy implications, as this 'greater constituency' will be interested in, are implied by you. >It will be dismissed as "enhance > cooperation", If it is 'enhanced cooperation' why should it be dismissed. Did not an important set of issues which took up the 'enhanced cooperation' front, important topics at WSIS, and which interested a lot of people. it's gift for anyone who wants to > make sure "critical Internet resources" are not > discussed. I think not mentioning ICANN in our theme will be a gift to some important people who are shying from a discussion on ICANN - which is generally a good indicator that a discussion is badly needed. >I think the response to (3) will be, > "good, propose is as a workshop". Do not understand why you say so. This theme is closest to a secretariat 'prescribed' theme - access. we are only clarifying what kind of discussion on access fits the IGF space - its public policy/ institutions at the global level aspects - which helps better outcomes. > About (4). I think this is extremely important. > Can we propose the "Topical Issue" session become > a session discussing the IGF mandate to see if > it's providing the right direction for the > following years. It appears that the meaning that the secretariat document ascribes to 'topical' is very different. They speak of 'an issue that arose in recent months' and give the example of the earthquake in the South China sea, and that such an issue should be determined 2 months before IGf meeting... so I don't think IGF mandate theme will fit there. 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: Saturday, May 05, 2007 11:58 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > Milton, thanks for persevering with this. > > I think the statement must also say what we do > support -- what parts of the proposed program are > we pleased to see (attempt to make a more > coherent agenda, while still allowing open > workshops and general "open call", better > suggestions about duration of sessions? > Multi-stakeholder principles reinforced. etc.) > > Do we agree with the basic "Basic Meeting > Structure" (section 2 of the draft program). Do > we have anything to say about dynamic coalitions? > > I would say yes to all of this section, except I > think discussion of core resources must be the > subject of a main session. > > Are we OK with "3 Meeting Types" (only thought > is "best" practise must also include lessons > learned, hearing about what not to do can be as > valuable as people boosting their own work.) > > I am not sure I understand "speed dialogue" but why not hear more about > it. > > "6. Content" seems to be what our statement focuses on. > > I hope we can propose "core resources" as a main session. > > I do not support the way we propose to address > "critical Internet resources" at the moment: > > > At 9:21 AM -0400 5/4/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > >(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > > >Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the > >IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in > >the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and > >number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet > >Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy > >making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status > >as an international organization, its representation of individual > >users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be > >discussed. > > > ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a > subject for a main session. The only people who > care about individual participation in ICANN are > a few of us on this list and a hand full of > others. It will be dismissed as "enhance > cooperation", it's gift for anyone who wants to > make sure "critical Internet resources" are not > discussed. Would be naive to propose in this way. > > If you want to make sure "critical Internet > resources" is buried, this is the way to do it. > > Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement. > > Rest of the statement's fine. Although seems > overlapping. I think the response to (3) will be, > "good, propose is as a workshop". > > About (4). I think this is extremely important. > Can we propose the "Topical Issue" session become > a session discussing the IGF mandate to see if > it's providing the right direction for the > following years. Associated workshops would > flesh out some of the items in 72 and bring them > to the main session. (Discussing topical issues > might be interesting in workshops or could become > part of best practise: what were the best ways to > cope with Taiwan earth quake and cut cables...) > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 6 04:12:50 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:42:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <200705060206.l4626FH9023142@muse.enst.fr> Message-ID: <20070506081256.D535D5C55@smtp2.electricembers.net> Louis > < In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its > representation of individual users, its monopolistic aggregation of > conflictual functions, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN > should be discussed. > I completely agree with your formulation, and the rationale behind it. However, my view is that we may want to be strategic at this stage and not mention aspects of the issue which will make it even more unlikely for the MAG, with its representations of interests as we know, to accept it. Anyone can take this issue of ' its monopolistic aggregation of conflictual functions' under the parts the policy issues and policy making > >processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an > >international organization, of our proposed theme. What do you say? 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: Louis Pouzin [mailto:pouzin at well.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 7:36 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:27:38 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: > > >ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a subject for a main session. > >The only people who care about individual participation in ICANN are a > >few of us on this list and a hand full of others. It will be dismissed > >as "enhance cooperation", it's gift for anyone who wants to make sure > >"critical Internet resources" are not discussed. Would be naive to > >propose in this way. > > >If you want to make sure "critical Internet resources" is buried, this is > the way to do it. > > The text related to this topic (submitted by Bill Drake on 2 May 2007 > 08:39:34 +0200) reads: > > >(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > >Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. > > Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the > >Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number > >resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. > > This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making > >processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an > >international organization, its representation of individual users, and > >the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. > > I'd suggest a slight expansion of the last sentence: > > < In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its > representation of individual users, its monopolistic aggregation of > conflictual functions, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN > should be discussed. > > > Rationale: > > a- Name resources administered by ICANN are not inclusive. They are > limited to those approved by ICANN. > > b- Administering the introduction of new names, coupled with the selection > of registries, and the resulting financing of ICANN is a highly > questionable instance of conflict of interests. > > c- The monopoly enjoyed by ICANN, backed by the US gov, is detrimental to > users interests. Competition should be explored. > > Would this make for a sleeper session ? > > Cheers > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 6 05:35:24 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 15:05:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - non-content Message-ID: <20070506093539.9A76D5CCF@smtp2.electricembers.net> I have made a separate thread for taking in input for our statement to IGF MAG on 23rd on issues other than the main themes suggestions which are being treated separately. I am cut-pasting from my earlier email dt 28th April. >Meanwhile we are also taking inputs on other aspects of IGF 2, like its plenary design, workshops design, supporting >participation of people the costs of attending, IGF's own proactive agenda of workshops and research, overview/ >background papers, approach toward dynamic coalitions etc... Other topics for taking in suggestions are also welcome. Parminder ________________________________________________ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 6 05:35:24 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 15:05:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463C3DF7.6070904@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070506093541.862E0E179D@smtp3.electricembers.net> Some points on Vittorio's email. > About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main > session" and "plenary session", In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being suggested for plenary/ main sessions. >About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please advise. This session will discuss the role and mandate for the IGF in light of the Tunis mandate. > The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really > missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting > issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts, > and perhaps also "where is the IGF going". Framework convention kind of things can be taken up in theme 1 on public policy in IG, and 'where is the IGF going' will be a central issue in theme 4 on IGF. On the 'topical issue' I have explained my understanding of it in an email I sent a while ago.... 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: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:49 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > Cc: Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > > Hello > > > > Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the > > statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it > > accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can > > we ACT, please? > > Ok, don't jump. First, we need to transform the draft in something > coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a > final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48 > hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be > scheduled for, say, May 13-16. > > This is something that Parminder and I can do (not having spoken with > Parminder yet), but first I would like to clear the substance of what we > are going to say. > > As per the draft, we would be asking to: > > 1) have a "plenary session" on some cross-cutting theoretical issues > about what is or is not public policy etc.; > > 2) have a "main session" on ICANN (with people suggesting either to > broaden it to IETF/W3C/ITU etc, or not to make it so focused on specific > details such as GAC, individual user representation etc); > > 3) have a "plenary session" on access for disadvantaged people; > > 4) copy and paste of para 72. > > About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please > advise. > > About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main > session" and "plenary session", but I assume that the proposers mean a > big session like one of the four devoted to each theme in Athens. Now, > could the AG members please tell me whether that's a reasonable request > to make? It doesn't look so - I mean, I guess that even if the draft > programme is flexible, it's unlikely that more plenary sessions (apart > from those already scheduled) can be added, specifically if on > specialized issues as opposed to the main themes. The only timeslot I > see theoretically available is the early one on Monday 14:00-16:00. > > The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really > missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting > issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts, > and perhaps also "where is the IGF going". > > For 2) and 3), I think that reasonable suggestions would be to put these > as one of a few main points in the main session for the related theme > (3) is access, 2)... ok, not totally clear, but perhaps access as well? > or security?). Alternately, propose workshops (BTW - any idea on > workshop selection criteria?) > > Or, there is a slot labelled "topical issue" which I guess is still TBD > - can people from the AG enlighten on what it is? Should we propose > topics for it? > > Finally, given that the draft schedule came out, I guess that comments > on it would be helpful. I can pick up what we said in February and > extract / summarize a few practical suggestions, would that be useful? > > Thanks, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 6 05:35:24 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 15:05:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <463C3DF7.6070904@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070506093543.BACDFE1786@smtp3.electricembers.net> I agree we need to work fast on this. A couple of suggestions/ contributions. > First, we need to transform the draft in something > coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a > final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48 > hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be > scheduled for, say, May 13-16. To keep things relatively neat, quick, and likely to produce best outcomes, I propose that (1) for our internal processes of acceptance/adoption by the IGC we separate the content part from other parts of the statement. . We can then pull it together while actually making the statement. The two parts will be distinct even in the final statement so that there are no substantive changes after the two parts of the statement are accepted by the caucus. (2) I will like to put the two parts for consensus sooner, so that they could be voted upon if necessary, and/or also make to the written input stage for incorporation into the synthesis doc for the meeting. My proposal is that we collect inputs into the 4 part theme structure as per Bill's email enclosed here over the next three days, 7th to 9th, on 9th night we put the 'content' doc up for rough consensus and wait for 48 hours. If adopted, we submit it for 14th deadline of written inputs. If not, we put it for vote and if then adopted take it directly to the meeting as a spoken statement. I will try and propose an intro para or two for thematic or content submission which will make the point (in the spirit of our submission of themes) that IGF 2 needs to be different than IGF 1 in terms of its substantive content, and that it should address real issues that most concern people today in the IG realm, and in the language that they are mostly formulated in public spaces. And that this will enable it to fulfill its mandate under p72 much better. If anyone will like to draft this intro paras for 'content' submission, please do. Parminder ________________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:49 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > Cc: Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > > Hello > > > > Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the > > statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it > > accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can > > we ACT, please? > > Ok, don't jump. First, we need to transform the draft in something > coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a > final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48 > hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be > scheduled for, say, May 13-16. > > This is something that Parminder and I can do (not having spoken with > Parminder yet), but first I would like to clear the substance of what we > are going to say. > > As per the draft, we would be asking to: > > 1) have a "plenary session" on some cross-cutting theoretical issues > about what is or is not public policy etc.; > > 2) have a "main session" on ICANN (with people suggesting either to > broaden it to IETF/W3C/ITU etc, or not to make it so focused on specific > details such as GAC, individual user representation etc); > > 3) have a "plenary session" on access for disadvantaged people; > > 4) copy and paste of para 72. > > About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please > advise. > > About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main > session" and "plenary session", but I assume that the proposers mean a > big session like one of the four devoted to each theme in Athens. Now, > could the AG members please tell me whether that's a reasonable request > to make? It doesn't look so - I mean, I guess that even if the draft > programme is flexible, it's unlikely that more plenary sessions (apart > from those already scheduled) can be added, specifically if on > specialized issues as opposed to the main themes. The only timeslot I > see theoretically available is the early one on Monday 14:00-16:00. > > The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really > missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting > issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts, > and perhaps also "where is the IGF going". > > For 2) and 3), I think that reasonable suggestions would be to put these > as one of a few main points in the main session for the related theme > (3) is access, 2)... ok, not totally clear, but perhaps access as well? > or security?). Alternately, propose workshops (BTW - any idea on > workshop selection criteria?) > > Or, there is a slot labelled "topical issue" which I guess is still TBD > - can people from the AG enlighten on what it is? Should we propose > topics for it? > > Finally, given that the draft schedule came out, I guess that comments > on it would be helpful. I can pick up what we said in February and > extract / summarize a few practical suggestions, would that be useful? > > Thanks, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 6 08:11:49 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 17:41:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <20070506093543.BACDFE1786@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070506121201.72CF8E0785@smtp3.electricembers.net> Sorry, I didn't enclosed Bill email as stated.. The following is the draft text of our submission, on the content part, to the IGF consultations on the 23rd this, for developing the agenda, themes and structure of the Rio IGF 2 meeting. Inputs are being taken over the next three day - 7th to 9th - before it is put up as a final text for seeking consensus. (starts) (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy 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 Plenary 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of individual users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet." (4) role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. (ends) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 3:05 PM > To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content > > I agree we need to work fast on this. A couple of suggestions/ > contributions. > > > First, we need to transform the draft in something > > coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a > > final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48 > > hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be > > scheduled for, say, May 13-16. > > To keep things relatively neat, quick, and likely to produce best > outcomes, > I propose that > > (1) for our internal processes of acceptance/adoption by the IGC we > separate > the content part from other parts of the statement. . We can then pull it > together while actually making the statement. The two parts will be > distinct > even in the final statement so that there are no substantive changes after > the two parts of the statement are accepted by the caucus. > > (2) I will like to put the two parts for consensus sooner, so that they > could be voted upon if necessary, and/or also make to the written input > stage for incorporation into the synthesis doc for the meeting. > > My proposal is that we collect inputs into the 4 part theme structure as > per > Bill's email enclosed here over the next three days, 7th to 9th, on 9th > night we put the 'content' doc up for rough consensus and wait for 48 > hours. > If adopted, we submit it for 14th deadline of written inputs. If not, we > put > it for vote and if then adopted take it directly to the meeting as a > spoken > statement. > > I will try and propose an intro para or two for thematic or content > submission which will make the point (in the spirit of our submission of > themes) that IGF 2 needs to be different than IGF 1 in terms of its > substantive content, and that it should address real issues that most > concern people today in the IG realm, and in the language that they are > mostly formulated in public spaces. And that this will enable it to > fulfill > its mandate under p72 much better. If anyone will like to draft this intro > paras for 'content' submission, please do. > > Parminder > ________________________________________________ > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:49 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > > Cc: Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > > > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > > > Hello > > > > > > Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the > > > statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it > > > accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can > > > we ACT, please? > > > > Ok, don't jump. First, we need to transform the draft in something > > coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a > > final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48 > > hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be > > scheduled for, say, May 13-16. > > > > This is something that Parminder and I can do (not having spoken with > > Parminder yet), but first I would like to clear the substance of what we > > are going to say. > > > > As per the draft, we would be asking to: > > > > 1) have a "plenary session" on some cross-cutting theoretical issues > > about what is or is not public policy etc.; > > > > 2) have a "main session" on ICANN (with people suggesting either to > > broaden it to IETF/W3C/ITU etc, or not to make it so focused on specific > > details such as GAC, individual user representation etc); > > > > 3) have a "plenary session" on access for disadvantaged people; > > > > 4) copy and paste of para 72. > > > > About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please > > advise. > > > > About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main > > session" and "plenary session", but I assume that the proposers mean a > > big session like one of the four devoted to each theme in Athens. Now, > > could the AG members please tell me whether that's a reasonable request > > to make? It doesn't look so - I mean, I guess that even if the draft > > programme is flexible, it's unlikely that more plenary sessions (apart > > from those already scheduled) can be added, specifically if on > > specialized issues as opposed to the main themes. The only timeslot I > > see theoretically available is the early one on Monday 14:00-16:00. > > > > The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really > > missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting > > issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts, > > and perhaps also "where is the IGF going". > > > > For 2) and 3), I think that reasonable suggestions would be to put these > > as one of a few main points in the main session for the related theme > > (3) is access, 2)... ok, not totally clear, but perhaps access as well? > > or security?). Alternately, propose workshops (BTW - any idea on > > workshop selection criteria?) > > > > Or, there is a slot labelled "topical issue" which I guess is still TBD > > - can people from the AG enlighten on what it is? Should we propose > > topics for it? > > > > Finally, given that the draft schedule came out, I guess that comments > > on it would be helpful. I can pick up what we said in February and > > extract / summarize a few practical suggestions, would that be useful? > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun May 6 08:48:52 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 15:48:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <20070506121201.72CF8E0785@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070506093543.BACDFE1786@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070506121201.72CF8E0785@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 5/6/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. > Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the > Tunis > Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources > are > administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. I'd add "respectively" to the above. As it stands it sounds to me like the RIR's administer name resources. This is not the case (unless one considers 1.220.41.in-addr.arpa a name resource). This session > should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these > institutions. The session, the IGF and the IGC should all encourage folk to participate in these policy making institutions by doing capacity building about their operations. Please bottom trim your mails. This is one of the first thing one learns in these policy making institutions!! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun May 6 10:41:11 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:41:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] speed dialogue (speed geeking) In-Reply-To: <134AD54D-AC20-4353-877F-6A8013AFB02B@traceynaughton.com> References: <6FC438A3-1CDA-4E0C-9303-008ACEED4F65@traceynaughton.com> <134AD54D-AC20-4353-877F-6A8013AFB02B@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410705060741r4e5f749bjd693ca5a1c89477a@mail.gmail.com> Dear Tracey and greetings all: Sounds like a nice way to deliver something like 'executive summaries' and 'advanced organizers' in an accessible & people-centered, animated venue. Geared to encourage 'circulation' too in a number of ways., Thanks for the easily visualized intro. Very best wishes, and *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. For I.D. here: Persons With Pain International. National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus - .Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability (IDC Steering Comm.); IDC-ICT Taskforce. *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee For The U.N. linda at 2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawomanwithdisabilities.com On 5/6/07, Tracey Naughton wrote: > > > The concept of 'speed' in group process / debate / discussion: > > I am not sure what the intended meaning was in this context but the > general concept of 'speed ...[process]' emerged in participatory > process parlance a few years ago. It's based on the concept of 'speed > dating' where the exchange is fast, compact and salient. It can be > used to good effect in the right situations. It is important to have > a good facilitator to manage the process. I have used it in > situations where you want to have a discussion and make decisions but > you need all the participants to have an understanding of a number of > inter-related ideas, projects, research results etc. so you don't > have to spend time bringing the whole group up to speed on current > updates and angles on your overall topic context. > > It's a good mechanism for information sharing and for bringing a > diverse group of people closer to having a shared understanding of > the basics or recent developments etc around the topic you are > dealing with. The effect is to give people a conference quantity of > key information without them sitting through three days of papers and > forgetting most of the content anyway. > > Here is the outline of how it works - you can adapt it of course: > > You set up information stations around a room where one person is > located to speak / demonstrate / present on a topic, and idea, a > relevant research project - things that are relevant to the overall > topic at hand. These speed station attendants (speed geeks) have > prepared themselves to present, in a way they choose, the key > features of their topic, recent research etc. They only have 5-10 > minutes. You need to determine the overall structure depending on how > many speed geeking stations you are having and the time available. > > The speed geeks need to be the most knowledgeable people on the > subject for that station and be good communicators too. The > facilitator will have worked with them beforehand on content and > process. A strong team of speed geeks is key to the success of speed > geeking. > > The overall group is split into smaller groups and they travel from > one speed geek station to the next. They stay at each one for the > 5-10 minutes you have allocated for the exercise and then at the > facilitators signal, the groups move on to the next station. Within > an hour you can easily have a large group of people taking in 6 - 8 > key ingredients to lay the basis for a well informed discussion. > > Happy speed geeking > > Tracey Naughton > > > > > Tracey Naughton > Country Director, Pact Mongolia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Tracey at pact.mn > > land line: +976 11 460 901 x108 > cell: +976 9911 5717 > fax: +976 11 461 047 > ah: +976 11 315 379 > skype: tracey_naughton > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > physical: Peace Avenue, 24 Ulaanbaatar > postal: PO Box 761, Ulaanbaatar 49 > Mongolia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Pact website: www.pactworld.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 > -------------- 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 Sun May 6 12:00:08 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 18:00:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <20070506093543.BACDFE1786@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, Replies to Parminder and Adam. On 5/6/07 11:35 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > My proposal is that we collect inputs into the 4 part theme structure as per > Bill's email enclosed here over the next three days, 7th to 9th, on 9th > night we put the 'content' doc up for rough consensus and wait for 48 hours. > If adopted, we submit it for 14th deadline of written inputs. If not, we put > it for vote and if then adopted take it directly to the meeting as a spoken > statement. We do need to be less languid about this. If we want anyone to read the document, it would be best to get it posted on the IGF site prior to the two WSIS weeks, like Friday 11th, no? Particularly since our suggestions are fairly orthogonal, it would be ideal for them to be on the table early enough to get noticed and hopefully generate discussion before everyone gets wrapped up in other matters. We have four paragraphs on proposed plenary topics that have been floating around on the list for a couple weeks. In that time there've been a few suggestions on minor language tweaks that could be incorporated but that's it, so it's not obvious we need to wait three more days before a consensus call. If you and Vittorio could draft a brief lead-in paragraph with the usual thank yous for the opportunity to weigh in etc and saying we suggest the following plenary topics and send this back as an integrated doc, we could start the consensus call ASAP and voting soon thereafter if necessary, which I suspect it would be. > I will try and propose an intro para or two for thematic or content > submission which will make the point (in the spirit of our submission of > themes) that IGF 2 needs to be different than IGF 1 in terms of its > substantive content, and that it should address real issues that most > concern people today in the IG realm, and in the language that they are > mostly formulated in public spaces. And that this will enable it to fulfill > its mandate under p72 much better. If anyone will like to draft this intro > paras for 'content' submission, please do. I would suggest skipping this. Probably someone will consider such a text to be too negative in tone and debating it will slow the process down even further. It's pretty obvious anyway from the four topics that a different thrust is being proposed. On 5/5/07 8:27 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > I think the statement must also say what we do > support -- what parts of the proposed program are > we pleased to see (attempt to make a more > coherent agenda, while still allowing open > workshops and general "open call", better > suggestions about duration of sessions? > Multi-stakeholder principles reinforced. etc.) Presumably P & V could fit that into the lead in para in one or two sentences. > Do we agree with the basic "Basic Meeting > Structure" (section 2 of the draft program). Do > we have anything to say about dynamic coalitions? Yes with regard to shorter sessions with fewer panelists and links to workshops et al. But the problem remains squaring the circle between the topics we're proposing and the established thematic structure of plenary sessions on access, openness, security and diversity. Ok, our third is on access, but public policies, ICANN, and the IGF mandate don't really fit under the three other rubrics, which is part of why I expressed doubts they'd be taken on board. mAG would have to buy into losing at least one of the three projected sessions on each of the Athens themes. But as people have said, let's put it out there and see and see if persuasion is possible. > ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a > subject for a main session. The only people who > care about individual participation in ICANN are > a few of us on this list and a hand full of > others. It will be dismissed as "enhance > cooperation", it's gift for anyone who wants to > make sure "critical Internet resources" are not > discussed. Would be naive to propose in this way. > If you want to make sure "critical Internet > resources" is buried, this is the way to do it. If saying the I-word is taboo in this open and inclusive forum on IG (!), what would you propose for this session, language? If we just say core resources without touching the third rail, it might require tweaks to avoid any nominal overlap with the global public policy bit. > Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement. Make sense. 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 lists at privaterra.info Sun May 6 14:27:03 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:27:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Papers: The Journal of Networks and Civil Society References: <1034595942.25718.107068@dXNlcm5hbWU=.gilbert.soceco.org> Message-ID: <0EDA943F-98BD-4F60-B76B-C0D7FF37937B@privaterra.info> Begin forwarded message: From: "Michael Gilbert - Nonprofit Online News" Date: April 25, 2007 9:42:34 PM EDT (CA) To: lists at privaterra.info Subject: Call for Papers: The Journal of Networks and Civil Society Reply-To: Nonprofit Online News: http://news.gilbert.org/ Nonprofit Online Classifieds: http://classifieds.nonprofitnews.org/ Special Edition for Wednesday, April 25, 2007 ++ Section One: Call for Papers Announcement: Hi -- I'm very pleased to announce the second thematic issue of our journal series, entitled The Journal of Networks and Civil Society. This journal is intended to complement our previous issue, which focused on the role of ICT in social change. The inaugural call for papers for this journal asks for researchers and practitioners to submit papers and proposals dealing with a number of related topics including: * community ties and the effectiveness of movements, * civil society organization in the context of networks, * key leverage points in the (re)building of social networks, * network building as advocacy and social change strategy, * and new funding and accountability models for network centric civil society initiatives. Read the full call for papers here: http://news.gilbert.org/clickThru/redir/6392/25718/rms Please pass this on, send your questions, and consider submitting a proposal. Sincerely, -- Michael Gilbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 6 14:30:01 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 00:00:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070506183011.302235CB2@smtp2.electricembers.net> > We do need to be less languid about this. Ok, Ill move the timelines some. We can have the present draft open for comments till midnight on 7th, GMT. Then we will post the doc for consensus by noon GMT on 8th . And it closes at noon on 10th, when, I am very hopeful it will be adopted. If not it goes for voting... I have to check the procedure, but I think it can be done over 3 days. We will still make it to the synthesis doc... Hopefully though if adopted by consensus or rough consensus on 10th we can immediately put it out. We may do that extra outreach to send it my email to all MAG members, and some other stakeholders, including some government officials. > > I will try and propose an intro para or two for thematic or content > > submission which will make the point (in the spirit of our submission of > > themes) that IGF 2 needs to be different than IGF 1 in terms of its > > substantive content, and that it should address real issues that most > > concern people today in the IG realm, and in the language that they are > > mostly formulated in public spaces. And that this will enable it to > fulfill > > its mandate under p72 much better. If anyone will like to draft this > intro > > paras for 'content' submission, please do. > > I would suggest skipping this. Probably someone will consider such a text > to be too negative in tone and debating it will slow the process down even > further. It's pretty obvious anyway from the four topics that a different > thrust is being proposed. Fine. > > I think the statement must also say what we do > > support -- what parts of the proposed program are > > we pleased to see (attempt to make a more > > coherent agenda, while still allowing open > > workshops and general "open call", better > > suggestions about duration of sessions? > > Multi-stakeholder principles reinforced. etc.) > > Presumably P & V could fit that into the lead in para in one or two > sentences. I will like to keep it separate. Vittorio and I will pull together non-content stuff including responding to the secretariat doc separately, including stuff from the feb statement. > > Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement. > > Make sense. No problem for me. But I will like to know the logic/ motivation behind this. 72a reads a) 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. But other parts of 72, as well as other parts of TA, give a broader scope to IG related public policy issues. So, something absent in 72 a may not be taken too seriously, as long as it is there in other parts. For instance, 72 b speaks about IGF discussing issues ' issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body'. Now, you may have noticed that 72a doesn't mention 'content'. So should we not discuss content policies. But no other subject was discussed as much as content at IGF 1. And it doesn't mention or cover openness, or access to knowledge..... 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: Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:30 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content > > Hi, > > Replies to Parminder and Adam. > > On 5/6/07 11:35 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > My proposal is that we collect inputs into the 4 part theme structure as > per > > Bill's email enclosed here over the next three days, 7th to 9th, on 9th > > night we put the 'content' doc up for rough consensus and wait for 48 > hours. > > If adopted, we submit it for 14th deadline of written inputs. If not, we > put > > it for vote and if then adopted take it directly to the meeting as a > spoken > > statement. > > We do need to be less languid about this. If we want anyone to read the > document, it would be best to get it posted on the IGF site prior to the > two > WSIS weeks, like Friday 11th, no? Particularly since our suggestions are > fairly orthogonal, it would be ideal for them to be on the table early > enough to get noticed and hopefully generate discussion before everyone > gets > wrapped up in other matters. We have four paragraphs on proposed plenary > topics that have been floating around on the list for a couple weeks. In > that time there've been a few suggestions on minor language tweaks that > could be incorporated but that's it, so it's not obvious we need to wait > three more days before a consensus call. If you and Vittorio could draft > a > brief lead-in paragraph with the usual thank yous for the opportunity to > weigh in etc and saying we suggest the following plenary topics and send > this back as an integrated doc, we could start the consensus call ASAP and > voting soon thereafter if necessary, which I suspect it would be. > > > I will try and propose an intro para or two for thematic or content > > submission which will make the point (in the spirit of our submission of > > themes) that IGF 2 needs to be different than IGF 1 in terms of its > > substantive content, and that it should address real issues that most > > concern people today in the IG realm, and in the language that they are > > mostly formulated in public spaces. And that this will enable it to > fulfill > > its mandate under p72 much better. If anyone will like to draft this > intro > > paras for 'content' submission, please do. > > I would suggest skipping this. Probably someone will consider such a text > to be too negative in tone and debating it will slow the process down even > further. It's pretty obvious anyway from the four topics that a different > thrust is being proposed. > > On 5/5/07 8:27 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > I think the statement must also say what we do > > support -- what parts of the proposed program are > > we pleased to see (attempt to make a more > > coherent agenda, while still allowing open > > workshops and general "open call", better > > suggestions about duration of sessions? > > Multi-stakeholder principles reinforced. etc.) > > Presumably P & V could fit that into the lead in para in one or two > sentences. > > > Do we agree with the basic "Basic Meeting > > Structure" (section 2 of the draft program). Do > > we have anything to say about dynamic coalitions? > > Yes with regard to shorter sessions with fewer panelists and links to > workshops et al. But the problem remains squaring the circle between the > topics we're proposing and the established thematic structure of plenary > sessions on access, openness, security and diversity. Ok, our third is on > access, but public policies, ICANN, and the IGF mandate don't really fit > under the three other rubrics, which is part of why I expressed doubts > they'd be taken on board. mAG would have to buy into losing at least one > of > the three projected sessions on each of the Athens themes. But as people > have said, let's put it out there and see and see if persuasion is > possible. > > > ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a > > subject for a main session. The only people who > > care about individual participation in ICANN are > > a few of us on this list and a hand full of > > others. It will be dismissed as "enhance > > cooperation", it's gift for anyone who wants to > > make sure "critical Internet resources" are not > > discussed. Would be naive to propose in this way. > > > If you want to make sure "critical Internet > > resources" is buried, this is the way to do it. > > If saying the I-word is taboo in this open and inclusive forum on IG (!), > what would you propose for this session, language? If we just say core > resources without touching the third rail, it might require tweaks to > avoid > any nominal overlap with the global public policy bit. > > > Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement. > > Make sense. > > Cheers, > > BD > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 6 14:32:47 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 00:02:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070506183254.06637E1799@smtp3.electricembers.net> On the theme 2 which stand as > (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. > Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the > Tunis > Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources > are > administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session > should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these > institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international > organization, its representation of individual users, and the changing > role > of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. I would like to change 'its representation of individual users' to 'its representation of all constituencies and stakeholders'. There has been a long debate on this issue recently on 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 vb at bertola.eu Sun May 6 16:44:48 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 22:44:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20070506093541.862E0E179D@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070506093541.862E0E179D@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <463E3E40.2080608@bertola.eu> Parminder ha scritto: >>About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main >>session" and "plenary session", > > In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being suggested > for plenary/ main sessions. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: it seemed to me that we would ask "a main session" to be specifically devoted to each of the four issues - that would make four new main sessions to be added to the already scheduled ones, and there's no space for this to happen in the schedule. If we want to ask that these arguments are discussed as a part of one of the already scheduled sessions, we'd better say that clearly. Or, as I was saying, we might ask for an additional "crosscutting" session and fit our issues either in it or in one of the four themes. -- 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun May 6 21:30:56 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 09:30:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463E3E40.2080608@bertola.eu> References: <20070506093541.862E0E179D@smtp3.electricembers.net> <463E3E40.2080608@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <463E8150.1040008@Malcolm.id.au> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being >> suggested >> for plenary/ main sessions. > > Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: it seemed to me that we would ask > "a main session" to be specifically devoted to each of the four issues - > that would make four new main sessions to be added to the already > scheduled ones, and there's no space for this to happen in the schedule. But as I and others have been saying, forget about the schedule. There are many ways in which room could be made. For example, lose the speed dialogue sessions on access/openness/security/diversity, and use those sessions for what we propose instead. Or indeed, vice versa; there is no reason why the thematic emphasis needs to be the same every year. -- 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 Sun May 6 23:48:26 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 09:18:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463E8150.1040008@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070507034837.DBCFD5C8F@smtp2.electricembers.net> As Jeremy says, and was said by a few more, lets not take the schedule as given. It is an input doc from the secretariat; we will give another one from IGC. Any institution has self-preserving, status-quoists and low risk taking attributes..... civil society has its core business in challenging that in the wider public interest. IGC need not act as a facilitating group for whatever the secretariat decides. We have our position, let them decide what to do about it. If you read the secretariat doc, it says in its second sentence that it is more about structure than content. Why should then we give them more than they seek? About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions used the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make it clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad subjects like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy deliberations seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of itself analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between extant institutions etc. These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given to it by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the interests on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on some teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some vested interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which we hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a strong point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from the main debates.' Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being > >> suggested > >> for plenary/ main sessions. > > > > Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: it seemed to me that we would ask > > "a main session" to be specifically devoted to each of the four issues - > > that would make four new main sessions to be added to the already > > scheduled ones, and there's no space for this to happen in the schedule. > > But as I and others have been saying, forget about the schedule. There > are many ways in which room could be made. For example, lose the speed > dialogue sessions on access/openness/security/diversity, and use those > sessions for what we propose instead. Or indeed, vice versa; there is > no reason why the thematic emphasis needs to be the same every year. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 7 01:27:11 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:57:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <20070507034837.DBCFD5C8F@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070507052727.DADCB5D2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All We are taking inputs on the four topic areas for the main sessions (open for next 24 hours before consolidation), for which a draft is already proposed. In my email yesterday I had suggested that we have an opening para or two contextualizing what are we doing, and why. Bill said it may not be necessary and be read negatively etc, and that in the formulation of the themes itself it is obvious that we are taking a different approach, and I agreed. However, I now think that it may not be so obvious what are we doing and why, and an introduction invoking TA and the interests of our constituencies is important. I think all advocacy docs which present a forceful position shd do it. My present proposal for the statement on themes for the main sessions at IGF Rio is as follows. This is a quick first draft, and will be corrected. Inputs solicited. (statement begins) This is the contribution of the IGC towards setting up the agenda of the main sessions at IGF Rio. Our contribution on other issues, regarding content of workshops etc, and issues of structures, participation etc will be made separately. We will like to preface our contribution by referring to the Tunis Agenda, and noting that many aspects of the mandate of the IGF which gives it a more proactive role than merely a policy deliberative space, remain unfulfilled. These are in terms of interfacing with and promoting dialogue among IG institutions, making its own analyses, making recommendations etc. So, while this far IGF has only focused on its role as a policy deliberative space, we feel that the IGF should take this role more seriously, and in an output focused manner. In terms of its main themes, around which plenary sessions are organized, it is important that they capture important public policy issues in the IG arena which are uppermost in the people's minds. And that they are presented in the terms and language that they are being spoken of in public spaces, while bringing in the best expertise to the issues. Merely mentioning broad concerns like access and openness do not make for any useful deliberations. We are therefore suggesting below four topics on which main sessions should deliberate, along with the outline of the major issues implicated in each topic area. These subjects are in our opinion the most important public policy issues in the IG realm that concern most people today, and an open discussion on these will enable us to move forward on them. Taking up these issues in the right earnest will also provide greater legitimacy to IGF, as fulfilling its mandated role in this respect. The four topics for main sessions should be: (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy 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 Plenary 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of individual users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet." (4) role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. (ends) 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 Mon May 7 02:19:31 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 11:49:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <20070507052727.DADCB5D2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070507061937.3F7F9E1588@smtp3.electricembers.net> Since all of them are plenaries, the topic (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy will be amended - what about Internet Global Public Policy - Issues and Institutions Parminder ________________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 10:57 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'Vittorio Bertola' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content > > > > Hi All > > We are taking inputs on the four topic areas for the main sessions (open > for > next 24 hours before consolidation), for which a draft is already > proposed. > In my email yesterday I had suggested that we have an opening para or two > contextualizing what are we doing, and why. Bill said it may not be > necessary and be read negatively etc, and that in the formulation of the > themes itself it is obvious that we are taking a different approach, and > I > agreed. However, I now think that it may not be so obvious what are we > doing > and why, and an introduction invoking TA and the interests of our > constituencies is important. I think all advocacy docs which present a > forceful position shd do it. > > > My present proposal for the statement on themes for the main sessions at > IGF > Rio is as follows. This is a quick first draft, and will be corrected. > Inputs solicited. > > (statement begins) > > This is the contribution of the IGC towards setting up the agenda of the > main sessions at IGF Rio. Our contribution on other issues, regarding > content of workshops etc, and issues of structures, participation etc will > be made separately. > > We will like to preface our contribution by referring to the Tunis Agenda, > and noting that many aspects of the mandate of the IGF which gives it a > more > proactive role than merely a policy deliberative space, remain > unfulfilled. > These are in terms of interfacing with and promoting dialogue among IG > institutions, making its own analyses, making recommendations etc. So, > while > this far IGF has only focused on its role as a policy deliberative space, > we > feel that the IGF should take this role more seriously, and in an output > focused manner. In terms of its main themes, around which plenary sessions > are organized, it is important that they capture important public policy > issues in the IG arena which are uppermost in the people's minds. And that > they are presented in the terms and language that they are being spoken of > in public spaces, while bringing in the best expertise to the issues. > > Merely mentioning broad concerns like access and openness do not make for > any useful deliberations. We are therefore suggesting below four topics on > which main sessions should deliberate, along with the outline of the major > issues implicated in each topic area. These subjects are in our opinion > the > most important public policy issues in the IG realm that concern most > people > today, and an open discussion on these will enable us to move forward on > them. Taking up these issues in the right earnest will also provide > greater > legitimacy to IGF, as fulfilling its mandated role in this respect. > > The four topics for main sessions should be: > > (1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy > > 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 > Plenary 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 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? > > > (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF. > Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic in the > Tunis > Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources > are > administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session > should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these > institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international > organization, its representation of individual users, and the changing > role > of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. > > > (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the > Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG > > "Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary > session > devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and > practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and > effective > use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try > to > identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, > resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing > mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on > access to, and effective use of, the Internet." > > > (4) role and mandate of IGF > > The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any > existing > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and > other > institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, > bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, > and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on > an > ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance > processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot > be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual > conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the > purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on > how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. > > (ends) > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 7 02:36:12 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:36:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: References: <46378E5D.6070501@iafrica.com> <20070505174531.925955C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >On 5/5/07, Parminder ><parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: > >Riaz > >> The Treasury states that "except for information or informational >> materials and donated articles intended to relieve human suffering, such >> as food, clothing and medicine, and the licensed export of agricultural >> commodities. no goods, technology, or services may be exported from the >> United States to Sudan". >> > >Wonder if it means that, legally, ICANN cant export its services to >Sudan.... > > > >It might, if ICANN "exported services", but since they don't, it's moot. > Not sure how relevant: Mohammed El Bashir was recently elected to ALAC, Mohammed's from Sudan. Mohammed El Fatih El Tigani Ali, Sudan, is serving currently his second term as a member if ICANN's Nominating Committee. ICANN has a sponsorship agreement with the operator of the .sd (Sudan) ccTLD. ICANN seems to be able to enter into agreements with Sudanese representatives, Sudanese citizens hold leadership positions in ICANN and can select others for leadership positions. I don't know if these are "services" under US treasury rules. Siavash Shahshahani from Iran, another not so favored nation, has been a member of ALAC for a couple of years. 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 vb at bertola.eu Mon May 7 04:01:46 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:01:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20070507034846.D1A0512C04E@kokori.dyf.it> References: <20070507034846.D1A0512C04E@kokori.dyf.it> Message-ID: <463EDCEA.3030506@bertola.eu> Parminder ha scritto: > About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions used > the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make it > clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four > themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad subjects > like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious > deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are > asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy deliberations > seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of itself > analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between > extant institutions etc. Ok, I'm starting to understand better (though what you say is different from what Jeremy says, that he would like to have these sessions in addition). Bear with me for my pickiness, but I am an engineer and I tend to dislike suggestions that do not take reality into account. However, I think that in this case we first need an introductory sentence that says something like "we think that rather having four broad sessions it would be better to have four focused ones on specific topics for each theme" (in your version) or "we think that in addition to the four broad sessions we would like to see more sessions focused on specific topics" (in Jeremy's). By the way, I am not too sure about the first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true that there are many different participants with many different pet issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well. Also, we'd better have good rationales ready for why, say, "access for disabled people" is more important than "interconnection costs" (to mention an issue from the same theme that lots of people will like to focus upon). > These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given to it > by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the interests > on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am > willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on some > teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's > governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some vested > interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent > email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which we > hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a strong > point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from the > main debates.' I think that we should not talk by slogans and accusations. I think that the IGF should have a way to generate practical outcomes and I see that some parties have been trying to oppose that by all means, but attributing the lack of this capability to the overall bad faith of the people you are talking to won't make it easier for them to sympathize with your request. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 7 04:05:47 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:05:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam, On 5/7/07 8:36 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Not sure how relevant: Mohammed El Bashir was recently elected to > ALAC, Mohammed's from Sudan. Mohammed El Fatih El Tigani Ali, Sudan, > is serving currently his second term as a member if ICANN's > Nominating Committee. ICANN has a sponsorship agreement with the > operator of the .sd (Sudan) ccTLD. > ICANN seems to be able to enter into agreements with Sudanese > representatives, Sudanese citizens hold leadership positions in ICANN > and can select others for leadership positions. I don't know if > these are "services" under US treasury rules. How does the sponsorship agreement work? Otherwise, unpaid leadership positions are not "services" in the sense of being commercially provisioned for fees, and are not "exported" via any WTO-defined mode of supply. The rules are intended to prevent US companies from selling goods and services to Sudanese entities. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 7 04:14:06 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:14:06 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D3ED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Adam: ICANN seems to be able to enter into agreements with Sudanese representatives, Sudanese citizens hold leadership positions in ICANN and can select others for leadership positions. I don't know if these are "services" under US treasury rules. Bill: How does the sponsorship agreement work?.. The rules are intended to prevent US companies from selling goods and services to Sudanese entities. Wolfgang: Can the IANA service be defined as service under these rules? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 7 04:17:19 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:17:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463EDCEA.3030506@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Hi, On 5/7/07 10:01 AM, "Vittorio Bertola" wrote: > However, I think that in this case we first need an introductory > sentence that says something like "we think that rather having four > broad sessions it would be better to have four focused ones on specific > topics for each theme" (in your version) or "we think that in addition > to the four broad sessions we would like to see more sessions focused on > specific topics" (in Jeremy's). By the way, I am not too sure about the > first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true > that there are many different participants with many different pet > issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well. I don't understand why this is mysterious. In the draft there are twelve sessions devoted to the four "Athens themes" (I'd like to refer to them as that, rather than having them elevated to something that every IGF must be organized around forever more), three on each. We're asking for them to accept doing two on each, eight in all, and devoting four slots to our themes. A fairly moderate request, but probably one that will be regarded as sweeping. Asking for more would require they throw out wholesale what's already been discussed in mAG etc. > I think that we should not talk by slogans and accusations. I think that > the IGF should have a way to generate practical outcomes and I see that > some parties have been trying to oppose that by all means, but > attributing the lack of this capability to the overall bad faith of the > people you are talking to won't make it easier for them to sympathize > with your request. As I feared, I think Parminder's introductory text is too negative in tone to attract broad agreement here, too selective in saying what we think are the most important questions, too redundant with the themes identified thereafter ( do we need to say twice in different ways we want to talk about the mandate, etc?), and that debating it will slow us down further. I would either delete or slim down to a couple of non-accusatory sentences. Our topical suggestions speak for themselves. 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 Mon May 7 04:28:42 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:28:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <20070507052736.B53FF12C04E@kokori.dyf.it> References: <20070507052736.B53FF12C04E@kokori.dyf.it> Message-ID: <463EE33A.2080008@bertola.eu> Parminder ha scritto: > > Hi All > > We are taking inputs on the four topic areas for the main sessions (open for > next 24 hours before consolidation), Given how you phrase this call, I have to point out that, personally, I find the most crucial issues for the future of the Internet at the crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts - including net neutrality - so, with all due respect to the four proposed themes (and support for their importance), I would not support a request that would imply that these other matters are not being discussed any more or are relegated to second tier. I think that a good IGF structure would still envisage four main sessions (plus, I think, one for the cross-cutting issues and one for its own existential crises) and then deal with specific sub-themes either in workshops or in additional topical sessions. It's a matter of balance - of course you shouldn't be so vague that nothing specific comes out of it (as in Athens, even if a lot, in the end, came out through coalitions) but you shouldn't also be so narrow that most issues are disregarded. Apart from this, I think that putting out a request to discuss four and only four topics, of which one pertains to access, zero to openness, zero to security and zero to diversity, would make us look a bit out of sync. Ok, the draft schedule is a draft, but I don't see the IGF getting rid of the themed structure just because we put out a confused request to do so. If we want to get our issues discussed, we'd better be a bit smarter and in line with the flow. -- 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon May 7 04:54:33 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 16:54:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content Message-ID: <463EE949.8020705@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > > We will like to preface our contribution by referring to the Tunis Agenda, > and noting that many aspects of the mandate of the IGF which gives it a more > proactive role than merely a policy deliberative space, remain unfulfilled. Here and below, the references to a "policy deliberative space" overstate what can be achieved in a moderated panel presentation format. For me, talk of deliberation suggests a more structured, intensive, interactive format specifically designed to foster free, reasoned and equal discussion that leads towards consensus. There are various implementations of this ideal for groups of various sizes, of which the Consensus Conference is one that could be adapted for the IGF. However, it is far from what exists now. So in reference to the IGF of Athens and Rio, I would replace "policy deliberative space" with the more general "policy discussion space". The issue of how to adapt the IGF's processes to be more deliberative is one of those that will fall within our proposed topic 4. Otherwise I am happy with your introduction. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 7 05:03:09 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 11:03:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <463EE33A.2080008@bertola.eu> (message from Vittorio Bertola on Mon, 07 May 2007 10:28:42 +0200) References: <20070507052736.B53FF12C04E@kokori.dyf.it> <463EE33A.2080008@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070507090309.C1B034B124@quill.bollow.ch> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Given how you phrase this call, I have to point out that, personally, I > find the most crucial issues for the future of the Internet at the > crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts - including > net neutrality Actually, given the importance of this topic, why don't we specifically ask for this topic to be given prominence? I don't think it's necessary for us to work out a list of four topics, etc. I think we should just ask for a very small number (one or two) of important topics where discussion at the IGF is likely be of value, and leave it to the MAG to consolidate all the topic requests from various stakeholder groups by dropping off the agenda not-so-strongly-requested topics until an agenda remains that can be adequately handled within the available time. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 7 05:33:32 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:03:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070507093349.C1A8C5CB4@smtp2.electricembers.net> > I don't understand why this is mysterious. In the draft there are twelve > sessions devoted to the four "Athens themes" (I'd like to refer to them as > that, rather than having them elevated to something that every IGF must be > organized around forever more), three on each. We're asking for them to > accept doing two on each, eight in all, and devoting four slots to our > themes. A fairly moderate request, but probably one that will be regarded > as > sweeping. Asking for more would require they throw out wholesale what's > already been discussed in mAG etc. Well, I think we still need to come to an understanding about how IGF is proposed to be structured, and what are we proposing within that structure. There are two basic kinds of sessions (there are others, but to simplify we can speak of two here which need to be understood for the present purpose) - Main sessions (plenaries) and workshops. There are 4 Main sessions will tentatively have 4 themes of access, diversity, openness and security (apart form one on emerging trends and reporting back to plenary sessions). And there is one main session for each theme. Our suggestion is straightforward - instead of these four session have 4 sessions by the themes we suggest. Jeremy, I believe also thinks so, though, it looked at speed session etc slots and wondered if thast could be additional main sessions or something. First of all, I don't understand the speed sessions, secondly, they seem to be connected to the main sessions (for preparations etc as suggested in the secretariat doc)and are essentially on the same themes. Other sessions are workshops - some of these workshops HAVE to be connected to main themes. Others are open, and some reserved for dynamic coalitions. Now, it is not our intention to get our suggested themes to these workshops - because (1) these special 'reserved slot' workshops are to be of same 4 themes selected for main sessions (2) there is nothing so special about them, one can as well hold workshop on practically any good subject, as we held last time. So, it in NOT AT ALL the point to seek slots in this workshop space. We only have 4 main session themes - and not 8 or 12 or anything. We're asking for them to > accept doing two on each, eight in all, and devoting four slots to our > themes. A fairly moderate request, but probably one that will be regarded > as > sweeping. Asking for more would require they throw out wholesale what's > already been discussed in mAG etc. So we are NOT asking for these four slots as you say.... why ask for them rather go for open slots as we did the last time. And in nay case the whole point of these slots being special is that they are reserved for workshops connected to main themes, so they cannot be asked for by those proposing other themes. Our whole exercise was, and is, to influence the main agenda of Rio by getting what we want, and what we think is right in wanting, right into the main agenda which is the four main session themes. I am not sure how confusion has arisen in this matter. There are no additional themes. Additional workshop themes were always available, so there is nothing to ask for in that matter. > As I feared, I think Parminder's introductory text is too negative in tone > to attract broad agreement here, too redundant with the themes identified > thereafter ( do we need to say twice in different ways we want to talk > about > the mandate, etc?), and that debating it will slow us down further. I > would > either delete or slim down to a couple of non-accusatory sentences. Our > topical suggestions speak for themselves. > I agreed when you suggested this thing yesterday. However I saw great confusion today (Vittorio for instance wasnt clear) on what is it that we are trying to do, and why.... And then I thought it necessary to argue why access, openness etc themes as stated are not fine for the plenary - and why should we have the themes as we suggest. Vittorio is still arguing that to bring in public policy theme and such others, even in the manner as we explained, somehow means we don't think access for the disabled, or IPR and consumer protection etc are not important. So, I was right in trying to explain why simple words like access, and diversity do not constitute sufficient themes for substantive discussions. > too selective in saying what we think are > the most important questions, I don't know what you mean by this. I have only said in the into that IGF is focusing on its deliberative space nature, and let it do it earnestly. too redundant with the themes identified > thereafter ( do we need to say twice in different ways we want to talk > about > the mandate, etc?), and that debating it will slow us down further. I needed to say about IGF in the intro because I need to tell them why they shd include these themes... when it comes as part of theme (4) that's different (even if apparently redundant) I > would > either delete or slim down to a couple of non-accusatory sentences. Our > topical suggestions speak for themselves. > I am fine with any suggestions. But do you still think, after seeing Vittorio's email, that topical suggestions speak for themselves ??? after first agreeing that it may not be needed, I put the explanation only whne I thought the logic needs to be spoken of. Last, what you speaking of as a negative tone, is something I had no option but to use.... I think IGF is being hijacked (you also said so in the email in which you said you may now be favorably disposed to the idea of making it an Internet facilitation forum). I feel that the way this is adding to the global governance deficit (you also know the issues about GAID) is a serious problem. I will certainly speak out against it.. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:47 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > Hi, > > > On 5/7/07 10:01 AM, "Vittorio Bertola" wrote: > > > However, I think that in this case we first need an introductory > > sentence that says something like "we think that rather having four > > broad sessions it would be better to have four focused ones on specific > > topics for each theme" (in your version) or "we think that in addition > > to the four broad sessions we would like to see more sessions focused on > > specific topics" (in Jeremy's). By the way, I am not too sure about the > > first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true > > that there are many different participants with many different pet > > issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well. > > I don't understand why this is mysterious. In the draft there are twelve > sessions devoted to the four "Athens themes" (I'd like to refer to them as > that, rather than having them elevated to something that every IGF must be > organized around forever more), three on each. We're asking for them to > accept doing two on each, eight in all, and devoting four slots to our > themes. A fairly moderate request, but probably one that will be regarded > as > sweeping. Asking for more would require they throw out wholesale what's > already been discussed in mAG etc. > > > I think that we should not talk by slogans and accusations. I think that > > the IGF should have a way to generate practical outcomes and I see that > > some parties have been trying to oppose that by all means, but > > attributing the lack of this capability to the overall bad faith of the > > people you are talking to won't make it easier for them to sympathize > > with your request. > > As I feared, I think Parminder's introductory text is too negative in tone > to attract broad agreement here, too selective in saying what we think are > the most important questions, too redundant with the themes identified > thereafter ( do we need to say twice in different ways we want to talk > about > the mandate, etc?), and that debating it will slow us down further. I > would > either delete or slim down to a couple of non-accusatory sentences. Our > topical suggestions speak for themselves. > > BD > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Mon May 7 05:42:39 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 02:42:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <20070507090309.C1B034B124@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070507052736.B53FF12C04E@kokori.dyf.it> <463EE33A.2080008@bertola.eu> <20070507090309.C1B034B124@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <463EF48F.2040109@cavebear.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: >> .... crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts - including >> net neutrality > Actually, given the importance of this topic, why don't we > specifically ask for this topic to be given prominence? Such broad topics are, in my opinion, likely to not converge on concrete results except, and perhaps, after years and years and years. And given the alternative forums already available and the monetary fuel behind some of the vested interests, the IG answer might end up being nothing more than an historical footnote. In these early days it is important to pick topics on which people can make some real progress and generate (perhaps within a year or so) some concrete recommendations. That way the mechanisms will be exercised, the flaws worked out, and most importantly credibility obtained. Again, I urge that the focus be on matters that have a very firm and clear basis in technical issues. These are far from trivial issues - I suggested, for example, the establishment of procedural and institutional means for end users (or their ISPs) to request and obtain end-to-end assurances of service quality for sensitive applications such as VOIP. Another such topic would focus on the issue of the increasing use of technologies that try to play fast and loose with the implicit social contracts of using the net - these include some of the new protocols that are more aggressive than TCP when experiencing network congestion. Widespread deployment of these technologies might result in a class-tiered internet in which some folks get good service and others get dregs. This, again, is not a technical topic in itself, but rather is a rather difficult, but again a feasible one involving many tradeoffs affecting innovation. These kinds of topics are less likely to cause the kind of endless debates that will occur if IG jumps immediately to try to become some sort of super overlord of everything that in any way could touch the internet. I am already beginning to be concerned this branch of IG evolution may start to look like a debate among buggy whip manufacturers while over in the next county Henry Ford begins to build his automobile assembly lines. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 7 05:54:14 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:24:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463EDCEA.3030506@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070507095422.91DD9C944C@smtp1.electricembers.net> Vittorio I have responded to many points raised in your email in my response to Bill... > I > tend to dislike suggestions that do not take reality into account. Be assured, I am a very practical person and always take reality into account :). But often just the set of realities people take into account are different... I am not too sure about the > first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true > that there are many different participants with many different pet > issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well. One can stay away form all structured forms whatsoever because any structuring misrepresents the pure reality in its raw form. In politics that's anarchy. So, if we want to be really fully open and inclusive we can just invite people to IGF into a single space to generally discuss internet related issues.. But we do think its better to structure things a bit which leads to better outcomes... In that spirit, we are trying to pull together topics which concern most people, as we understand it (and this can be deliberated upon)... and not necessarily present perspectives on these topics... You have a right to take your choice (as you have done in your latter email) and then we need to find what topics are best discussed in the main sessions... But we cant abdicate by letting the session take place around simple terms like access and openness, when we have the experience that it goes nowhere... We are opening the topics up so that there could be some focus, and some kind of output. Yes, there is some selectiveness involved in this, but that's true of all political process. And it is fine till we use due processes of reaching that selectiveness. 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: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:32 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > Parminder ha scritto: > > About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions > used > > the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make > it > > clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four > > themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad > subjects > > like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious > > deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are > > asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy > deliberations > > seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of > itself > > analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between > > extant institutions etc. > > Ok, I'm starting to understand better (though what you say is different > from what Jeremy says, that he would like to have these sessions in > addition). Bear with me for my pickiness, but I am an engineer and I > tend to dislike suggestions that do not take reality into account. > > However, I think that in this case we first need an introductory > sentence that says something like "we think that rather having four > broad sessions it would be better to have four focused ones on specific > topics for each theme" (in your version) or "we think that in addition > to the four broad sessions we would like to see more sessions focused on > specific topics" (in Jeremy's). By the way, I am not too sure about the > first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true > that there are many different participants with many different pet > issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well. > > Also, we'd better have good rationales ready for why, say, "access for > disabled people" is more important than "interconnection costs" (to > mention an issue from the same theme that lots of people will like to > focus upon). > > > These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given > to it > > by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the > interests > > on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am > > willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on > some > > teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's > > governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some > vested > > interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent > > email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which > we > > hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a > strong > > point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from > the > > main debates.' > > I think that we should not talk by slogans and accusations. I think that > the IGF should have a way to generate practical outcomes and I see that > some parties have been trying to oppose that by all means, but > attributing the lack of this capability to the overall bad faith of the > people you are talking to won't make it easier for them to sympathize > with your request. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 7 06:01:44 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 12:01:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <0JHN00KQUZWEEW20@tango.unige.ch> Message-ID: Hi, On 5/7/07 11:33 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > We only have 4 main session themes - and not 8 or 12 or anything. Sorry, I wasn't clear, must stop multitasking while writing. I meant that there are three time slots per theme but right, these are broken up into main, speed, and workshop tracks, and I viewed what we're proposing as replacing one of those tracks, presumably the speed thing. I suspect that if we say replace the one main session on each of the Athens themes the answer will be no, full stop, because key stakeholders are wedded to these non-controversial themes and it's envisioned that workshops would be related to them as well. As I said at the outset, I suspect even this won't fly and IGC should be prepared to organize workshops on the four themes if we can agree they're worth doing. I see 11th hour "what about this topic, what about that topic" starting to happen, so it's not clear we'll even get closure on the four, at least not without a vote. > >> too selective in saying what we think are >> the most important questions, > > I don't know what you mean by this. I have only said in the into that IGF is > focusing on its deliberative space nature, and let it do it earnestly. Selective in that it said these are the four topics we think are the most important, when people here are saying others are too, ergo it makes sense to lose that framing. > I am fine with any suggestions. But do you still think, after seeing > Vittorio's email, that topical suggestions speak for themselves ??? after Yes, and I don't know why Vittorio's messages seem so perplexed about long running discussions. > Last, what you speaking of as a negative tone, is something I had no option > but to use.... I think IGF is being hijacked (you also said so in the email > in which you said you may now be favorably disposed to the idea of making it > an Internet facilitation forum). I feel that the way this is adding to the > global governance deficit (you also know the issues about GAID) is a > serious problem. I will certainly speak out against it.. You personally should speak out against it, but as co-coordinator of a rather diversely opinionated grouping it doesn't make sense to advance language we know know some will oppose if the idea is to reach rapid agreement. There's not much point in you and I having an extended bilateral on this, you are aware that there are others here who don't see things as you do, so I'm suggesting we hew as close as we can to things that are less likely to generate objections post hoc or this will never come together. 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Mon May 7 06:15:31 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 12:15:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20070507034837.DBCFD5C8F@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070507034837.DBCFD5C8F@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <463EFC43.7000904@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > As Jeremy says, and was said by a few more, lets not take the schedule as > given. It is an input doc from the secretariat; we will give another one > from IGC. Any institution has self-preserving, status-quoists and low risk > taking attributes..... I think arguing against the four main themes is the wrong target. The advantage of having broad themes such as access, openness and the like is that they offer interpretative flexibility. There is hardly anything that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. We should treat them as containers we can fill! As a side note, its worth keeping in mind that the IGF is supposed to have a strong developmental dimension. It is important that our suggestions reflect this dimension. What we really should focus on in my view is to get all elements of the IGF's mission to be taken into account. It would be good to do this in a way that doesn't antagonize everybody. A compromise I could imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also for workshops. jeanette civil society has its core business in challenging > that in the wider public interest. IGC need not act as a facilitating group > for whatever the secretariat decides. We have our position, let them decide > what to do about it. > > If you read the secretariat doc, it says in its second sentence that it is > more about structure than content. Why should then we give them more than > they seek? > > About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions used > the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make it > clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four > themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad subjects > like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious > deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are > asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy deliberations > seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of itself > analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between > extant institutions etc. > > These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given to it > by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the interests > on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am > willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on some > teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's > governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some vested > interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent > email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which we > hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a strong > point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from the > main debates.' > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] >> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:01 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG >> >> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>>> In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being >>>> suggested >>>> for plenary/ main sessions. >>> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: it seemed to me that we would ask >>> "a main session" to be specifically devoted to each of the four issues - >>> that would make four new main sessions to be added to the already >>> scheduled ones, and there's no space for this to happen in the schedule. >> But as I and others have been saying, forget about the schedule. There >> are many ways in which room could be made. For example, lose the speed >> dialogue sessions on access/openness/security/diversity, and use those >> sessions for what we propose instead. Or indeed, vice versa; there is >> no reason why the thematic emphasis needs to be the same every year. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 7 06:20:04 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:50:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content In-Reply-To: <463EE33A.2080008@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070507102012.9C3D1E04E0@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Given how you phrase this call, I have to point out that, personally, I > find the most crucial issues for the future of the Internet at the > crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts - including > net neutrality - so, with all due respect to the four proposed themes > (and support for their importance), I would not support a request that > would imply that these other matters are not being discussed any more or > are relegated to second tier. I agree with you that ' crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts' are mot important issues. Make a fleshed out main session theme suggestion out of it and it should be considered by us for submission.... This said, how does improving the global public policy for Internet structure NOT help the issues you consider important. I may even say that more than anything else is what is most needed in this regard... Or discussion on ICANN and core resources doesn't implicate these issues - I have great concern about how they are implicated here and the manner in which these issues are being dealt in this realm.. Or access and development agenda are not related issue - elaborating the isses you speak of in specific contexts and details.. Or, coming back a full loop, what attitude IGF itself takes in making progress on these issues isnt an important issue in itself impacting strongly the things you want taken up... I think that a good IGF structure would still envisage four main > sessions (plus, I think, one for the cross-cutting issues and one for > its own existential crises) and then deal with specific sub-themes > either in workshops or in additional topical sessions. In our proposal (which I explained further in the email to Bill) it is still 4 main session plus plus as you say.... so whats your issue here.. It's a matter of > balance - of course you shouldn't be so vague that nothing specific > comes out of it (as in Athens, even if a lot, in the end, came out > through coalitions) but you shouldn't also be so narrow that most issues > are disregarded. These topics as suggested by us are not at all narrow, they are specific. How is the Global internet policy - issues and institutions, a narrow issue - it was the main point of discussion at WSIS. How is ICANN narrow, see the time we spent on discussing it in the IGC, and see the time world spends on it, how is development agenda in IG narrow, how is IGF's role and mandate a narrow area..... I really don't understand, once again, what is it that you are driving at.... > Apart from this, I think that putting out a request to discuss four and > only four topics, of which one pertains to access, zero to openness, > zero to security and zero to diversity, would make us look a bit out of > sync. All topics pertain to all the subjects you mention... and I think it is easy to see that. But as I said put out a specific fleshed out proposal which you are able to argue as concerning most people today and therefore should go to main session, and that will be considered for submission along with others. For instance I do think we should be able to do with a good specific main theme proposal on IPR, access to knowledge, public domain etc. But we went with the four that came forward and had some degree of acceptance to start with. In nutshell, are you suggesting that we go by the existing four themes - access, diversity etc - in their present form of statement which is - access, diversity etc - and not be more specific and pick up issues which most people in the world look like wanting to speak and hear about...(ok, that's my construction) Ok, the draft schedule is a draft, but I don't see the IGF getting > rid of the themed structure just because we put out a confused request > to do so. If we want to get our issues discussed, we'd better be a bit > smarter and in line with the flow. It again that 'admit reality' 'be smart' thing.... well, wont say too much on this,(this thing comes in often in advocacy circles) except that perhaps different people are trying to do different things, and one's smart strategy may look as fool-hardiness to other... As for 'confused request' it again is your personal construction over it... I am very clear about my request, and am ready to share any clarification... 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: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:59 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content > > Parminder ha scritto: > > > > Hi All > > > > We are taking inputs on the four topic areas for the main sessions (open > for > > next 24 hours before consolidation), > > Given how you phrase this call, I have to point out that, personally, I > find the most crucial issues for the future of the Internet at the > crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts - including > net neutrality - so, with all due respect to the four proposed themes > (and support for their importance), I would not support a request that > would imply that these other matters are not being discussed any more or > are relegated to second tier. > > I think that a good IGF structure would still envisage four main > sessions (plus, I think, one for the cross-cutting issues and one for > its own existential crises) and then deal with specific sub-themes > either in workshops or in additional topical sessions. It's a matter of > balance - of course you shouldn't be so vague that nothing specific > comes out of it (as in Athens, even if a lot, in the end, came out > through coalitions) but you shouldn't also be so narrow that most issues > are disregarded. > > Apart from this, I think that putting out a request to discuss four and > only four topics, of which one pertains to access, zero to openness, > zero to security and zero to diversity, would make us look a bit out of > sync. Ok, the draft schedule is a draft, but I don't see the IGF getting > rid of the themed structure just because we put out a confused request > to do so. If we want to get our issues discussed, we'd better be a bit > smarter and in line with the flow. > -- > 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 Mon May 7 06:26:14 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 12:26:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF failure a threat to multistakeholder principle In-Reply-To: <463EF48F.2040109@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Mon, 07 May 2007 02:42:39 -0700) References: <20070507052736.B53FF12C04E@kokori.dyf.it> <463EE33A.2080008@bertola.eu> <20070507090309.C1B034B124@quill.bollow.ch> <463EF48F.2040109@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070507102614.655744B0B8@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >> .... crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts > >> - including net neutrality > > > Actually, given the importance of this topic, why don't we > > specifically ask for this topic to be given prominence? > > Such broad topics are, in my opinion, likely to not converge on concrete > results except, and perhaps, after years and years and years. And given > the alternative forums already available and the monetary fuel behind > some of the vested interests, the IG answer might end up being nothing > more than an historical footnote. As I wrote before, I agree with you, and as I've written before my proposal for a narrow-enough-to-be-really-productive topic is the creation and administration of an international certification mark that indicates that websites are accessible for persons with disabilities. But it seems that our "let's have some narrow topics please" requests at least so far haven't generated sufficient support. So the next best thing is to push for topics which will at least result in the IGF having some positive (although possibly quite minimal) benefit. As I see the situation, there is a significant risk that the IGF might end up being so much lacking in value creation that the net result could be the conclusion the "multistakeholder approach" (meaning the idea of including NGO representatives and and interested internet *users*, as opposed to merely including governments and big companies as is the practive in non-"multistakeholder" governance) getting abandoned altogether. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > > In these early days it is important to pick topics on which people can > make some real progress and generate (perhaps within a year or so) some > concrete recommendations. That way the mechanisms will be exercised, > the flaws worked out, and most importantly credibility obtained. > > Again, I urge that the focus be on matters that have a very firm and > clear basis in technical issues. These are far from trivial issues - I > suggested, for example, the establishment of procedural and > institutional means for end users (or their ISPs) to request and obtain > end-to-end assurances of service quality for sensitive applications such > as VOIP. > > Another such topic would focus on the issue of the increasing use of > technologies that try to play fast and loose with the implicit social > contracts of using the net - these include some of the new protocols > that are more aggressive than TCP when experiencing network congestion. > Widespread deployment of these technologies might result in a > class-tiered internet in which some folks get good service and others > get dregs. This, again, is not a technical topic in itself, but rather > is a rather difficult, but again a feasible one involving many tradeoffs > affecting innovation. > > These kinds of topics are less likely to cause the kind of endless > debates that will occur if IG jumps immediately to try to become some > sort of super overlord of everything that in any way could touch the > internet. > > I am already beginning to be concerned this branch of IG evolution may > start to look like a debate among buggy whip manufacturers while over in > the next county Henry Ford begins to build his automobile assembly lines. > > --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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon May 7 07:29:28 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 13:29:28 +0200 Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?R=E9f?=. : Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, If we look at the Internet deriving its existence from the World Wide Web (www) and that the fall out from such existence is extended and utmost for the progress of mankind, talking of a geolocation capital for Internet (even for fun) is preposterous. The Internet is one world instrument for communication, learning, teaching and research that for now has seen no one country lording over it as other existing instruments. Talking of providing a capital for the Internet will be tantamount to calling for the transformation of this world levelling instrument into another The World Bank of the UN where you have the USlording over the whole place. The consequences of that lording will be an upsurge in class formation (already in pernicious action): transnational capitalist, transnational socialist and transnational terrorist classes. That being said, I believe that the prevailing modus operandi and vivendi of the Internet calls for no debates (for fun) as Dan is urging. Let's not forget that hawks of classes (I doubt if Dan is not fronting for them) ar lurking around and are eager to tap from strong ideas issued by debates (just for fun) and propound their hegemony while perpetuating their agenda. Can the IGF accept to play th scape goat? I bet to differ. Cordially Aaron On 5/5/07, Rui Correia wrote: > > Interesting book on Louverture here: > Rui > ____________________________________________________________ > > Toussaint Louverture, "simultaneously a devout Catholic, a Freemason > and a secret practitioner of voodoo." Now, that's my kind of man. In > another place, another time, he might have been simultaneously a > devout Muslim, a feminist, and a secret practioner of historical > materialism -- with that combination, a man would know better than to > take a perfidious empire's offer of negotiations. :-> -- Yoshie > > > February 25, 2007 > The Black Napoleon > By ADAM HOCHSCHILD > > TOUSSAINT LOUVERTURE > A Biography. > By Madison Smartt Bell. > Illustrated. 333 pp. Pantheon Books. $27. > > Quick, what was the second country in the New World to win full > independence from its colonial masters in the Old? Mexico? Brazil? > Some place liberated by Bolívar? > > The answer, Madison Smartt Bell reminds us, is Haiti — which actually > gave Bolívar some help. > > The years of horrendous warfare that culminated in Haiti's birth in > 1804 is one of the most inspiring and tragic chapters in the story of > the Americas. For one thing, it was history's only successful > large-scale slave revolt. The roughly half a million slaves who > labored on the plantations of what was then the French territory of > St. Domingue had made it the most lucrative colony anywhere in the > world. Its rich, well irrigated soil, not yet overworked and eroded, > produced more than 30 percent of the world's sugar, more than half its > coffee and a cornucopia of other crops. > > When the slaves there rose up in 1791, they sent shock waves > throughout the Atlantic world. But the rebels did more than win. In > five years of fighting, they also inflicted a humiliating defeat on a > large invasion force from Britain, which, at war with France, wanted > to seize this profitable territory for itself. And later they did the > same to a vast military expedition sent by Napoleon, who vainly tried > to recapture the colony and restore slavery. The long years of > race-based mass murder (which included a civil war between blacks and > gens de couleur, as those of mixed race were known) left more than > half the population dead or exiled, and Haiti lives with that legacy > of violence still. Seldom have people anywhere fought so hard for > their freedom. > > Seldom, too, have they so much owed success to one extraordinary man. > Toussaint Louverture, a short, wiry coachman skilled in veterinary > medicine, had been freed some years before the upheaval. About 50 when > the revolt began, he was one of those rare figures — Trotsky is the > only other who comes to mind — who in midlife suddenly became a > self-taught military genius. He welded the rebel slaves into > disciplined units, got French deserters to train them, incorporated > revolution-minded whites and gens de couleur into his army and used > his legendary horsemanship to rush from one corner of the colony to > another, cajoling, threatening, making and breaking alliances with a > bewildering array of factions and warlords, and commanding his troops > in one brilliant assault, feint or ambush after another. Finally lured > into negotiations with one of Napoleon's generals in 1802, he was > captured and swiftly whisked off to France. Deliberately kept alone, > cold and underfed deep inside a fortress in the Jura mountains, he > died in April 1803. > > Toussaint's is an epic story, and it lies at the heart of a much > praised trilogy by Bell, the prolific American novelist. Bell's new > biography, "Toussaint Louverture," is resolutely nonfiction, however. > And welcome it is, for the existing biographies, from Ralph Korngold's > 1944 effort (dated, uncritical and unsourced) to Pierre Pluchon's 1989 > book (quirky, negative and only in French) are mostly unsatisfactory. > Bell knows the primary and scholarly literature well, carefully sifts > fact from myth and generally maintains a sober and responsible > understated tone. > > Maybe a little too sober and understated. I can't help wondering > whether Bell, so well known for his novels of Haiti, is bending over > backward to show that as a biographer he is not making anything up. I > wish he had given more rein to his novelist's skills — not by > inventing things, but by making more narrative use of the wealth of > detail there is about this time and place. Part of the problem is that > almost none of that detail has to do with the life of Toussaint > himself, about whose first 50 years we know next to nothing. Bell > points this out, and so the sources he quotes are almost entirely from > after Toussaint's sudden emergence as a leader: his letters and > proclamations, and the relatively few eyewitness accounts of him. > > But this largely leaves out the rich array of documentary testimony we > have about life in brutal, high-living colonial St. Domingue, about > people ranging from the planter Jean-Baptiste de Caradeux, who > entertained his guests by seeing who could knock an orange off a > slave's head with a pistol shot at 30 paces, to the French prostitute > who came to the colony looking for wealthy white clients and then > complained to a newspaper that she found too much competition. And > both British and French officers left diaries and memoirs about > fighting the unexpectedly skilled rebel slaves — accounts as searing > and vivid in their frustration as those by American soldiers blogging > from Iraq. > > Such things are not precisely about Toussaint, but they flesh out the > world in which he lived and fought, and American readers unfamiliar > with the intricacies of Haitian history need all the help they can > get. > > Still, this is the best biography of Toussaint yet, in large part > because Bell does not shy away from the man's contradictions. Although > a former slave, he had owned slaves himself. Although he led a great > slave revolt, he was desperate to trade export crops for defense > supplies and so imposed a militarized forced labor system that was > slavery in all but name. He was simultaneously a devout Catholic, a > Freemason and a secret practitioner of voodoo. And although the > monarchs of Europe regarded him with unalloyed horror, he in effect > turned himself into one of them by fashioning a constitution making > himself his country's dictator for life, with the right to name his > successor. > > "Within Haitian culture," Bell writes, "there are no such > contradictions, but simply the actions of different spirits which may > possess one's being under different circumstances and in response to > vastly different needs. There is no doubt that from time to time > Toussaint Louverture made room in himself for angry, vengeful spirits, > as well as the more beneficent" ones. Of such contradictions are great > figures made; just think of our own Thomas Jefferson — who, > incidentally, ordered money and muskets sent to his fellow slave > owners to suppress Toussaint's drive for freedom, saying of it, "Never > was so deep a tragedy presented to the feelings of man." > > Adam Hochschild's most recent book is "Bury the Chains: Prophets and > Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves." > > On 03/05/07, Guyverson Vernous wrote: > > > > Not for fun, I would add Haiti the first independent black country > > with Toussaint Louverture. > > > > Guyverson Vernous > > > > *-------Message original-------* > > > > *De :* yehudakatz at mailinator.com > > *Date :* 5/3/2007 11:44:44 AM > > *A :* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > *Sujet :* Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question > > > > > we must be living in different just-for-fun worlds > > > > My apologies. Your right, > > > > For me, I choose Chicago because it is the home of American Civil > > Rights > > Movement. > > But you are right, absolutely! > > There are plenty of other significant places where Justice found a home. > > > > South Africa (in his way Mandelas / Anti-Apartheid Movement), South > > America > > (in his way Che), Caribbean (in his way Fidel), India (in his way > > Ghandi), > > Poland (The Solidarity Movement)  etcetc  > > > > Enlighten me , where would You put the home of Justice? > > > > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > [image: Binettes GRATUITES pour vos courriels - par IncrediMail! Cliquez > > ici!] > > > > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: imstp_pets_cat1_fr.gif Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 7 09:57:54 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 19:27:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463EFC43.7000904@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070507135816.397A15CB2@smtp2.electricembers.net> > There is hardly anything > that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. Yes, true. That exactly is the problem with these themes. If you were to organize an event aiming at meaningful deliberation, with some outputs, will you choose some umbrella topics under which ' There is hardly anything > that cannot be discussed' . I wont. > We should treat them as > containers we can fill! Treating 2 hour sessions as containers anyone can fill with anything is disastrous. And we saw that at Athens. > As a side note, its worth keeping in mind that > the IGF is supposed to have a strong developmental dimension. It is > important that our suggestions reflect this dimension. I have personally made sure that each theme - and its elaboration - has a strong development dimension. A compromise I could > imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also for > workshops. We all know that's always an option. Right now we are trying to influence the main agenda of IGF, and its purposive-ness in line with its mandate. 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: Monday, May 07, 2007 3:46 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'Vittorio Bertola' > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > > > Parminder wrote: > > As Jeremy says, and was said by a few more, lets not take the schedule > as > > given. It is an input doc from the secretariat; we will give another one > > from IGC. Any institution has self-preserving, status-quoists and low > risk > > taking attributes..... > > > I think arguing against the four main themes is the wrong target. The > advantage of having broad themes such as access, openness and the like > is that they offer interpretative flexibility. There is hardly anything > that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. We should treat them as > containers we can fill! As a side note, its worth keeping in mind that > the IGF is supposed to have a strong developmental dimension. It is > important that our suggestions reflect this dimension. > > What we really should focus on in my view is to get all elements > of the IGF's mission to be taken into account. It would be good to do > this in a way that doesn't antagonize everybody. A compromise I could > imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also for > workshops. > > jeanette > > > > > civil society has its core business in challenging > > that in the wider public interest. IGC need not act as a facilitating > group > > for whatever the secretariat decides. We have our position, let them > decide > > what to do about it. > > > > If you read the secretariat doc, it says in its second sentence that it > is > > more about structure than content. Why should then we give them more > than > > they seek? > > > > About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions > used > > the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make > it > > clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four > > themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad > subjects > > like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious > > deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are > > asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy > deliberations > > seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of > itself > > analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between > > extant institutions etc. > > > > These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given > to it > > by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the > interests > > on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am > > willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on > some > > teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's > > governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some > vested > > interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent > > email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which > we > > hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a > strong > > point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from > the > > main debates.' > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > >> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:01 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > >> > >> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >>>> In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being > >>>> suggested > >>>> for plenary/ main sessions. > >>> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: it seemed to me that we would ask > >>> "a main session" to be specifically devoted to each of the four issues > - > >>> that would make four new main sessions to be added to the already > >>> scheduled ones, and there's no space for this to happen in the > schedule. > >> But as I and others have been saying, forget about the schedule. There > >> are many ways in which room could be made. For example, lose the speed > >> dialogue sessions on access/openness/security/diversity, and use those > >> sessions for what we propose instead. Or indeed, vice versa; there is > >> no reason why the thematic emphasis needs to be the same every year. > >> > >> -- > >> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > >> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 7 10:26:41 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:26:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Message-ID: Hi folks, Been travelling and just jumping back in with some not fully thought through responses I admit since I haven'y digested thoughts and info. 1) I think we can claim that our four suggested plenary topics for discussions fit within the 4 main categories of access, open, etc. Just be Sure to start the appropriate submission topic with with the Word 'Open' for example ; ) 2) Also, I was hanging with Bob Kahn some last week, he pointed out/reminded me that the 'digital object identifier' or handle system that he's been championing forever is larger than the DNS. And I guess he felt it had been a bit neglected by folks like us though he didn't say that. But Bob did agree in principle to participate if it were included at igf II, and I can see it fitting in nicely in the proposed survey of internet governance institutions plenary session. Oh, and he also thought it was silly to not talk about ICANN, which of course it would be. So let's just keep wordsmithing the thing to a point that it is acceptable collectively to us, more or less. If MAG decides to do something else fine, well not really but it's not for igc to do the mag's work. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 5/7/2007 9:57 AM >>> > There is hardly anything > that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. Yes, true. That exactly is the problem with these themes. If you were to organize an event aiming at meaningful deliberation, with some outputs, will you choose some umbrella topics under which ' There is hardly anything > that cannot be discussed' . I wont. > We should treat them as > containers we can fill! Treating 2 hour sessions as containers anyone can fill with anything is disastrous. And we saw that at Athens. > As a side note, its worth keeping in mind that > the IGF is supposed to have a strong developmental dimension. It is > important that our suggestions reflect this dimension. I have personally made sure that each theme - and its elaboration - has a strong development dimension. A compromise I could > imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also for > workshops. We all know that's always an option. Right now we are trying to influence the main agenda of IGF, and its purposive-ness in line with its mandate. 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: Monday, May 07, 2007 3:46 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'Vittorio Bertola' > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > > > Parminder wrote: > > As Jeremy says, and was said by a few more, lets not take the schedule > as > > given. It is an input doc from the secretariat; we will give another one > > from IGC. Any institution has self-preserving, status-quoists and low > risk > > taking attributes..... > > > I think arguing against the four main themes is the wrong target. The > advantage of having broad themes such as access, openness and the like > is that they offer interpretative flexibility. There is hardly anything > that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. We should treat them as > containers we can fill! As a side note, its worth keeping in mind that > the IGF is supposed to have a strong developmental dimension. It is > important that our suggestions reflect this dimension. > > What we really should focus on in my view is to get all elements > of the IGF's mission to be taken into account. It would be good to do > this in a way that doesn't antagonize everybody. A compromise I could > imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also for > workshops. > > jeanette > > > > > civil society has its core business in challenging > > that in the wider public interest. IGC need not act as a facilitating > group > > for whatever the secretariat decides. We have our position, let them > decide > > what to do about it. > > > > If you read the secretariat doc, it says in its second sentence that it > is > > more about structure than content. Why should then we give them more > than > > they seek? > > > > About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions > used > > the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make > it > > clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four > > themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad > subjects > > like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious > > deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are > > asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy > deliberations > > seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of > itself > > analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between > > extant institutions etc. > > > > These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given > to it > > by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the > interests > > on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am > > willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on > some > > teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's > > governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some > vested > > interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent > > email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which > we > > hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a > strong > > point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from > the > > main debates.' > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > >> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:01 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > >> > >> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >>>> In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being > >>>> suggested > >>>> for plenary/ main sessions. > >>> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: it seemed to me that we would ask > >>> "a main session" to be specifically devoted to each of the four issues > - > >>> that would make four new main sessions to be added to the already > >>> scheduled ones, and there's no space for this to happen in the > schedule. > >> But as I and others have been saying, forget about the schedule. There > >> are many ways in which room could be made. For example, lose the speed > >> dialogue sessions on access/openness/security/diversity, and use those > >> sessions for what we propose instead. Or indeed, vice versa; there is > >> no reason why the thematic emphasis needs to be the same every year. > >> > >> -- > >> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > >> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Mon May 7 10:48:19 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 16:48:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463F3C33.3060305@bertola.eu> William Drake ha scritto: >>I am fine with any suggestions. But do you still think, after seeing >>Vittorio's email, that topical suggestions speak for themselves ??? after > > Yes, and I don't know why Vittorio's messages seem so perplexed about long > running discussions. Ok, clarifying again: I wasn't perplexed about the themes in themselves, but about the idea that we would ask that the IGF's four main sessions should stop being an open place for "any stakeholder to raise any issue", and become four specialized sessions (though specialized on quite broad issues). My raising of another theme was not meant to get my favourite issue added to the other favourite ones, but just to show that there are plenty of other very important issues, and that it would be hard to convince anyone that our four are so important that the entire main thread of the IGF should be devoted to them and to them only, even if we provided rationales for this proposal, something that we're not really doing in our draft. This said, I agree that the four issues that are currently in the draft are quite important, so let's not make this bigger than it is: I would suggest that we propose these four as additional main sessions, and let the AG decide what to do with our suggestion, though I suspect that the reply might be "can't you do these as workshops?". -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 7 11:13:47 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:13:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463F3C33.3060305@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Hi v, On 5/7/07 4:48 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" wrote: > This said, I agree that the four issues that are currently in the draft > are quite important, so let's not make this bigger than it is: I would > suggest that we propose these four as additional main sessions, and let > the AG decide what to do with our suggestion, though I suspect that the > reply might be "can't you do these as workshops?". Right, replacing the speed sessions, with the expectation that they will indeed reply by suggesting workshops. How about you and Parminder slap three intro sentences on the front and 1) do a consensus call and 2) begin to fire up the voting machinery for when that fails? BTW another option would be not to mess with the latter and just do a coalition of the interested sign on. We could probably have the thing sent to the secretariat in a few days with 5-10 organizational supporters, which is enough to put the ideas on the table. 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Mon May 7 11:22:59 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 08:22:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: <463F3C33.3060305@bertola.eu> Message-ID: I'd like to be sure there is enough space provided, rooms available but not scheduled, for whatever else might develop beyond the formal agenda. Could we add that to the input? Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon May 7 11:31:30 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:31:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Message-ID: <463F4652.8000404@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: >> There is hardly anything >> that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. > > Yes, true. That exactly is the problem with these themes. If you were to > organize an event aiming at meaningful deliberation, with some outputs, will > you choose some umbrella topics under which ' There is hardly anything >> that cannot be discussed' . I wont. My understanding of the function of the main themes is a different one. They help structuring the meeting in the way as an academic conference or a journal would have certain ordering categories. They loosely predefine the area of discussion and thus provide some structural continuity but they don't prescribe specific topics. The actual substance has to be agreed upon each year. > > >> We should treat them as >> containers we can fill! > > Treating 2 hour sessions as containers anyone can fill with anything is > disastrous. And we saw that at Athens. I didn't find Athens disastrous, and I didn't say that anyone can fill those containers with anything. I repeat what I said: the main themes are the wrong target. We need to argue for the entire mission of the IGF. jeanette > >> As a side note, its worth keeping in mind that >> the IGF is supposed to have a strong developmental dimension. It is >> important that our suggestions reflect this dimension. > > I have personally made sure that each theme - and its elaboration - has a > strong development dimension. > > A compromise I could >> imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also for >> workshops. > > We all know that's always an option. Right now we are trying to influence > the main agenda of IGF, and its purposive-ness in line with its mandate. > > > 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: Monday, May 07, 2007 3:46 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Cc: 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'Vittorio Bertola' >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG >> >> >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> As Jeremy says, and was said by a few more, lets not take the schedule >> as >>> given. It is an input doc from the secretariat; we will give another one >>> from IGC. Any institution has self-preserving, status-quoists and low >> risk >>> taking attributes..... >> >> I think arguing against the four main themes is the wrong target. The >> advantage of having broad themes such as access, openness and the like >> is that they offer interpretative flexibility. There is hardly anything >> that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. We should treat them as >> containers we can fill! As a side note, its worth keeping in mind that >> the IGF is supposed to have a strong developmental dimension. It is >> important that our suggestions reflect this dimension. >> >> What we really should focus on in my view is to get all elements >> of the IGF's mission to be taken into account. It would be good to do >> this in a way that doesn't antagonize everybody. A compromise I could >> imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also for >> workshops. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> >> >> civil society has its core business in challenging >>> that in the wider public interest. IGC need not act as a facilitating >> group >>> for whatever the secretariat decides. We have our position, let them >> decide >>> what to do about it. >>> >>> If you read the secretariat doc, it says in its second sentence that it >> is >>> more about structure than content. Why should then we give them more >> than >>> they seek? >>> >>> About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions >> used >>> the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make >> it >>> clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four >>> themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad >> subjects >>> like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious >>> deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are >>> asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy >> deliberations >>> seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of >> itself >>> analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between >>> extant institutions etc. >>> >>> These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given >> to it >>> by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the >> interests >>> on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am >>> willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on >> some >>> teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's >>> governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some >> vested >>> interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent >>> email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which >> we >>> hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a >> strong >>> point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from >> the >>> main debates.' >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________ >>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>> IT for Change, Bangalore >>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >>> www.ITforChange.net >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] >>>> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:01 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG >>>> >>>> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>>>>> In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being >>>>>> suggested >>>>>> for plenary/ main sessions. >>>>> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: it seemed to me that we would ask >>>>> "a main session" to be specifically devoted to each of the four issues >> - >>>>> that would make four new main sessions to be added to the already >>>>> scheduled ones, and there's no space for this to happen in the >> schedule. >>>> But as I and others have been saying, forget about the schedule. There >>>> are many ways in which room could be made. For example, lose the speed >>>> dialogue sessions on access/openness/security/diversity, and use those >>>> sessions for what we propose instead. Or indeed, vice versa; there is >>>> no reason why the thematic emphasis needs to be the same every year. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >>>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >>>> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 7 11:53:18 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:53:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: <463F3C33.3060305@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <463F4B6E.3010809@wzb.eu> Hi Sylvia, the draft of the secretariat mentions space for non-scheduled meetings. jeanette Sylvia Caras wrote: > I'd like to be sure there is enough space provided, rooms available > but not scheduled, for whatever else might develop beyond the formal > agenda. Could we add that to the input? > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon May 7 12:54:42 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:54:42 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] IGF failure a threat to multistakeholder principle In-Reply-To: <20070507102614.655744B0B8@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070507052736.B53FF12C04E@kokori.dyf.it> <463EE33A.2080008@bertola.eu> <20070507090309.C1B034B124@quill.bollow.ch> <463EF48F.2040109@cavebear.com> <20070507102614.655744B0B8@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01891A26@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Norbert, your comments on accessibility for persons with disabilities are so important, and if we ever should let 650 Million person persons with disability be behind, the accessibility issue must be included in all ICT policies, both from the governmental side but also from the values expressed by NGO's. We, who have to read everything with a screen reading program, which are more expensive than the computer itself, and become even more expensive if you speak a language outside the UN official languages, are far behind and those from developing countries who can not afford a computer, will not afford to add this program either! Besides that the screen reading program have so lots of shortcomings that it can not be said to be fully accessible to what sighted persons can see on the screen. Technical development is needed and creation of all kinds of programs must follow a universal designed Patten, in my opinion 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 7 maj 2007 12:26 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] IGF failure a threat to multistakeholder principle Karl Auerbach wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >> .... crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts > >> - including net neutrality > > > Actually, given the importance of this topic, why don't we > > specifically ask for this topic to be given prominence? > > Such broad topics are, in my opinion, likely to not converge on > concrete results except, and perhaps, after years and years and years. > And given the alternative forums already available and the monetary > fuel behind some of the vested interests, the IG answer might end up > being nothing more than an historical footnote. As I wrote before, I agree with you, and as I've written before my proposal for a narrow-enough-to-be-really-productive topic is the creation and administration of an international certification mark that indicates that websites are accessible for persons with disabilities. But it seems that our "let's have some narrow topics please" requests at least so far haven't generated sufficient support. So the next best thing is to push for topics which will at least result in the IGF having some positive (although possibly quite minimal) benefit. As I see the situation, there is a significant risk that the IGF might end up being so much lacking in value creation that the net result could be the conclusion the "multistakeholder approach" (meaning the idea of including NGO representatives and and interested internet *users*, as opposed to merely including governments and big companies as is the practive in non-"multistakeholder" governance) getting abandoned altogether. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > > In these early days it is important to pick topics on which people can > make some real progress and generate (perhaps within a year or so) > some concrete recommendations. That way the mechanisms will be > exercised, the flaws worked out, and most importantly credibility obtained. > > Again, I urge that the focus be on matters that have a very firm and > clear basis in technical issues. These are far from trivial issues - > I suggested, for example, the establishment of procedural and > institutional means for end users (or their ISPs) to request and > obtain end-to-end assurances of service quality for sensitive > applications such as VOIP. > > Another such topic would focus on the issue of the increasing use of > technologies that try to play fast and loose with the implicit social > contracts of using the net - these include some of the new protocols > that are more aggressive than TCP when experiencing network congestion. > Widespread deployment of these technologies might result in a > class-tiered internet in which some folks get good service and others > get dregs. This, again, is not a technical topic in itself, but > rather is a rather difficult, but again a feasible one involving many tradeoffs > affecting innovation. > > These kinds of topics are less likely to cause the kind of endless > debates that will occur if IG jumps immediately to try to become some > sort of super overlord of everything that in any way could touch the > internet. > > I am already beginning to be concerned this branch of IG evolution may > start to look like a debate among buggy whip manufacturers while over > in the next county Henry Ford begins to build his automobile assembly lines. > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon May 7 13:46:56 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:46:56 -0700 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f?=. : Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:29 PM +0200 5/7/07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: >That being said, I believe that the prevailing modus operandi and vivendi >of the Internet calls for no debates (for fun) as Dan is urging. > >Let's not forget that hawks of classes (I doubt if Dan is not fronting for >them) ar lurking around and are eager to tap from strong ideas issued by >debates (just for fun) and propound their hegemony while perpetuating >their agenda. Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how to take these comments. I'm not fronting for anyone, certainly (other than having a connection to NCUC), and I'm not typically in the business of trying to stifle debate (just the opposite, typically -- I have a hard time resisting opportunities to debate on topics of interest to me). I am also a "long tail" guy, and abhor the idea of classes -- and I oppose policies in the U.S. that tend to increase their prevalence, especially policies that increase economic divides (which belie the myth that the U.S. is a "classless society" -- I am fully aware that this is a crock, and I am deeply troubled by that underlying truth). You have apparently not bothered to Google my modest web site. However, I am ultimately aiming to be a realist when it comes to public policy, and I guess I see no utility in having people pick a location for a world capital (for the Internet, or generally -- note that I would discount such a distinction on principle, in the first place). I'm also a voting member of National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences in the U.S., the presenter of the Grammy Awards, one of the most pernicious popularity contests in the music business which has virtually nothing to do with genuine merit (at least in terms of voting process). The symbolism of this location question seemed to me just about the same thing -- another popularity contest best suited to self-promotion of one sort or another, and more likely to divide us than to bring us together. Here's another answer to the Just for Fun question: Anywhere but the U.S., at least until we get our own house in order. It would be presumptuous of me to suggest a particular location elsewhere. Okay? :-) But what is really more important than location is what the *political process* would be for broad accountability within any such capital. Where in the world is political accountability in full force today? That's where I would want the location to be. For example, the chief problem with ICANN is not its physical location in the U.S., but rather the MoU with the USG and the systematically unbalanced skew of its fiat-based "multi-stakeholder" structure. Structure, not place, is most important in governance, when place is made less important by the very technologies of the telecommunication network itself. So my real aim was not to stifle debate, but to take it to a more productive (IMHO) context. Talking about place just juices up the competitive dynamics, and encourages people to think about a "class of place" (or perhaps even a "hegemony of place") in the process. I'm very uninterested in promoting nationalism or hegemony in any form. Dan PS -- If my intent were actually to stifle debate, it would seem to have been a failure. That would be a good thing. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Mon May 7 13:49:58 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:49:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463F4B6E.3010809@wzb.eu> References: <463F3C33.3060305@bertola.eu> <463F4B6E.3010809@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Thanks, Jeanette. It seemed to me to only be setting aside one room. Do you read it differently? Sylvia On 5/7/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Sylvia, the draft of the secretariat mentions space for non-scheduled > meetings. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue May 8 05:15:48 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 11:15:48 +0200 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f?=. : Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karl You are right, we are talking about Internet governance here. The fright of an upsurge of class divide accruing from the debate on Dan's trickish topic carried me ajar and the result is the mix up. I sincerely apologise for that. Dan Same like you, I am a proponent of promoting nationalism or hegemony. However, such nationalism and hegemony should be such that we arrived at a "safer, kinder world" as one former US President, George W. H. Bush once said. My own analysis of the debate topic is that it will lead to "the hegemony of place". And this will go contrary to what the Internet is currently doing: striving to empower the disempowered of the current world class divide. Aaron On 5/7/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > At 1:29 PM +0200 5/7/07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > > >That being said, I believe that the prevailing modus operandi and vivendi > >of the Internet calls for no debates (for fun) as Dan is urging. > > > >Let's not forget that hawks of classes (I doubt if Dan is not fronting for > >them) ar lurking around and are eager to tap from strong ideas issued by > >debates (just for fun) and propound their hegemony while perpetuating > >their agenda. > > > > Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how to take these comments. I'm not fronting for > anyone, certainly (other than having a connection to NCUC), and I'm not > typically in the business of trying to stifle debate (just the opposite, > typically -- I have a hard time resisting opportunities to debate on topics > of interest to me). I am also a "long tail" guy, and abhor the idea of > classes -- and I oppose policies in the U.S. that tend to increase their > prevalence, especially policies that increase economic divides (which belie > the myth that the U.S. is a "classless society" -- I am fully aware that > this is a crock, and I am deeply troubled by that underlying truth). You > have apparently not bothered to Google my modest web site. > > However, I am ultimately aiming to be a realist when it comes to public > policy, and I guess I see no utility in having people pick a location for a > world capital (for the Internet, or generally -- note that I would discount > such a distinction on principle, in the first place). I'm also a voting > member of National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences in the U.S., the > presenter of the Grammy Awards, one of the most pernicious popularity > contests in the music business which has virtually nothing to do with > genuine merit (at least in terms of voting process). The symbolism of this > location question seemed to me just about the same thing -- another > popularity contest best suited to self-promotion of one sort or another, > and more likely to divide us than to bring us together. > > Here's another answer to the Just for Fun question: > > Anywhere but the U.S., at least until we get our own house in order. It > would be presumptuous of me to suggest a particular location elsewhere. > > Okay? > > :-) > > But what is really more important than location is what the *political > process* would be for broad accountability within any such capital. Where > in the world is political accountability in full force today? That's where > I would want the location to be. > > For example, the chief problem with ICANN is not its physical location in > the U.S., but rather the MoU with the USG and the systematically unbalanced > skew of its fiat-based "multi-stakeholder" structure. Structure, not > place, is most important in governance, when place is made less important > by the very technologies of the telecommunication network itself. > > So my real aim was not to stifle debate, but to take it to a more > productive (IMHO) context. Talking about place just juices up the > competitive dynamics, and encourages people to think about a "class of > place" (or perhaps even a "hegemony of place") in the process. I'm very > uninterested in promoting nationalism or hegemony in any form. > > Dan > > PS -- If my intent were actually to stifle debate, it would seem to have > been a failure. That would be a good thing. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 8 05:47:23 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:17:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463F3C33.3060305@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070508094728.3C354E05F4@smtp3.electricembers.net> > This said, I agree that the four issues that are currently in the draft > are quite important, so let's not make this bigger than it is: I would > suggest that we propose these four as additional main sessions, and let > the AG decide what to do with our suggestion, though I suspect that the > reply might be "can't you do these as workshops?". > -- Vittorio This is in response to your and Bill's email. Can we just write a line or two of intro that the following are the themes suggested by us for the main sessions - without qualifying it any further, not saying that they are to replace existing structures (which some think they shd) or saying that they are in addition to the existing themes (which is the view of some others). My suggestion for the intro is IGC will like the following themes to be addressed in the main sessions at the IGF, in view of their central importance to the current discourse on IG. (and we put the four themes as per draft with minor modifications suggested by some people) 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: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:18 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > William Drake ha scritto: > >>I am fine with any suggestions. But do you still think, after seeing > >>Vittorio's email, that topical suggestions speak for themselves ??? > after > > > > Yes, and I don't know why Vittorio's messages seem so perplexed about > long > > running discussions. > > Ok, clarifying again: I wasn't perplexed about the themes in themselves, > but about the idea that we would ask that the IGF's four main sessions > should stop being an open place for "any stakeholder to raise any > issue", and become four specialized sessions (though specialized on > quite broad issues). My raising of another theme was not meant to get my > favourite issue added to the other favourite ones, but just to show that > there are plenty of other very important issues, and that it would be > hard to convince anyone that our four are so important that the entire > main thread of the IGF should be devoted to them and to them only, even > if we provided rationales for this proposal, something that we're not > really doing in our draft. > > This said, I agree that the four issues that are currently in the draft > are quite important, so let's not make this bigger than it is: I would > suggest that we propose these four as additional main sessions, and let > the AG decide what to do with our suggestion, though I suspect that the > reply might be "can't you do these as workshops?". > -- > 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 Mueller at syr.edu Tue May 8 10:35:47 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 10:35:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Message-ID: >My suggestion for the intro is > >IGC will like the following themes to be addressed in the main sessions at >the IGF, in view of their central importance to the current discourse on IG. > >(and we put the four themes as per draft with minor modifications suggested >by some people) Sounds good to me. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Tue May 8 12:09:21 2007 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:09:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28cfc1a40705080909l4427c7f5x9b23855fb192b8a3@mail.gmail.com> On 5/7/07, William Drake wrote: > > Otherwise, unpaid leadership positions are not "services" in the sense of > being commercially provisioned for fees, and are not "exported" via any > WTO-defined mode of supply. The rules are intended to prevent US companies > from selling goods and services to Sudanese entities. > Wonder if query/response transactions between resolvers and nameservers would qualify? According to a recent report published in Cisco's IP Journal (http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/infrastructure-distribution/), several root nameservers based in US (and outside US) provide resolution for the .SD tld. E.g., TLD: SD Locations: HK IN LU NL SD UK UsCA UsFL UsIL UsTX UsVA ZA It appears that Neustar (UltraDNS) is one US based company providing this service. See http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/infrastructure-distribution/ranked-subnets.20070410 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 8 12:21:29 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 21:51:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a40705080909l4427c7f5x9b23855fb192b8a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070508162135.BF0ABE0911@smtp3.electricembers.net> > > On 5/7/07, William Drake wrote: > > > > > Otherwise, unpaid leadership positions are not "services" in the sense > of > > being commercially provisioned for fees, and are not "exported" via any > > WTO-defined mode of supply. The rules are intended to prevent US > companies > > from selling goods and services to Sudanese entities. > > > > Wonder if query/response transactions between resolvers and > nameservers would qualify? According to a recent report published in > Cisco's IP Journal > (http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/infrastructure-distribution/), > several root nameservers based in US (and outside US) provide > resolution for the .SD tld. E.g., But doesn't simple providing of Domain Name services for which ICANN collects fees through registries itself a straight-forward service. (refer an earlier 'fees versus taxes' discussion on this list) I mean, in legal terms in US law what else would it qualify for. Of course, ICANN cant be filing that it provides some kind of governance. Or am I completely off-track... Parminder > > TLD: SD > > Locations: > HK > IN > LU > NL > SD > UK > UsCA > UsFL > UsIL > UsTX > UsVA > ZA > > > It appears that Neustar (UltraDNS) is one US based company providing > this service. See > http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/infrastructure-distribution/ranked- > subnets.20070410 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 8 12:42:28 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 19:42:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a40705080909l4427c7f5x9b23855fb192b8a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <28cfc1a40705080909l4427c7f5x9b23855fb192b8a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/8/07, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > > On 5/7/07, William Drake wrote: > > > > > Wonder if query/response transactions between resolvers and > nameservers would qualify? no, neither would IANA "service" qualify (Wolfgang's query) According to a recent report published in > Cisco's IP Journal > (http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/infrastructure-distribution/), > several root nameservers based in US (and outside US) provide > resolution for the .SD tld. E.g., > > > It appears that Neustar (UltraDNS) is one US based company providing > this service. See > > http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/infrastructure-distribution/ranked-subnets.20070410 If you think that UltraDNS/ICANN/IANA are in violation, then the IGP (and anyone who runs a website viewed by Sudanese folk) is probably in violation. As for Parminder's query, looking at: http://www.icann.org/cctlds/sd/sponsorship-agmt-20dec02.htm One sees that the Sudanese ISOC pays a "contribution" and not a fee to ICANN. In other words, you are all off-track. It can't be "operationalised" in the IANA/ICANN context. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 8 13:33:28 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:03:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070508173343.1335E5C68@smtp2.electricembers.net> To keep things moving, I am putting the intro together with the themes. I have included the suggestions for changes which I could trace, but if any suggestion is left out, please let me know. (begins) In view of their central importance to the current discourse on Internet Governance, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus will like the following themes addressed in the main sessions at the IGF. (1) Internet Global Public Policy - Issues and Institutions 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 Plenary 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Policy toward "critical Internet resources" is a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG We would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet by disadvantaged people and groups. (4) The role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. (ends) It is late here, and I will see if it needs a round of cleaning in the morning. My proposal is to put up a text for consensus call sometime late tomorrow. (will figure out the exact text and time with Vittorio) 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Tue May 8 14:22:25 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 20:22:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: Countdown to 2015, 28-30 June 2007, Geneva Message-ID: <200705081821.l48ILnTX029539@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, For your information, find below the information concerning the Civil Society Development Forum organised by CONGO and the Millennium Campaign, to take place in Geneva on 28-30 June 2007 (just prior the annual UN ECOSOC substantive session). Through the general guiding theme of the ECOSOC substantive session – which focuses on pro-poor sustained economic growth – we are willing to include an important component on pro-poor ICT policies and strategies, both during plenary sessions, workshops slots and side events. Registration is now open (find registration form attached or online: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news &id=10377&start=4). More information available below. Plus d’information ci-dessous, également en Français. All the best, _____ ENGLISH Invitation to the Civil Society Development Forum 2007 “A Platform for Development: Countdown to 2015” International Conference Centre in Geneva (CICG) Geneva, 28 - 30 June 2007 Dear colleagues and friends, The Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) in cooperation with the UN Millennium Campaign has the great pleasure to invite you to the Civil Society Development Forum 2007 - “A Platform for Development: Countdown to 2015” that will take place 28-30 June 2007 at the International Conference Centre (CICG) in Geneva, Switzerland. Preceding and interacting with the High-level Segment of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Forum is to highlight (i) the crucial role of the internationally agreed development goals (IADGs)/Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the pursuit of a results-oriented global development strategy and (ii) the need for an assessment of the development community’s efforts and achievements, so far, in meeting these goals. In addition to the Forum’s focus on the IADGs/MDGs, participants will need to define their positions on the recently adopted guiding themes of ECOSOC’s Substantive Session in 2007: “Strengthening efforts at all levels to promote pro-poor sustained economic growth, including through equitable macroeconomic policies” and for ECOSOC’s annual ministerial review (AMR): “Strengthening efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger, including through the global partnership for development”. The Forum is to bring together actors of the global civil society to “think future” and to work on issues related to the wider development agenda. Its output and conclusions are to be instrumental for the work of the strengthened ECOSOC, especially for its Annual Ministerial Review and the Development Cooperation Forum. CSOs/NGOs and their partners will have a special opportunity to contribute to the implementation of innovative policies to achieve the IADGs and the MDGs. Civil society will lead and manage the Forum. It will thus be able to articulate itself in many ways – through plenary sessions, clusters and workshops, side events and exhibitions, media opportunities, cultural and community-oriented activities and virtual sessions. These diverse opportunities should permit the harnessing of the participants’ collective intelligence and creativity to find solutions for tackling extreme poverty. Further information on the objectives of the CSDF 2007 as well as the provisional program can be found on the Forum website, www.ngocongo.org . Please find attached the background paper and the call for papers . Fellowships (full or partial) are available for participants from developing countries. Selection of fellows will be made based on their contribution to the Forum through papers, workshops and reporting. Register now! We look very much forward to meeting you in June and to working with you for the CSDF 2007 and beyond. Yours sincerely, Renate BLOEM CONGO President FRANCAIS Invitation au Forum de la Société Civile pour le Développement 2007 “Une plateforme pour le développement : compte à rebours pour 2015” Centre International de Conférences de Genève (CICG) Genève, 28 - 30 juin 2007 Chers collègues et amis, La Conférence des ONG ayant des Relations Consultatives avec les Nations Unies (CONGO) en coopération avec la Campagne des Nations Unies pour le Millénaire a l’immense plaisir de vous inviter au Forum de la Société Civile pour le Développement - “Une plateforme pour le développement : compte à rebours pour 2015” qui aura lieu à Genève en Suisse, du 28 au 30 juin 2007. Précédant et interagissant avec la session plénière du segment de haut-niveau du Conseil économique et social des Nations Unies (ECOSOC), ce Forum a pour but de mettre en lumière (i) le rôle crucial des objectifs de développement internationalement reconnus (ODIR)/ des objectifs du Millénaire pour le développement (OMD) dans la poursuite d’une stratégie globale de développement orientée vers l’obtention de résultats ; et (ii) la nécessité d’une évaluation des efforts et des réussites des partenaires pour le développement dans le cadre de la poursuite de ces objectifs. Alors que le Forum sera majoritairement axé sur les OMD et les ODIR, ses participants devront également définir leurs positions vis-à-vis des thèmes récemment adoptés pour la session de fond de l’ECOSOC en 2007 : « le renforcement des efforts à tous les niveaux visant à la promotion, favorable aux pauvres, d’une croissance économique soutenue, y compris par le biais de politiques macroéconomiques équitables » et pour l’examen ministériel annuel de l’ECOSOC sera « Le renforcement des efforts visant à éradiquer la pauvreté et la faim, y compris par le biais du partenariat mondial pour le développement ». Le Forum offrira l’opportunité se de réunir à des acteurs de la société civile mondiale pour envisager l'avenir des problématiques relatives à l'agenda du développement au sens large. Ses conclusions serviront d’outils de travail pour le Conseil économique et Social des Nations Unies (ECOSOC), particulièrement pour le Forum de la Coopération au Développement et la Revue annuelle ministérielle. Les ONG, les OSC et leurs partenaires auront l’occasion de contribuer au processus de mise en œuvre de politiques innovantes pour la réalisation des ODIR et des OMD. La société civile dirigera et conduira le Forum. Il s’articulera ainsi sous différents angles à travers des sessions plénières, des groupes thématiques, des ateliers, des évènements parallèles, des expositions, des évènements médiatiques, des activités culturelles et communautaires et des sessions virtuelles. Ces manifestations diverses seront l’occasion pour les participants d’exploiter collectivement les informations dont ils disposent et leur créativité afin d’identifier des solutions pour lutter contre l’extrême pauvreté. Des informations supplémentaires sur les objectifs du FSCD 2007 ainsi que le programme provisionnel, l’introduction au Forum et l’appel à contributions sont disponibles sur le site du Forum, www.ngocongo.org . Des bourses (partielles ou totales) sont disponibles pour les participants des pays en développement. La sélection des boursiers sera basée sur leur participation au Forum à travers les contributions, les ateliers et les rapports. Enregistrez-vous maintenant ! Nous nous réjouissons de vous rencontrer en juin et de travailler avec vous pour le FSCD 2007. Bien à vous, Renate BLOEM CONGO Présidente -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3254 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5999 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6802 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Background paper to the Development Forum.doc Type: application/msword Size: 108544 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for Papers.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41472 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSDF 2007 Registration Form.doc Type: application/msword Size: 103424 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 8 16:32:12 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 06:32:12 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20070508173343.1335E5C68@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <028201c791af$fa7c1a50$3eeececb@IAN> Great text Parminder, I am happy with it and it's had good time for input. Nice to see a meaningful contribution going forward! Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 09 May 2007 03:33 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG To keep things moving, I am putting the intro together with the themes. I have included the suggestions for changes which I could trace, but if any suggestion is left out, please let me know. (begins) In view of their central importance to the current discourse on Internet Governance, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus will like the following themes addressed in the main sessions at the IGF. (1) Internet Global Public Policy - Issues and Institutions 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 Plenary 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Policy toward "critical Internet resources" is a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG We would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet by disadvantaged people and groups. (4) The role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. (ends) It is late here, and I will see if it needs a round of cleaning in the morning. My proposal is to put up a text for consensus call sometime late tomorrow. (will figure out the exact text and time with Vittorio) 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 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 27/04/2007 13:39 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 27/04/2007 13:39 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue May 8 22:48:35 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 19:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: 028201c791af$fa7c1a50$3eeececb@IAN Message-ID: Parminder Jeet Singh, Vittorio Bertola, William (Bill) Drake Following Ian Peter's First Motion, and with regards to the editorial-concerns of Parminder Singh, Adam Peake, & Jeremy Malcolm's: I Second the Motion to carry the 'IGC statement to IGF MAG' forward. Vote � Yea -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]; Sent: 09 May 2007 03:33 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG To keep things moving, I am putting the intro together with the themes. I have included the suggestions for changes which I could trace, but if any suggestion is left out, please let me know. --- (Begins): In view of their central importance to the current discourse on Internet Governance, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus will like the following themes addressed in the main sessions at the IGF. (1) Internet Global Public Policy - Issues and Institutions 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 Plenary 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Policy toward "critical Internet resources" is a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG We would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet by disadvantaged people and groups. (4) The role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. (ends) It is late here, and I will see if it needs a round of cleaning in the morning. My proposal is to put up a text for consensus call sometime late tomorrow. (will figure out the exact text and time with Vittorio) 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Wed May 9 03:08:59 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:08:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <463F4652.8000404@wzb.eu> References: <463F4652.8000404@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4641738B.4090307@panos-ao.org> Hi Regarding main themes looking like umbrella: maybe it's the best thing we could have : I remember even here we could not agree on what specific themes could be considered as priority topics, prior to the definition of the first IGF meeting programme. So... Regards Ken Lohento > Parminder wrote: >>> There is hardly anything >>> that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. >> >> Yes, true. That exactly is the problem with these themes. If you were to >> organize an event aiming at meaningful deliberation, with some >> outputs, will >> you choose some umbrella topics under which ' There is hardly anything >>> that cannot be discussed' . I wont. > > My understanding of the function of the main themes is a different > one. They help structuring the meeting in the way as an academic > conference or a journal would have certain ordering categories. They > loosely predefine the area of discussion and thus provide some > structural continuity but they don't prescribe specific topics. The > actual substance has to be agreed upon each year. >> >> >>> We should treat them as >>> containers we can fill! >> >> Treating 2 hour sessions as containers anyone can fill with anything is >> disastrous. And we saw that at Athens. > > I didn't find Athens disastrous, and I didn't say that anyone can fill > those containers with anything. I repeat what I said: the main themes > are the wrong target. We need to argue for the entire mission of the IGF. > > 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 Wed May 9 07:56:13 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 08:56:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4641B6DD.3070601@rits.org.br> I think the "statement" (why not call it a *CSIG Caucus Proposal to the IGF*, not a "pronunciamiento"?) as it stands now is great -- no need for further make-up retouching and such :) Let us deliver it to the MAG. --c.a. yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > Parminder Jeet Singh, Vittorio Bertola, William (Bill) Drake > > Following Ian Peter's First Motion, and with regards to the editorial-concerns > of > Parminder Singh, Adam Peake, & Jeremy Malcolm's: > > I Second the Motion to carry the 'IGC statement to IGF MAG' forward. > > Vote – Yea > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]; > Sent: 09 May 2007 03:33 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > > To keep things moving, I am putting the intro together with the themes. I have > included the suggestions for changes which I could trace, but if any suggestion > is left out, please let me know. > > --- > > (Begins): > > In view of their central importance to the current discourse on Internet > Governance, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus will like the > following themes addressed in the main sessions at the IGF. > > (1) Internet Global Public Policy - Issues and Institutions > > 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 > Plenary 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 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? > > > (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources > > Policy toward "critical Internet resources" is a major topic in the Tunis > Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are > administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session > should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these > institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international > organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, > and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. > > > (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the > Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG > > We would like to have a plenary session devoted to the topic, how can global > Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged > peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to > knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific > policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property > rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and > can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet by > disadvantaged people and groups. > > > (4) The role and mandate of IGF > > The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other > institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, > bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, > and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an > ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance > processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot > be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual > conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the > purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on > how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. > > (ends) > > It is late here, and I will see if it needs a round of cleaning in the > morning. My proposal is to put up a text for consensus call sometime late > tomorrow. (will figure out the exact text and time with Vittorio) > > 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 > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 9 09:05:19 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:05:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea Message-ID: I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, and about the title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>> ca at rits.org.br 5/9/2007 7:56:13 AM >>> I think the "statement" (why not call it a *CSIG Caucus Proposal to the IGF*, not a "pronunciamiento"?) as it stands now is great -- no need for further make-up retouching and such :) Let us deliver it to 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Wed May 9 09:24:53 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 15:24:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4641CBA5.90304@hei.unige.ch> Milton Mueller wrote: > I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, and about the > title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what we're responding to here? If so what's the time frame? I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me that there was never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that framing #2 in terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the kiss of death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we have no alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how it goes, assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed May 9 09:38:50 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:38:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <4641CBA5.90304@hei.unige.ch> References: <4641CBA5.90304@hei.unige.ch> Message-ID: <4641CEEA.1000403@rits.org.br> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the proposal and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and lobbying for our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with our governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word replacement (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. We can replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." :) --c.a. DRAKE William wrote: > Milton Mueller wrote: > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, and about the >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what we're responding > to here? If so what's the time frame? > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me that there was > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that framing #2 in > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the kiss of > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we have no > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how it goes, > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > 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 > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 9 10:21:12 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:51:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <4641CBA5.90304@hei.unige.ch> Message-ID: <20070509142114.911AAE06DA@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what we're responding > to here? If so what's the time frame? The proposal, as stated earlier, is to out a call for consensus on the text in 2 hours from now (unless major issues arise). The call will last 48 hours. If it falls to get consensus/ rough consensus (which I am very hopeful it will get) we still have time for voting. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: DRAKE William [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:55 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > > I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, and about the > > title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what we're responding > to here? If so what's the time frame? > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me that there was > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that framing #2 in > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the kiss of > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we have no > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how it goes, > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed May 9 12:56:35 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <4641CEEA.1000403@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <718510.98310.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I support. I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not from the text. Instead of : "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" we could have "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" or a variant of that. Mawaki --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the > proposal > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and > lobbying for > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with > our > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word > replacement > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. > We can > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the > > administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." > :) > > --c.a. > > DRAKE William wrote: > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, > and about the > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what > we're responding > > to here? If so what's the time frame? > > > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me > that there was > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > framing #2 in > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the > kiss of > > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we > have no > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how > it goes, > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed May 9 13:21:49 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 14:21:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <718510.98310.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <718510.98310.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4642032D.9030500@rits.org.br> I of course vote YES. --c.a. Mawaki Chango wrote: > I support. > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not > from the text. Instead of : > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > we could have > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > institutions" > or a variant of that. > > Mawaki > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the >> proposal >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >> lobbying for >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with >> our >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >> replacement >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. >> We can >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the >> >> administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." >> :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> DRAKE William wrote: >>> Milton Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >> and about the >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >> we're responding >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? >>> >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >> that there was >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >> framing #2 in >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the >> kiss of >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >> have no >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how >> it goes, >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 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 > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 9 13:22:41 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 22:52:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20070509142114.911AAE06DA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070509172331.DE0ADC9511@smtp1.electricembers.net> The following text is being put out for seeking consensus as IGC's submission to the IGF consultations on the 22nd May. We request that members only convey agreement or disagreement for submitting this text in this shape to the IGF secretariat. You may include your reasons in as much detail as you wish, but the precise point of agreement or disagreement to submitting the statement in the exact shape as below should be clear. At this stage, we will NOT be considering suggestions for substantive changes to the text. However, small changes, which attract no controversy, and language edits etc may be taken on the discretion of the co-coordinators. Some relatively substantive changes may also be accepted only if there is a resounding support, and no opposition at all, to them. However, this will be an exception, again completely up to the discretion of the co-coordinators. At the same hour as now (1730 GMT) on May 11th the consensus call will be closed, and the result of it announced by the next day ie 12th. (Statement begins) Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input into the open round of consultations on 23 May 2007 to discuss programme and agenda for the second meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro. In view of their central importance to the current discourse on Internet Governance, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus will like the following themes addressed in the main sessions at the IGF. (1) Internet Global Public Policy - Issues and Institutions 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 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? (2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources Policy toward "critical Internet resources" is a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This main session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed. (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG We would like to have a main session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet by disadvantaged people and groups. (4) The role and mandate of IGF The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. (ends) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 9 13:27:41 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 22:57:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <718510.98310.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070509172752.6FBCC5CDD@smtp2.electricembers.net> Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I downloaded your email... ________________________________________________ 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > I support. > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not > from the text. Instead of : > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > we could have > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > institutions" > or a variant of that. > > Mawaki > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the > > proposal > > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and > > lobbying for > > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with > > our > > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word > > replacement > > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. > > We can > > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the > > > > administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." > > :) > > > > --c.a. > > > > DRAKE William wrote: > > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > > > > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, > > and about the > > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > > > > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what > > we're responding > > > to here? If so what's the time frame? > > > > > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me > > that there was > > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > > framing #2 in > > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the > > kiss of > > > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we > > have no > > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how > > it goes, > > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed May 9 13:38:48 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:38:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <718510.98310.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <718510.98310.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46420728.2060707@wzb.eu> I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the header of no 2. jeanette Mawaki Chango wrote: > I support. > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not > from the text. Instead of : > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > we could have > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > institutions" > or a variant of that. > > Mawaki > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the >> proposal >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >> lobbying for >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with >> our >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >> replacement >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. >> We can >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the >> >> administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." >> :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> DRAKE William wrote: >>> Milton Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >> and about the >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >> we're responding >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? >>> >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >> that there was >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >> framing #2 in >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the >> kiss of >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >> have no >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how >> it goes, >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed May 9 15:55:20 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 15:55:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea Message-ID: I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the header of no 2. jeanette Mawaki Chango wrote: > I support. > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not > from the text. Instead of : > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > we could have > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > institutions" > or a variant of that. > > Mawaki > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the >> proposal >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >> lobbying for >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with >> our >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >> replacement >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. >> We can >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the >> >> administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." >> :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> DRAKE William wrote: >>> Milton Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >> and about the >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >> we're responding >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? >>> >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >> that there was >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >> framing #2 in >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the >> kiss of >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >> have no >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how >> it goes, >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed May 9 15:56:43 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 15:56:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <46420728.2060707@wzb.eu> References: <718510.98310.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <46420728.2060707@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4642277B.7040103@apc.org> Ditto I think a 'd' is missing at the end of 'disadvantage' in the heading of (3) Willie Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the header of no 2. > > jeanette > > Mawaki Chango wrote: >> I support. >> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not >> from the text. Instead of : >> >> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" >> we could have >> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance >> institutions" >> or a variant of that. >> >> Mawaki >> >> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: >> >>> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the >>> proposal and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >>> lobbying for our positions in our constituencies (and, in some >>> cases, with >>> our governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >>> replacement (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual >>> debate. >>> We can replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the >>> >>> administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." >>> :) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> DRAKE William wrote: >>>> Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >>> and about the >>>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >>> we're responding >>>> to here? If so what's the time frame? >>>> >>>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >>> that there was >>>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >>> framing #2 in >>>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the >>> kiss of >>>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >>> have no >>>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how >>> it goes, >>>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed May 9 22:48:38 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <739728.80076.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Lee, it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs which are different legal entities and have their own processes. And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that hides the forest. Mawaki --- Lee McKnight wrote: > I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still > don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> > I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the > header of no 2. > > jeanette > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I support. > > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but > not > > from the text. Instead of : > > > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > we could have > > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > institutions" > > or a variant of that. > > > > Mawaki > > > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send > the > >> proposal > >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and > >> lobbying for > >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, > with > >> our > >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word > >> replacement > >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > debate. > >> We can > >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as > the > >> > >> administration/governance of names, numbers and > protocols..." > >> :) > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> DRAKE William wrote: > >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> > >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, > >> and about the > >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what > >> we're responding > >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? > >>> > >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me > >> that there was > >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > >> framing #2 in > >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be > the > >> kiss of > >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we > >> have no > >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see > how > >> it goes, > >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Wed May 9 22:58:53 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:58:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <739728.80076.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <739728.80076.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46428A6D.7080708@cavebear.com> Mawaki Chango wrote: > it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that > section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs... By-the-way, I don't know who here watches the details of IP address policy. Over at ARIN there is some very good ongoing debated about things like paying the costs of legacy space (such as the space I got from Jon Postel and not from the RIRs and thus is outside their contractual framework) and means to induce the redeployment and recycling of allocated but unused space. It is very interesting to contrast the vibrancy of these debates, which not only involve exchanges between interested parties but also exchanges with the people who will be making the choices, against the processes of other extant bodies of internet governance. The lesson for internet governance is that it is possible to do it well. --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 Wed May 9 23:15:17 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 23:15:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea Message-ID: If you push a bit further you can muddy the distinction altogether between 'Internet public policy issues' broadly which is being discussed in one proposed plenary session and 'ICANN and Core Internet resources' which seems to capture nicely both the specific (ICANN) and the range of institutions, some of whom do a fine job without half the grief ICANN gives and gets. So methinks thou doth protest too much, and want to hide the tree in the forest. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Mawaki Chango 5/9/2007 10:48 PM >>> Lee, it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs which are different legal entities and have their own processes. And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that hides the forest. Mawaki --- Lee McKnight wrote: > I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still > don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> > I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the > header of no 2. > > jeanette > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I support. > > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but > not > > from the text. Instead of : > > > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > we could have > > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > institutions" > > or a variant of that. > > > > Mawaki > > > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send > the > >> proposal > >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and > >> lobbying for > >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, > with > >> our > >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word > >> replacement > >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > debate. > >> We can > >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as > the > >> > >> administration/governance of names, numbers and > protocols..." > >> :) > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> DRAKE William wrote: > >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> > >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, > >> and about the > >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what > >> we're responding > >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? > >>> > >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me > >> that there was > >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > >> framing #2 in > >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be > the > >> kiss of > >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we > >> have no > >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see > how > >> it goes, > >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu May 10 01:15:48 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:15:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lee, It's just a framing thing. Better for all the obvious reasons to have it discussed as 'the core resources session' rather than the 'ICANN session' a) in mAG and b) on the off chance it's approved, at IGF. Beyond anticipating a gut circle the wagons response, it also is responsive to reality that no one institution has otherwise been the focus of a session, and would be a bit unusual from the perspective of diplomats and bureaucratic sensibilities. Imagine if UNESCO organized a conference on the ITU, or whatever. UNCTAD, which was set up to advise developing countries on international trade policy, is barely allowed to utter the words WTO anymore. Let's make life easier for those responsible for balancing interests etc. and frame in terms of issues rather than particular institutions. BD On 5/10/07 5:15 AM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > If you push a bit further you can muddy the distinction altogether between > 'Internet public policy issues' broadly which is being discussed in one > proposed plenary session and 'ICANN and Core Internet resources' which seems > to capture nicely both the specific (ICANN) and the range of institutions, > some of whom do a fine job without half the grief ICANN gives and gets. > > So methinks thou doth protest too much, and want to hide the tree in the > forest. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> Mawaki Chango 5/9/2007 10:48 PM >>> > Lee, > it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that > section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs > which are different legal entities and have their own processes. > And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in > (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major > ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet > resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that hides > the forest. > > Mawaki > > > --- Lee McKnight wrote: > >> I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still >> don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >>>>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> >> I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the >> header of no 2. >> >> jeanette >> >> Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> I support. >>> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but >> not >>> from the text. Instead of : >>> >>> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" >>> we could have >>> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance >>> institutions" >>> or a variant of that. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send >> the >>>> proposal >>>> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >>>> lobbying for >>>> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, >> with >>>> our >>>> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >>>> replacement >>>> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual >> debate. >>>> We can >>>> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as >> the >>>> >>>> administration/governance of names, numbers and >> protocols..." >>>> :) >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> DRAKE William wrote: >>>>> Milton Mueller wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >>>> and about the >>>>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>>>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >>>> we're responding >>>>> to here? If so what's the time frame? >>>>> >>>>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >>>> that there was >>>>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >>>> framing #2 in >>>>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be >> the >>>> kiss of >>>>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >>>> have no >>>>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see >> how >>>> it goes, >>>>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Thu May 10 01:37:24 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:07:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <739728.80076.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070510053728.D79955C4C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Mawaki Under the consensus call rule " Some relatively substantive changes may also be accepted only if there is a resounding support, and no opposition at all, to them. However, this will be an exception, again completely up to the discretion of the co-coordinators." You may still keep this suggested change on the table.. Instead of : > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > we could have > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" However, it will have to meet the strict conditions of the above rule. There should be more support - and no opposition (with earlier opposition - Lee, Afonso - withdrawn), and we will also check offline with those who have been pressing the ICANN discussion case most, and then it is still left to the discretion of co-coordinators... And also to see the exceptional nature of such a change (no pouring in more requests pl :)) Parminder PS: meanwhile, if a change is at all to take place, in my personal capacity, I wonder if "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current governance institutions" looks more specific to the institutions we want discussed than "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" ________________________________________________ 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:19 AM > To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > Lee, > it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that > section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs > which are different legal entities and have their own processes. > And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in > (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major > ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet > resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that hides > the forest. > > Mawaki > > > --- Lee McKnight wrote: > > > I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still > > don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. > > > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > School of Information Studies > > Syracuse University > > +1-315-443-6891office > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> > > I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the > > header of no 2. > > > > jeanette > > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > I support. > > > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but > > not > > > from the text. Instead of : > > > > > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > > we could have > > > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > > institutions" > > > or a variant of that. > > > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > > > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send > > the > > >> proposal > > >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and > > >> lobbying for > > >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, > > with > > >> our > > >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word > > >> replacement > > >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > > debate. > > >> We can > > >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as > > the > > >> > > >> administration/governance of names, numbers and > > protocols..." > > >> :) > > >> > > >> --c.a. > > >> > > >> DRAKE William wrote: > > >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, > > >> and about the > > >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what > > >> we're responding > > >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? > > >>> > > >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me > > >> that there was > > >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > > >> framing #2 in > > >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be > > the > > >> kiss of > > >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we > > >> have no > > >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see > > how > > >> it goes, > > >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > >>> > > >>> 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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu May 10 01:54:06 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:54:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <20070510053728.D79955C4C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <001101c792c7$a9477c10$0205a8c0@IAN> I support "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current governance institutions" It * makes the point more clearly than "ICANN and Core Internet Resources" - and * leads to a more appropriate discussion of the scope and role of ICANN than the assumption that core Internet resources governance and ICANN are somehow synonymous and * doesn’t get the back up of those for whom a direct discussion of ICANN is either passé or inappropriate Lee, Carlos, would you settle for this change? I believe it's likely to gain more support from other constituencies and reduces the risk of civil society being marginalized. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 10 May 2007 15:37 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Mawaki Chango'; 'Lee McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea Mawaki Under the consensus call rule " Some relatively substantive changes may also be accepted only if there is a resounding support, and no opposition at all, to them. However, this will be an exception, again completely up to the discretion of the co-coordinators." You may still keep this suggested change on the table.. Instead of : > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > we could have > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" However, it will have to meet the strict conditions of the above rule. There should be more support - and no opposition (with earlier opposition - Lee, Afonso - withdrawn), and we will also check offline with those who have been pressing the ICANN discussion case most, and then it is still left to the discretion of co-coordinators... And also to see the exceptional nature of such a change (no pouring in more requests pl :)) Parminder PS: meanwhile, if a change is at all to take place, in my personal capacity, I wonder if "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current governance institutions" looks more specific to the institutions we want discussed than "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" ________________________________________________ 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:19 AM > To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > Lee, > it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that > section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs > which are different legal entities and have their own processes. > And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in > (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major > ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet > resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that hides > the forest. > > Mawaki > > > --- Lee McKnight wrote: > > > I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still > > don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. > > > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > School of Information Studies > > Syracuse University > > +1-315-443-6891office > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> > > I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the > > header of no 2. > > > > jeanette > > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > I support. > > > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but > > not > > > from the text. Instead of : > > > > > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > > we could have > > > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > > institutions" > > > or a variant of that. > > > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > > > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send > > the > > >> proposal > > >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and > > >> lobbying for > > >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, > > with > > >> our > > >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word > > >> replacement > > >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > > debate. > > >> We can > > >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as > > the > > >> > > >> administration/governance of names, numbers and > > protocols..." > > >> :) > > >> > > >> --c.a. > > >> > > >> DRAKE William wrote: > > >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, > > >> and about the > > >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what > > >> we're responding > > >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? > > >>> > > >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me > > >> that there was > > >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > > >> framing #2 in > > >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be > > the > > >> kiss of > > >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we > > >> have no > > >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see > > how > > >> it goes, > > >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > >>> > > >>> 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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007 15:07 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007 15:07 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 10 02:29:51 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:29:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] Global Fellowships Program Message-ID: looks interesting. Please forward to APC etc. Adam >Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 12:51:50 -0400 >To: At-Large Worldwide >From: Alan Greenberg >Subject: [At-Large] Global Fellowships Program > >Fellowship Program to Enhance Global Participation in ICANN > >MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: People from across the world will have more >opportunities to attend ICANN's 29th Public Meeting in San Juan, >Puerto Rico thanks to the trial >global fellowships program launched today. > >"We want to foster increased participation from developing and least >developed nations at our public meetings -- and this fellowship >program will do just that," said Paul Levins, ICANN's Executive >Officer and Vice President Corporate Affairs. > >Priority will be given to current residents of developing and least >developed nations who are interested in participating in the ICANN >government advisory committee, the country code names supporting >organization, and the generic names supporting organization. The >fellowship will assist in covering airfare, hotel and a stipend. >Recipients will be expected to actively participate in and >contribute to ICANN processes. As always, registration for ICANN's >meetings is free for anyone wanting to attend. > >"The program will play a key role in meeting part of ICANN's >operational plan -- which has been through extensive public >discussions and consultations -- to create a program to encourage >and find participation by interested parties in developing >countries," Levins said. > >After the San Juan meeting, which takes place 25-30 June, ICANN will >get feedback on the program from participants and the public, and >identify areas where there might be improvements. > >"As a global organization ICANN is working hard to reach out and >work with people from every part of the world, and especially >individuals and organizations from developing countries," Levins >added. "Making sure we have participation from people who normally >couldn't attend means ICANN's work in the administration of the >Domain Name and Internet Protocol addressing systems is more >accountable and transparent." > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >www.alac.icann.org >www.icannalac.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 10 03:27:28 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:27:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:15 AM +0200 5/10/07, William Drake wrote: >Lee, > >It's just a framing thing. Better for all the obvious reasons to have it >discussed as 'the core resources session' rather than the 'ICANN session' a) >in mAG and b) on the off chance it's approved, at IGF. Yes, this is part of it. Presenting it as an ICANN session will cause some knee jerk reaction. ICANN's not a taboo subject (workshops have been fine, will be fine), but we do know there are a number of stakeholders who don't want to see ICANN discussed directly, so mentioning in this way is just not sensible. >Beyond anticipating >a gut circle the wagons response, it also is responsive to reality that no >one institution has otherwise been the focus of a session, and would be a >bit unusual from the perspective of diplomats and bureaucratic >sensibilities. Imagine if UNESCO organized a conference on the ITU, or >whatever. UNCTAD, which was set up to advise developing countries on >international trade policy, is barely allowed to utter the words WTO >anymore. Yes. This is important. Further, the proposed text does is narrow the scope of discussion from being anything potentially under "critical Internet resources" to the much narrower world of ICANN, mainly gTLD policy. Which is both dull and not particularly relevant to the overall IGF development perspective. RIRs would be interesting. A very good example of responsive and open process (the example Karl gives, ARIN also working with community groups, particularly muni-wifi networks, to help them with IPv6 allocations.) "ICANN's status as an international organization", in IGF setting, frankly, who cares? Anyone who doesn't like this issue, will have a strong argument to say "enhanced cooperation" not under remit of IGF (as was clear at the February consultation.) And "representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed." What can we say here, ICANN is more inclusive of all stakeholders (except government?) than any other IG organization, are we suggesting ICANN as a model others should follow? It's a shame the proposal couldn't just have been left as a broad call to discuss critical Internet resources. As written it's too narrow to be of much interest. Thanks, Adam >Let's make life easier for those responsible for balancing >interests etc. and frame in terms of issues rather than particular >institutions. > >BD > >On 5/10/07 5:15 AM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > >> If you push a bit further you can muddy the distinction altogether between >> 'Internet public policy issues' broadly which is being discussed in one >> proposed plenary session and 'ICANN and Core Internet resources' which seems >> to capture nicely both the specific (ICANN) and the range of institutions, >> some of whom do a fine job without half the grief ICANN gives and gets. >> >> So methinks thou doth protest too much, and want to hide the tree in the >> forest. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >>>>> Mawaki Chango 5/9/2007 10:48 PM >>> >> Lee, >> it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that >> section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs >> which are different legal entities and have their own processes. >> And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in >> (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major >> ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet >> resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that hides >> the forest. >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> --- Lee McKnight wrote: >> >>> I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still >>> don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >>> School of Information Studies >>> Syracuse University > >> +1-315-443-6891office >>> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> >>>>>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> >>> I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the >>> header of no 2. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>> I support. >>>> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but >>> not >>>> from the text. Instead of : >>>> >>>> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" >>>> we could have >>>> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance >>>> institutions" >>>> or a variant of that. >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send >>> the >>>>> proposal >>>>> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >>>>> lobbying for >>>>> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, >>> with >>>>> our >>>>> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >>>>> replacement >>>>> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual >>> debate. >>>>> We can >>>>> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as >>> the >>>>> >>>>> administration/governance of names, numbers and >>> protocols..." >>>>> :) >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> DRAKE William wrote: >>>>>> Milton Mueller wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >>>>> and about the >>>>>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>>>>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >>>>> we're responding >>>>>> to here? If so what's the time frame? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >>>>> that there was >>>>>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >>>>> framing #2 in >>>>>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be >>> the >>>>> kiss of >>>>>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >>>>> have no >>>>>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see >>> how >>>>> it goes, >>>>>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 10 03:28:32 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:28:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <20070509172752.6FBCC5CDD@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070509172752.6FBCC5CDD@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I downloaded your >email... > Then you should have downloaded your email before sending. Mawaki's email should be considered. Your consensus call obviously does not represent consensus. Thanks, Adam >________________________________________________ >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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea >> >> I support. >> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not >> from the text. Instead of : >> >> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" >> we could have >> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance >> institutions" >> or a variant of that. >> >> Mawaki >> >> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: >> >> > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the >> > proposal >> > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >> > lobbying for >> > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with >> > our >> > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >> > replacement >> > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. >> > We can >> > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the >> > >> > administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." >> > :) >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > DRAKE William wrote: >> > > Milton Mueller wrote: >> > > >> > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >> > and about the >> > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >> > > >> > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >> > we're responding >> > > to here? If so what's the time frame? >> > > >> > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >> > that there was >> > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >> > framing #2 in >> > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the >> > kiss of >> > > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >> > have no >> > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how >> > it goes, >> > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >> > > >> > > 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 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 10 04:28:34 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:28:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <46428A6D.7080708@cavebear.com> References: <739728.80076.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <46428A6D.7080708@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 5/10/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that > > section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs... > > By-the-way, I don't know who here watches the details of IP address > policy. > I suspect it's me, you, and RIR staff on the list > Over at ARIN there is some very good ongoing debated about things like > paying > the costs of legacy space (such as the space I got from Jon Postel and not > from > the RIRs and thus is outside their contractual framework) and means to > induce > the redeployment and recycling of allocated but unused space. > > It is very interesting to contrast the vibrancy of these debates, which > not > only involve exchanges between interested parties but also exchanges with > the > people who will be making the choices, against the processes of other > extant > bodies of internet governance. > > The lesson for internet governance is that it is possible to do it well. Been saying this for years! > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu May 10 05:56:19 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:56:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: How is this operationalised in the US? In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a40705080909l4427c7f5x9b23855fb192b8a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <28cfc1a40705080909l4427c7f5x9b23855fb192b8a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070510095619.GA27508@nic.fr> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:09:21PM -0400, Brenden Kuerbis wrote a message of 44 lines which said: > several root nameservers based in US (and outside US) provide > resolution for the .SD tld. No, not root name servers. Root name servers do not serves the ccTLDs. The name servers of ".sd" are: ns1.coza.net.za. ans1.canar.sd. ans2.canar.sd. tld1.ultradns.net. tld2.ultradns.net. ns-sd.ripe.net. Only the two UltraDNS servers seem US-based (UltraDNS is a subsidiary of Neustar). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Thu May 10 06:03:03 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 03:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <20070510053728.D79955C4C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <247921.39807.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Parminder, as I said with my initial suggestion, a (close enough) variant of the suggested header would do, and your proposed variant "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current governance institutions" is right on point. In any event, I leave the fate of this to the others to discuss. If there is no sufficient support, please proceed and do your job - and thanks for that. Mawaki --- Parminder wrote: > Mawaki > > Under the consensus call rule > > " Some relatively substantive changes may also be accepted > only if there is > a resounding support, and no opposition at all, to them. > However, this will > be an exception, again completely up to the discretion of the > co-coordinators." > > You may still keep this suggested change on the table.. > > Instead of : > > > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > we could have > > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > institutions" > > However, it will have to meet the strict conditions of the > above rule. There > should be more support - and no opposition (with earlier > opposition - Lee, > Afonso - withdrawn), and we will also check offline with those > who have been > pressing the ICANN discussion case most, and then it is still > left to the > discretion of co-coordinators... And also to see the > exceptional nature of > such a change (no pouring in more requests pl :)) > > Parminder > > PS: meanwhile, if a change is at all to take place, in my > personal capacity, > I wonder if "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current > governance > institutions" looks more specific to the institutions we want > discussed than > "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" > > ________________________________________________ > 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:19 AM > > To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > > > Lee, > > it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that > > section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs > > which are different legal entities and have their own > processes. > > And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in > > (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major > > ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet > > resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that > hides > > the forest. > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > --- Lee McKnight wrote: > > > > > I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I > still > > > don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > > School of Information Studies > > > Syracuse University > > > +1-315-443-6891office > > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > > > >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> > > > I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the > > > header of no 2. > > > > > > jeanette > > > > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > I support. > > > > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, > but > > > not > > > > from the text. Instead of : > > > > > > > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > > > we could have > > > > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > > > institutions" > > > > or a variant of that. > > > > > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > > > > > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just > send > > > the > > > >> proposal > > > >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating > and > > > >> lobbying for > > > >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some > cases, > > > with > > > >> our > > > >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a > word > > > >> replacement > > > >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > > > debate. > > > >> We can > > > >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such > as > > > the > > > >> > > > >> administration/governance of names, numbers and > > > protocols..." > > > >> :) > > > >> > > > >> --c.a. > > > >> > > > >> DRAKE William wrote: > > > >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it > now, > > > >> and about the > > > >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > > >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's > what > > > >> we're responding > > > >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to > me > > > >> that there was > > > >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > > > >> framing #2 in > > > >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would > be > > > the > > > >> kiss of > > > >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and > we > > > >> have no > > > >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just > see > > > how > > > >> it goes, > > > >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > > >>> > > > >>> 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 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Thu May 10 06:40:55 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:40:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <247921.39807.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <247921.39807.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4642F6B7.9040601@panos-ao.org> Dear all: A/ I support Mawaki suggestion to say "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" instead of "ICANN and Core Internet Resources" ICANN is mentioned several in the proposal anyway, so it's not avoiding discussing ICANN issues. But not targeting directly ICANN in the title is relevant since (1) even though it plays a big/important role and is subject to criticism from many stakeholders, as you know ICANN is not the only institution that deals with core internet resources and (2) maybe more importantly, we are in a multistakeholder decision making process and we need to take into account the perception of other stakeholders within (and outside) the AG, who might/will be against ICANN being targeted so directly (as you know civil society, excluding in this case the technical community, only represents a small part of the MAG). And, in addition, I think adding "THEIR" (“Core Internet Resources and THEIR current governance institutions") seems a bit heavy in the phrasing, it does not change so much the scope of discussion in reality, and even it might restrict it. B/ Another point, just to mention it: personally I doubt if it is really appropriate that an IGF MAIN session (according to IGF jargon) is reserved for a discussion on "Internet Global Public Policy - Issues and Institutions" as the question is described under its points a) and b) ; and also point (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG) as it presented is already the focus on the Access main session. However, I support including these 2 points (1 and 3) as they are in the document that will be sent since, they will not cause much problem and because we need not to discuss too much and send something as soon as possible. Regards KL Mawaki Chango a écrit : > Parminder, > > as I said with my initial suggestion, a (close enough) variant > of the suggested header would do, and your proposed variant > "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current governance > institutions" is right on point. > > In any event, I leave the fate of this to the others to discuss. > If there is no sufficient support, please proceed and do your > job - and thanks for that. > > Mawaki > > --- Parminder wrote: > > >> Mawaki >> >> Under the consensus call rule >> >> " Some relatively substantive changes may also be accepted >> only if there is >> a resounding support, and no opposition at all, to them. >> However, this will >> be an exception, again completely up to the discretion of the >> co-coordinators." >> >> You may still keep this suggested change on the table.. >> >> Instead of : >> >>> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" >>> we could have >>> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance >>> >> institutions" >> >> However, it will have to meet the strict conditions of the >> above rule. There >> should be more support - and no opposition (with earlier >> opposition - Lee, >> Afonso - withdrawn), and we will also check offline with those >> who have been >> pressing the ICANN discussion case most, and then it is still >> left to the >> discretion of co-coordinators... And also to see the >> exceptional nature of >> such a change (no pouring in more requests pl :)) >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: meanwhile, if a change is at all to take place, in my >> personal capacity, >> I wonder if "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current >> governance >> institutions" looks more specific to the institutions we want >> discussed than >> "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" >> >> ________________________________________________ >> 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:19 AM >>> To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea >>> >>> Lee, >>> it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that >>> section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs >>> which are different legal entities and have their own >>> >> processes. >> >>> And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in >>> (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major >>> ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet >>> resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that >>> >> hides >> >>> the forest. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> --- Lee McKnight wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I >>>> >> still >> >>>> don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> >>>> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >>>> School of Information Studies >>>> Syracuse University >>>> +1-315-443-6891office >>>> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> >>>>>>> >>>> I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the >>>> header of no 2. >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>> >>>>> I support. >>>>> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, >>>>> >> but >> >>>> not >>>> >>>>> from the text. Instead of : >>>>> >>>>> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" >>>>> we could have >>>>> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance >>>>> institutions" >>>>> or a variant of that. >>>>> >>>>> Mawaki >>>>> >>>>> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just >>>>>> >> send >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>> proposal >>>>>> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating >>>>>> >> and >> >>>>>> lobbying for >>>>>> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some >>>>>> >> cases, >> >>>> with >>>> >>>>>> our >>>>>> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a >>>>>> >> word >> >>>>>> replacement >>>>>> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual >>>>>> >>>> debate. >>>> >>>>>> We can >>>>>> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such >>>>>> >> as >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>> administration/governance of names, numbers and >>>>>> >>>> protocols..." >>>> >>>>>> :) >>>>>> >>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>> DRAKE William wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Milton Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it >>>>>>>> >> now, >> >>>>>> and about the >>>>>> >>>>>>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's >>>>>>> >> what >> >>>>>> we're responding >>>>>> >>>>>>> to here? If so what's the time frame? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to >>>>>>> >> me >> >>>>>> that there was >>>>>> >>>>>>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >>>>>>> >>>>>> framing #2 in >>>>>> >>>>>>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would >>>>>>> >> be >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>> kiss of >>>>>> >>>>>>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and >>>>>>> >> we >> >>>>>> have no >>>>>> >>>>>>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just >>>>>>> >> see >> >>>> how >>>> >>>>>> it goes, >>>>>> >>>>>>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Ken Lohento Programme "Usages et politiques du numérique" (TIC)/ Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Institut Panos Afrique de l'Ouest/Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 849 16 66 www.panos-ao.org www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://mediatic.panos-ao.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 nb at bollow.ch Thu May 10 07:50:10 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:50:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <4642F6B7.9040601@panos-ao.org> (message from Ken Lohento on Thu, 10 May 2007 10:40:55 +0000) References: <247921.39807.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4642F6B7.9040601@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <20070510115010.45D8D4B623@quill.bollow.ch> Ken Lohento wrote: > I support Mawaki suggestion to say > > "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" > > instead of > > "ICANN and Core Internet Resources" I also support this suggestion. 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 Thu May 10 08:00:29 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:00:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: References: <20070509172752.6FBCC5CDD@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4643095D.4090305@rits.org.br> It seems we are in for another round of cosmetic changes... Oh, well, this is part of democratic practice anyway. --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: >> Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I downloaded >> your >> email... >> > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before sending. Mawaki's > email should be considered. Your consensus call obviously does not > represent consensus. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >> ________________________________________________ >> 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea >>> >>> I support. >>> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not >>> from the text. Instead of : >>> >>> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" >>> we could have >>> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance >>> institutions" >>> or a variant of that. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: >>> >>> > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the >>> > proposal >>> > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >>> > lobbying for >>> > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with >>> > our >>> > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >>> > replacement >>> > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. >>> > We can >>> > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the >>> > >>> > administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." >>> > :) >>> > >>> > --c.a. >>> > >>> > DRAKE William wrote: >>> > > Milton Mueller wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >>> > and about the >>> > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>> > > >>> > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >>> > we're responding >>> > > to here? If so what's the time frame? >>> > > >>> > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >>> > that there was >>> > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >>> > framing #2 in >>> > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the >>> > kiss of >>> > > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >>> > have no >>> > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how >>> > it goes, >>> > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>> > > >>> > > 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 >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu May 10 09:24:51 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 06:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: p06240811c268793dd86b@[192.168.0.2] Message-ID: I would heed Adam�s words: >Adam Peake: � "ICANN's status as an international organization", in IGF setting, frankly, who cares? Anyone who doesn't like this issue will have a strong argument to say "enhanced cooperation" not under remit of IGF (as was clear at the February consultation.) And "representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed." What can we say here, ICANN is more inclusive of all stakeholders (except government?) than any other IG organization, are we suggesting ICANN as a model others should follow? It's a shame the proposal couldn't just have been left as a broad call to discuss critical Internet resources. As written it's too narrow to be of much interest in that the passage, � > It�s a dangerous thing to �auto-assume ICANN�s assimilation� into the �status as an international organization�, in particular when ICANN has not mechanisms to administer outside the US (Legally). Many issues and possible contentions (RegisterFly being one) have yet to be tested under jurisprudence. In fact, when having the opportunity to effectively engage in proper Administration of Registers on its own soil (i.e.: RegisterFly), ICANN failed. A �broad call to discuss critical Internet resources� opens up the platform to discuss remedies, other than ICANN. The semantics� �Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" For myself are not a problem,as they are a quickly passed slight of hand. My concern is when you �get called on it�: �Core Internet Resources� What does that mean? Are you referring to ICANN? Who & What? �and current governance institutions� What does that mean? The US Dept of Commerce? Hummm? etc� So when you say - �Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" Do you have answers prepared to respond with, when they ask you? [Think in terms of *discussion-preparation*] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu May 10 11:04:27 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:04:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: voting machinery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09737901-8FD7-46DE-B00D-B739654EB811@psg.com> On 7 maj 2007, at 11.13, William Drake wrote: > 2) begin to fire up the voting machinery for when > that fails? The stuff we used last time is currently being reworked and www.igcaucus.org is being moved to a different machine in the next few weeks. i am afraid it will not be available for this vote. i will let the list know when it is again and will accept this as a prod to start paying attention to getting it up and running again. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 10 12:21:52 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:51:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070510162155.DFC44C944A@smtp1.electricembers.net> > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I downloaded > your > >email... > > > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before > sending. Adam, you are being un-necessarily harsh on me... Well, thats how I have set my mail server, It doesn’t download emails automatically because it interferes in my work. So when I wrote the email with the consensus call, well after the declared timeline, and after giving a 2 hour notice, and clicked on send/receive, I got the Mawaki email... So, that being that, you need not tell me how shd I set my email client... But the point is - lets say I had seen Mawaki's email before I sent the consensus call, do you recommend that for a text which has been under discussion for many days, and many had contributed to it, I change as important a part of it as a heading because an email arrives minutes before the doc is sent out for consensus call.... will it be fair to those who contributed that part, and so many others who agreed to the whole text... Or do you suggest that I hold back the consensus call because of that email... Also, pl keep in mind, that Mawaki's contribution was support to the doc plus an advise with, in my understanding, more of a strategic rather substantive implication. > Mawaki's email should be considered. Your injunction is even more uncalled for, because I did consider Mawaki's email. In the best way I could. And you could easily see that my consideration of mawaki's inputs was genuine, because I contributed to the discussion on changing the heading by adding a word to mawaki's suggestion, which any one can understand is an endorsement of the new heading... So I cant see whats your problem... > Your consensus call obviously does not represent > consensus. Consensus calls don’t represent a consensus, they put a document out for consensus. And it is left to the co-coordinators to consolidate a document which in their opinion represents the best chance of a consensus. I have done that. And I think I have followed a fair process. However, you of course have recourse to the appeals committee... 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, May 10, 2007 12:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I downloaded > your > >email... > > > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before > sending. Mawaki's email should be considered. > Your consensus call obviously does not represent > consensus. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > >________________________________________________ > >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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > >> > >> I support. > >> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not > >> from the text. Instead of : > >> > >> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > >> we could have > >> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > >> institutions" > >> or a variant of that. > >> > >> Mawaki > >> > >> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> > >> > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the > >> > proposal > >> > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and > >> > lobbying for > >> > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with > >> > our > >> > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word > >> > replacement > >> > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. > >> > We can > >> > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the > >> > > >> > administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." > >> > :) > >> > > >> > --c.a. > >> > > >> > DRAKE William wrote: > >> > > Milton Mueller wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, > >> > and about the > >> > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > >> > > > >> > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what > >> > we're responding > >> > > to here? If so what's the time frame? > >> > > > >> > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me > >> > that there was > >> > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > >> > framing #2 in > >> > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the > >> > kiss of > >> > > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we > >> > have no > >> > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how > >> > it goes, > >> > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > >> > > > >> > > 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 > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 10 12:29:27 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:59:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: voting machinery In-Reply-To: <09737901-8FD7-46DE-B00D-B739654EB811@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070510162929.C2B3EC9412@smtp1.electricembers.net> > i am afraid it will not be available for this vote. That's really unfortunate... but we shd be able to figure out what other ways we can vote. After all, if a vote is taken, it will be an open vote. So, one possibility is that we just have people vote out in the open on the list itself. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:34 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Re: voting machinery > > > On 7 maj 2007, at 11.13, William Drake wrote: > > > 2) begin to fire up the voting machinery for when > > that fails? > > > The stuff we used last time is currently being reworked and > www.igcaucus.org is being moved to a different machine in the next > few weeks. > > i am afraid it will not be available for this vote. i will let the > list know when it is again and will accept this as a prod to start > paying attention to getting it up and running again. > > 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu May 10 12:46:16 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:46:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: voting machinery In-Reply-To: <09737901-8FD7-46DE-B00D-B739654EB811@psg.com> References: <09737901-8FD7-46DE-B00D-B739654EB811@psg.com> Message-ID: Lets keep the watch Aaron On 5/10/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 7 maj 2007, at 11.13, William Drake wrote: > > > 2) begin to fire up the voting machinery for when > > that fails? > > > The stuff we used last time is currently being reworked and > www.igcaucus.org is being moved to a different machine in the next > few weeks. > > i am afraid it will not be available for this vote. i will let the > list know when it is again and will accept this as a prod to start > paying attention to getting it up and running again. > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 10 12:51:12 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:21:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <4642F6B7.9040601@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <20070510165118.150D9E11B2@smtp3.electricembers.net> > And, in addition, I think adding "THEIR" (“Core Internet Resources and > THEIR current governance institutions") seems a bit heavy in the > phrasing, it does not change so much the scope of discussion in reality, > and even it might restrict it. Just for clarification and your consideration, since I suggested the 'their' word. That the 'their' in '"Core Internet Resources and their current governance institutions" is meant to avoid confusion about which governance institutions we are referring to. It is to make it clear that we are referring to institutions of governance of core internet resources, and NOT other governance institutions for the purpose of this session. 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: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:11 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > Dear all: > > A/ > I support Mawaki suggestion to say > > "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" > > instead of > > "ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > ICANN is mentioned several in the proposal anyway, so it's not avoiding > discussing ICANN issues. But not targeting directly ICANN in the title > is relevant since (1) even though it plays a big/important role and is > subject to criticism from many stakeholders, as you know ICANN is not > the only institution that deals with core internet resources and (2) > maybe more importantly, we are in a multistakeholder decision making > process and we need to take into account the perception of other > stakeholders within (and outside) the AG, who might/will be against > ICANN being targeted so directly (as you know civil society, excluding > in this case the technical community, only represents a small part of > the MAG). > > And, in addition, I think adding "THEIR" (“Core Internet Resources and > THEIR current governance institutions") seems a bit heavy in the > phrasing, it does not change so much the scope of discussion in reality, > and even it might restrict it. > > > B/ Another point, just to mention it: personally I doubt if it is really > appropriate that an IGF MAIN session (according to IGF jargon) is > reserved for a discussion on "Internet Global Public Policy - Issues and > Institutions" as the question is described under its points a) and b) ; > and also point (3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and > effective use of the Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The > development agenda in IG) as it presented is already the focus on the > Access main session. However, I support including these 2 points (1 and > 3) as they are in the document that will be sent since, they will not > cause much problem and because we need not to discuss too much and send > something as soon as possible. > > Regards > > KL > > Mawaki Chango a écrit : > > Parminder, > > > > as I said with my initial suggestion, a (close enough) variant > > of the suggested header would do, and your proposed variant > > "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current governance > > institutions" is right on point. > > > > In any event, I leave the fate of this to the others to discuss. > > If there is no sufficient support, please proceed and do your > > job - and thanks for that. > > > > Mawaki > > > > --- Parminder wrote: > > > > > >> Mawaki > >> > >> Under the consensus call rule > >> > >> " Some relatively substantive changes may also be accepted > >> only if there is > >> a resounding support, and no opposition at all, to them. > >> However, this will > >> be an exception, again completely up to the discretion of the > >> co-coordinators." > >> > >> You may still keep this suggested change on the table.. > >> > >> Instead of : > >> > >>> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > >>> we could have > >>> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > >>> > >> institutions" > >> > >> However, it will have to meet the strict conditions of the > >> above rule. There > >> should be more support - and no opposition (with earlier > >> opposition - Lee, > >> Afonso - withdrawn), and we will also check offline with those > >> who have been > >> pressing the ICANN discussion case most, and then it is still > >> left to the > >> discretion of co-coordinators... And also to see the > >> exceptional nature of > >> such a change (no pouring in more requests pl :)) > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> PS: meanwhile, if a change is at all to take place, in my > >> personal capacity, > >> I wonder if "Core Internet Resources and THEIR current > >> governance > >> institutions" looks more specific to the institutions we want > >> discussed than > >> "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" > >> > >> ________________________________________________ > >> 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:19 AM > >>> To: Lee McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > >>> > >>> Lee, > >>> it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that > >>> section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs > >>> which are different legal entities and have their own > >>> > >> processes. > >> > >>> And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in > >>> (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major > >>> ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet > >>> resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that > >>> > >> hides > >> > >>> the forest. > >>> > >>> Mawaki > >>> > >>> > >>> --- Lee McKnight wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I > >>>> > >> still > >> > >>>> don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. > >>>> > >>>> Lee > >>>> > >>>> Prof. Lee W. McKnight > >>>> School of Information Studies > >>>> Syracuse University > >>>> +1-315-443-6891office > >>>> +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the > >>>> header of no 2. > >>>> > >>>> jeanette > >>>> > >>>> Mawaki Chango wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I support. > >>>>> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, > >>>>> > >> but > >> > >>>> not > >>>> > >>>>> from the text. Instead of : > >>>>> > >>>>> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > >>>>> we could have > >>>>> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > >>>>> institutions" > >>>>> or a variant of that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mawaki > >>>>> > >>>>> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just > >>>>>> > >> send > >> > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>>>> proposal > >>>>>> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating > >>>>>> > >> and > >> > >>>>>> lobbying for > >>>>>> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some > >>>>>> > >> cases, > >> > >>>> with > >>>> > >>>>>> our > >>>>>> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a > >>>>>> > >> word > >> > >>>>>> replacement > >>>>>> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > >>>>>> > >>>> debate. > >>>> > >>>>>> We can > >>>>>> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such > >>>>>> > >> as > >> > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>>>> administration/governance of names, numbers and > >>>>>> > >>>> protocols..." > >>>> > >>>>>> :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --c.a. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> DRAKE William wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it > >>>>>>>> > >> now, > >> > >>>>>> and about the > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's > >>>>>>> > >> what > >> > >>>>>> we're responding > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> to here? If so what's the time frame? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to > >>>>>>> > >> me > >> > >>>>>> that there was > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> framing #2 in > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would > >>>>>>> > >> be > >> > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>>>> kiss of > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and > >>>>>>> > >> we > >> > >>>>>> have no > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just > >>>>>>> > >> see > >> > >>>> how > >>>> > >>>>>> it goes, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > Ken Lohento > Programme "Usages et politiques du numérique" (TIC)/ > Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) > Institut Panos Afrique de l'Ouest/Panos Institute West Africa > 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal > +221 849 16 66 > www.panos-ao.org > www.cipaco.org > www.euroafrica-ict.org > http://mediatic.panos-ao.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cls at rkey.com Thu May 10 13:15:07 2007 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:15:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: voting machinery In-Reply-To: <20070510162929.C2B3EC9412@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070510162929.C2B3EC9412@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4643531B.8090902@rkey.com> Hi folks, I'm currently a lurker who used to be very active in ICANN issues. It turns out I've been developing an Instant Runoff Voting straw poll site that may serve your immediate purposes. Take a look at http://www.indaba.org. It hasn't been used much, so the most sophisticated display is contained in a meaningless demo at http://www.indaba.org/election.php?eid=1 (meaningless because I put in most of the votes myself while building and testing the system). That some vote is linked as "Democratic Party Test" on the main page. Let me know if you think the site can be of service. Craig Simon Parminder wrote: >>i am afraid it will not be available for this vote. > > > That's really unfortunate... but we shd be able to figure out what other > ways we can vote. After all, if a vote is taken, it will be an open vote. > So, one possibility is that we just have people vote out in the open on the > list itself. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 10 14:29:13 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:29:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> Adam Peake wrote: > At 7:15 AM +0200 5/10/07, William Drake wrote: >> Lee, >> >> It's just a framing thing. Better for all the obvious reasons to have it >> discussed as 'the core resources session' rather than the 'ICANN >> session' a) >> in mAG and b) on the off chance it's approved, at IGF. > > > Yes, this is part of it. Presenting it as an ICANN session will cause > some knee jerk reaction. ICANN's not a taboo subject (workshops have > been fine, will be fine), but we do know there are a number of > stakeholders who don't want to see ICANN discussed directly, so > mentioning in this way is just not sensible. Yes, and so it is regarding the several who do want it to be included in the main agenda, not just the workshops. Let us agree at least not to brush this crucial issue aside because of certain [dominant] "sensitivities". --c.a. -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu May 10 15:35:08 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: voting machinery In-Reply-To: 20070510162929.C2B3EC9412@smtp1.electricembers.net Message-ID: Bill, Most of us have known Joop through the years; he is still running the pollingbooth.info, for the GA. http://www.pollingbooth.info/about/ Just send the Ballot Measure(s) to him and ask for it to be mounted. He's a bit slow, but a 'Good O'le Sock'. Give it a shot, I'm sure he'd welcome the opportunity. Not much time left for us Old-Timers anyway. It�s a young-man�s-game these days. A few of us have been carrying the Flame to long (The Flames of Liberty), Time to pass along the Torch. Send our regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Thu May 10 16:22:10 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <949610.52200.qm@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all I am following everything even though I have not been vocal or emailing ...I Don't agree with everything, but appreciate that you guys are working hard on this on our behalf. When someone gets a chance, can someone in the know, share information on Rio and registration and program and hotels etc Regards Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI California 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....haaai...! -------------- 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 Thu May 10 17:56:02 2007 From: dina_hov at yahoo.com (dina) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea -Lee w Mcknight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <910526.45291.qm@web43137.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Lee McKnight wrote: I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the header of no 2. jeanette Mawaki Chango wrote: > I support. > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but not > from the text. Instead of : > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > we could have > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > institutions" > or a variant of that. > > Mawaki > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send the >> proposal >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and >> lobbying for >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, with >> our >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word >> replacement >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual debate. >> We can >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as the >> >> administration/governance of names, numbers and protocols..." >> :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> DRAKE William wrote: >>> Milton Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, >> and about the >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what >> we're responding >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? >>> >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me >> that there was >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that >> framing #2 in >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be the >> kiss of >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we >> have no >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see how >> it goes, >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. >>> 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 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Carlos A. Afonso >> diretor de planejamento >> Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits >> http://www.rits.org.br >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ki_chango at yahoo.com Thu May 10 22:27:49 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <20070510162155.DFC44C944A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <423171.98117.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Parminder, I appreciated you acknowledging my suggestion, and my apologies to all the members who discussed the text if I didn't bring it up ealier (haven't been able to keep up with this list lately.) Other than that, I didn't mean to question whether or not it should be permitted to discuss ICANN at the IGF: not only we've been there before, too many times in my view, but I just don't see how one could expect a contructive collaboration in open processes such as these, by starting to forbid any topic from discussion. At best, we can only discuss what are the best strategies to adopt in accommodating various constituencies' concerns without hindering the overarching goals of the causus. Mawaki --- Parminder wrote: > > > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I > downloaded > > your > > >email... > > > > > > > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before > > sending. > > Adam, you are being un-necessarily harsh on me... > > Well, thats how I have set my mail server, It doesn’t download > emails > automatically because it interferes in my work. So when I > wrote the email > with the consensus call, well after the declared timeline, and > after giving > a 2 hour notice, and clicked on send/receive, I got the Mawaki > email... So, > that being that, you need not tell me how shd I set my email > client... > > But the point is - lets say I had seen Mawaki's email before I > sent the > consensus call, do you recommend that for a text which has > been under > discussion for many days, and many had contributed to it, I > change as > important a part of it as a heading because an email arrives > minutes before > the doc is sent out for consensus call.... will it be fair to > those who > contributed that part, and so many others who agreed to the > whole text... Or > do you suggest that I hold back the consensus call because of > that email... > Also, pl keep in mind, that Mawaki's contribution was support > to the doc > plus an advise with, in my understanding, more of a strategic > rather > substantive implication. > > > Mawaki's email should be considered. > > Your injunction is even more uncalled for, because I did > consider Mawaki's > email. In the best way I could. > > And you could easily see that my consideration of mawaki's > inputs was > genuine, because I contributed to the discussion on changing > the heading by > adding a word to mawaki's suggestion, which any one can > understand is an > endorsement of the new heading... So I cant see whats your > problem... > > > Your consensus call obviously does not represent > > consensus. > > Consensus calls don’t represent a consensus, they put a > document out for > consensus. And it is left to the co-coordinators to > consolidate a document > which in their opinion represents the best chance of a > consensus. I have > done that. And I think I have followed a fair process. > However, you of > course have recourse to the appeals committee... > > > 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, May 10, 2007 12:59 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > > > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I > downloaded > > your > > >email... > > > > > > > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before > > sending. Mawaki's email should be considered. > > Your consensus call obviously does not represent > > consensus. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________ > > >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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > >> > > >> I support. > > >> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, > but not > > >> from the text. Instead of : > > >> > > >> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > >> we could have > > >> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > >> institutions" > > >> or a variant of that. > > >> > > >> Mawaki > > >> > > >> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > >> > > >> > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just > send the > > >> > proposal > > >> > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating > and > > >> > lobbying for > > >> > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some > cases, with > > >> > our > > >> > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a > word > > >> > replacement > > >> > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > debate. > > >> > We can > > >> > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources > such as the > > >> > > > >> > administration/governance of names, numbers and > protocols..." > > >> > :) > > >> > > > >> > --c.a. > > >> > > > >> > DRAKE William wrote: > > >> > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it > now, > > >> > and about the > > >> > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > >> > > > > >> > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's > what > > >> > we're responding > > >> > > to here? If so what's the time frame? > > >> > > > > >> > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs > to me > > >> > that there was > > >> > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument > that > > >> > framing #2 in > > >> > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would > be the > > >> > kiss of > > >> > > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down > and we > > >> > have no > > >> > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just > see how > > >> > it goes, > > >> > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > >> > > > > >> > > 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 > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > > > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 11 05:08:47 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:38:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <423171.98117.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070511090850.ED809E1316@smtp3.electricembers.net> We are taking opinions on the IGC input doc to the IGF consultations on the 22nd this, which I am again enclosing for those who may have missed it. I think we need at least a couple of more voices to decide either way. Also members may comment on whether the header 2 in the list of issues in the enclosed doc, which stands as ' ICANN and Core Internet Resources' be made either "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" or "Core Internet Resources and their current governance institutions". We propose to keep this call open till midnight GMT. And post results tomorrow. 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:58 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > Parminder, I appreciated you acknowledging my suggestion, and my > apologies to all the members who discussed the text if I didn't > bring it up ealier (haven't been able to keep up with this list > lately.) > > Other than that, I didn't mean to question whether or not it > should be permitted to discuss ICANN at the IGF: not only we've > been there before, too many times in my view, but I just don't > see how one could expect a contructive collaboration in open > processes such as these, by starting to forbid any topic from > discussion. At best, we can only discuss what are the best > strategies to adopt in accommodating various constituencies' > concerns without hindering the overarching goals of the causus. > > Mawaki > > --- Parminder wrote: > > > > > > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I > > downloaded > > > your > > > >email... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before > > > sending. > > > > Adam, you are being un-necessarily harsh on me... > > > > Well, thats how I have set my mail server, It doesn’t download > > emails > > automatically because it interferes in my work. So when I > > wrote the email > > with the consensus call, well after the declared timeline, and > > after giving > > a 2 hour notice, and clicked on send/receive, I got the Mawaki > > email... So, > > that being that, you need not tell me how shd I set my email > > client... > > > > But the point is - lets say I had seen Mawaki's email before I > > sent the > > consensus call, do you recommend that for a text which has > > been under > > discussion for many days, and many had contributed to it, I > > change as > > important a part of it as a heading because an email arrives > > minutes before > > the doc is sent out for consensus call.... will it be fair to > > those who > > contributed that part, and so many others who agreed to the > > whole text... Or > > do you suggest that I hold back the consensus call because of > > that email... > > Also, pl keep in mind, that Mawaki's contribution was support > > to the doc > > plus an advise with, in my understanding, more of a strategic > > rather > > substantive implication. > > > > > Mawaki's email should be considered. > > > > Your injunction is even more uncalled for, because I did > > consider Mawaki's > > email. In the best way I could. > > > > And you could easily see that my consideration of mawaki's > > inputs was > > genuine, because I contributed to the discussion on changing > > the heading by > > adding a word to mawaki's suggestion, which any one can > > understand is an > > endorsement of the new heading... So I cant see whats your > > problem... > > > > > Your consensus call obviously does not represent > > > consensus. > > > > Consensus calls don’t represent a consensus, they put a > > document out for > > consensus. And it is left to the co-coordinators to > > consolidate a document > > which in their opinion represents the best chance of a > > consensus. I have > > done that. And I think I have followed a fair process. > > However, you of > > course have recourse to the appeals committee... > > > > > > 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, May 10, 2007 12:59 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > > > > > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I > > downloaded > > > your > > > >email... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before > > > sending. Mawaki's email should be considered. > > > Your consensus call obviously does not represent > > > consensus. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________ > > > >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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > > >> > > > >> I support. > > > >> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, > > but not > > > >> from the text. Instead of : > > > >> > > > >> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > > >> we could have > > > >> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > > >> institutions" > > > >> or a variant of that. > > > >> > > > >> Mawaki > > > >> > > > >> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just > > send the > > > >> > proposal > > > >> > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating > > and > > > >> > lobbying for > > > >> > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some > > cases, with > > > >> > our > > > >> > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a > > word > > > >> > replacement > > > >> > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > > debate. > > > >> > We can > > > >> > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources > > such as the > > > >> > > > > >> > administration/governance of names, numbers and > > protocols..." > > > >> > :) > > > >> > > > > >> > --c.a. > > > >> > > > > >> > DRAKE William wrote: > > > >> > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it > > now, > > > >> > and about the > > > >> > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's > > what > > > >> > we're responding > > > >> > > to here? If so what's the time frame? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs > > to me > > > >> > that there was > > > >> > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument > > that > > > >> > framing #2 in > > > >> > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would > > be the > > > >> > kiss of > > > >> > > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down > > and we > > > >> > have no > > > >> > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just > > see how > > > >> > it goes, > > > >> > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 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 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > > > > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >> > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 22:52:41 +0530 Size: 15910 URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri May 11 05:21:10 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:51:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20070511090850.ED809E1316@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070511092113.1E4C25C60@smtp2.electricembers.net> I am very sorry, I correct myself on > We are taking opinions on the IGC input We ARE NOT taking opinions as much as a clear YES or NO... opinions can however accompany a clear yes or no (in fact they are welcome). This is still not the voting stage, but only a consensus gathering one (hopefully you wont have to repeat your yes and no) 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 2:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > > We are taking opinions on the IGC input doc to the IGF consultations on > the > 22nd this, which I am again enclosing for those who may have missed it. I > think we need at least a couple of more voices to decide either way. > > Also members may comment on whether the header 2 in the list of issues in > the enclosed doc, which stands as ' ICANN and Core Internet Resources' be > made either > > "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" > > or "Core Internet Resources and their current governance institutions". > > We propose to keep this call open till midnight GMT. And post results > tomorrow. > > 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:58 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > > > Parminder, I appreciated you acknowledging my suggestion, and my > > apologies to all the members who discussed the text if I didn't > > bring it up ealier (haven't been able to keep up with this list > > lately.) > > > > Other than that, I didn't mean to question whether or not it > > should be permitted to discuss ICANN at the IGF: not only we've > > been there before, too many times in my view, but I just don't > > see how one could expect a contructive collaboration in open > > processes such as these, by starting to forbid any topic from > > discussion. At best, we can only discuss what are the best > > strategies to adopt in accommodating various constituencies' > > concerns without hindering the overarching goals of the causus. > > > > Mawaki > > > > --- Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I > > > downloaded > > > > your > > > > >email... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before > > > > sending. > > > > > > Adam, you are being un-necessarily harsh on me... > > > > > > Well, thats how I have set my mail server, It doesn’t download > > > emails > > > automatically because it interferes in my work. So when I > > > wrote the email > > > with the consensus call, well after the declared timeline, and > > > after giving > > > a 2 hour notice, and clicked on send/receive, I got the Mawaki > > > email... So, > > > that being that, you need not tell me how shd I set my email > > > client... > > > > > > But the point is - lets say I had seen Mawaki's email before I > > > sent the > > > consensus call, do you recommend that for a text which has > > > been under > > > discussion for many days, and many had contributed to it, I > > > change as > > > important a part of it as a heading because an email arrives > > > minutes before > > > the doc is sent out for consensus call.... will it be fair to > > > those who > > > contributed that part, and so many others who agreed to the > > > whole text... Or > > > do you suggest that I hold back the consensus call because of > > > that email... > > > Also, pl keep in mind, that Mawaki's contribution was support > > > to the doc > > > plus an advise with, in my understanding, more of a strategic > > > rather > > > substantive implication. > > > > > > > Mawaki's email should be considered. > > > > > > Your injunction is even more uncalled for, because I did > > > consider Mawaki's > > > email. In the best way I could. > > > > > > And you could easily see that my consideration of mawaki's > > > inputs was > > > genuine, because I contributed to the discussion on changing > > > the heading by > > > adding a word to mawaki's suggestion, which any one can > > > understand is an > > > endorsement of the new heading... So I cant see whats your > > > problem... > > > > > > > Your consensus call obviously does not represent > > > > consensus. > > > > > > Consensus calls don’t represent a consensus, they put a > > > document out for > > > consensus. And it is left to the co-coordinators to > > > consolidate a document > > > which in their opinion represents the best chance of a > > > consensus. I have > > > done that. And I think I have followed a fair process. > > > However, you of > > > course have recourse to the appeals committee... > > > > > > > > > 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, May 10, 2007 12:59 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > > > > > > > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I > > > downloaded > > > > your > > > > >email... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you should have downloaded your email before > > > > sending. Mawaki's email should be considered. > > > > Your consensus call obviously does not represent > > > > consensus. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________ > > > > >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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM > > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea > > > > >> > > > > >> I support. > > > > >> I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, > > > but not > > > > >> from the text. Instead of : > > > > >> > > > > >> "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > > > >> we could have > > > > >> "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > > > >> institutions" > > > > >> or a variant of that. > > > > >> > > > > >> Mawaki > > > > >> > > > > >> --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just > > > send the > > > > >> > proposal > > > > >> > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating > > > and > > > > >> > lobbying for > > > > >> > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some > > > cases, with > > > > >> > our > > > > >> > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a > > > word > > > > >> > replacement > > > > >> > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > > > debate. > > > > >> > We can > > > > >> > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources > > > such as the > > > > >> > > > > > >> > administration/governance of names, numbers and > > > protocols..." > > > > >> > :) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > --c.a. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > DRAKE William wrote: > > > > >> > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it > > > now, > > > > >> > and about the > > > > >> > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's > > > what > > > > >> > we're responding > > > > >> > > to here? If so what's the time frame? > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs > > > to me > > > > >> > that there was > > > > >> > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument > > > that > > > > >> > framing #2 in > > > > >> > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would > > > be the > > > > >> > kiss of > > > > >> > > death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down > > > and we > > > > >> > have no > > > > >> > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just > > > see how > > > > >> > it goes, > > > > >> > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > >> > 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 11 05:39:39 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:39:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20070511090850.ED809E1316@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070511090850.ED809E1316@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <464439DB.70805@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > We are taking opinions on the IGC input doc to the IGF consultations on the > 22nd this, which I am again enclosing for those who may have missed it. I > think we need at least a couple of more voices to decide either way. > > Also members may comment on whether the header 2 in the list of issues in > the enclosed doc, which stands as ' ICANN and Core Internet Resources' be > made either > > "Core Internet Resources and current governance institutions" > > or "Core Internet Resources and their current governance institutions". I've already said "yea", but I haven't commented on the heading. I prefer the second but will abide the decision of the coordinators. -- 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 remmyn at yahoo.co.uk Thu May 10 18:17:03 2007 From: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk (Remmy Nweke) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:17:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <739728.80076.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <86203.41359.qm@web23309.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Mawaki, I have my vote. Remmy Nweke Mawaki Chango wrote: Lee, it's not at all being afraid of anything. if you read that section, ICANN is mentioned several times, but also the RIRs which are different legal entities and have their own processes. And if you push a little bit further, you may even fit in (between the lines, of course) WIPO which implements a major ICANN-related/initiated policy regarding core Internet resources. So I thought ICANN shouldn't be the tree that hides the forest. Mawaki --- Lee McKnight wrote: > I support the text as is, and the titles as they are - I still > don;t get why we're afraid to say 'ICANN' in public. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 5/9/2007 1:38 PM >>> > I support the text and Mawaki's suggestion regarding the > header of no 2. > > jeanette > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I support. > > I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2, but > not > > from the text. Instead of : > > > > "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources" > > we could have > > "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance > > institutions" > > or a variant of that. > > > > Mawaki > > > > --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > >> No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just send > the > >> proposal > >> and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating and > >> lobbying for > >> our positions in our constituencies (and, in some cases, > with > >> our > >> governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a word > >> replacement > >> (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual > debate. > >> We can > >> replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources such as > the > >> > >> administration/governance of names, numbers and > protocols..." > >> :) > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> DRAKE William wrote: > >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> > >>>> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it now, > >> and about the > >>>> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together. > >>> Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's what > >> we're responding > >>> to here? If so what's the time frame? > >>> > >>> I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs to me > >> that there was > >>> never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument that > >> framing #2 in > >>> terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would be > the > >> kiss of > >>> death mAG-wise. But as the clock is running down and we > >> have no > >>> alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just see > how > >> it goes, > >>> assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process. > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Tryit now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From shailam at yahoo.com Sat May 12 00:27:26 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea In-Reply-To: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Hi All My clear opinion is that we vote openly on this list. At this point it is too complicated to do it any other way. Beside folks may not be satisfied if they cannot see how the vote went . Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI California 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sat May 12 10:26:45 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 15:26:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get involved. Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why the IGF will likely not discuss them. For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes. ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time. So, that RFC: As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. You can see this announcement here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just ask. And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. Kieren Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN kieren.mccarthy at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Sat May 12 14:26:25 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 20:26:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: Hi Kieren, Just one perhaps unusual (and given the comments that will probably ensue, somewhat off topic) thought. You suggest that, ³the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don¹t think are working properly.² That¹s one idea, but there are other possibilities in such a dialogue, including highlighting the bits that do work relatively well, and considering whether these offer any generalizable lessons worth applying elsewhere. For example, long ago and far away, the WGIG did a little exercise where we tried to look at how some of the key organizations did or didn¹t comply with the WSIS principles. When we compared ITU and ICANN it became immediately evident that the latter was more transparent and inclusively participatory/multistakeholder, which made the notion of somehow transferring functions to the ITU even more patently indefensible, and it disappeared from the debate. Proponents of intergovernmental Œoversight¹ were then left to propose various sorts new councils etc. that were plainly not going to go anywhere. An instinctive Œcircle the wagons¹ response to proposals for mere discussion may be as contrary to ICANN¹s long-term interests as it is to preferences of ICANN¹s critics. Why not view this as an unique opportunity tell ICANN¹s story and carpe diem, rather than shutting it down? And BTW, while there are undoubtedly people with grievances ³that are rapidly becoming historical,² that¹s not what the caucus is proposing to talk about. We deleted the history language long ago and suggested discussion of, ³ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN,² which are forward looking topics. Best, Bill On 5/12/07 4:26 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" wrote: > I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump > of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more > stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. > > ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this > list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get > involved. > > Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing > ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of > the ICANN model that people don¹t think are working properly. There are some > genuine grievances there and it¹s understandable that people would wish them > raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of > these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why > the IGF will likely not discuss them. > > For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet > and its functioning ­ and I think it¹s a real shame that you can¹t simply > assume that ­ one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work > within ICANN¹s self-changing processes. > > ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out > there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about > how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). > > I am ICANN¹s general manager of public participation. That means I consider it > *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I > also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant > levels within ICANN. > > I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record > stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I > would request that people make use of that. > > Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual > fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that > happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are > over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that > focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus > feedback on recent changes in ICANN ­ if ICANN is going along the right path. > Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened > to. > > If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then > please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it > to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues > raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful > outside perspective however, please do respond. > > The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN¹s sites on 6 June > (note: not on this governance mailing list ­ I will not be considering > material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for > a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and > I¹ll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is > discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the > receptionist to the CEO. But that¹s only if the material is useful and if > there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a > smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my > time. > > So, that RFC: > > As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking > community feedback about its performance. > > All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of > performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of > particular interest: > * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What > improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been > observed and what still needs to be done? > * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What > improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been > observed and what still needs to be done? > * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN > multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? > * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more > comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet¹s > system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? > * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application > of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of > review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration > committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. > Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ > until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. > > > You can see this announcement here: > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm > > I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: > http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 > > And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and > proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance > > Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a > chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just > ask. > > And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. > > > Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. > > > > > Kieren > > > > Kieren McCarthy > General manager of public participation, ICANN > > kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 12 18:19:06 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 15:19:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <02f001c794e3$960add90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> In the context of this discussion folks might be interested to take note of the comments made by CIRA (the folks who look after the .ca domain) in response to the ICANN questionnaire. http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.html MG -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: May 12, 2007 11:26 AM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Hi Kieren, Just one perhaps unusual (and given the comments that will probably ensue, somewhat off topic) thought. You suggest that, "the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly." That's one idea, but there are other possibilities in such a dialogue, including highlighting the bits that do work relatively well, and considering whether these offer any generalizable lessons worth applying elsewhere. For example, long ago and far away, the WGIG did a little exercise where we tried to look at how some of the key organizations did or didn't comply with the WSIS principles. When we compared ITU and ICANN it became immediately evident that the latter was more transparent and inclusively participatory/multistakeholder, which made the notion of somehow transferring functions to the ITU even more patently indefensible, and it disappeared from the debate. Proponents of intergovernmental 'oversight' were then left to propose various sorts new councils etc. that were plainly not going to go anywhere. An instinctive 'circle the wagons' response to proposals for mere discussion may be as contrary to ICANN's long-term interests as it is to preferences of ICANN's critics. Why not view this as an unique opportunity tell ICANN's story and carpe diem, rather than shutting it down? And BTW, while there are undoubtedly people with grievances "that are rapidly becoming historical," that's not what the caucus is proposing to talk about. We deleted the history language long ago and suggested discussion of, "ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN," which are forward looking topics. Best, Bill On 5/12/07 4:26 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" wrote: I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get involved. Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why the IGF will likely not discuss them. For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes. ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time. So, that RFC: As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. You can see this announcement here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just ask. And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. Kieren Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 *********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** !DSPAM:2676,46460705297288067955487! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jito at neoteny.com Sat May 12 20:55:06 2007 From: jito at neoteny.com (Joichi Ito) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:55:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <52F6CA6E-37F5-4B7D-8881-2DA25C89777B@neoteny.com> Just to support Kieren here. I'm at a board retreat right now and we are spending a lot of time reviewing the performance of various aspects of ICANN including our own performance. I want to convey that we are honestly and in earnest trying to receive input and your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Criticism about the questions or process are fine and we will try to improve, but I want to assure everyone that substantive comments our performance will get lots of attention in our process. - Joi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat May 12 21:01:31 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 21:01:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <52F6CA6E-37F5-4B7D-8881-2DA25C89777B@neoteny.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <52F6CA6E-37F5-4B7D-8881-2DA25C89777B@neoteny.com> Message-ID: <20070513010158.E91AE336851@mxr.isoc.bg> Joining you on that, Joi. It is vital to hear not only the criticism, but to hear it in a constructive manner. I will not get tired of repeating it - by just stating that there's a problem - that alone is a problem. But by stating also possible solutions, that's the real thing. It's high time to stop with the usual messages (accusations, bashing, insults, history, etc.), and focus on the current situation, and the future. The future, which we can make, not the one that some want others to make for us. I am sure that if the approach is positive, we can not get a negative result, and I am also sure, that if people approach problems negatively, they will never be able to find a positive solution. Instead of asking whose fault is this or that, let's focus on the positive, and see how we can contribute there. Because, it's actually quite easy to be negative - much easier, than being constructive and contributive. veni At 17:55 5/12/2007 -0700, Joichi Ito wrote: >Just to support Kieren here. I'm at a board retreat right now and we >are spending a lot of time reviewing the performance of various >aspects of ICANN including our own performance. I want to convey that >we are honestly and in earnest trying to receive input and your >thoughts would be greatly appreciated. > >Criticism about the questions or process are fine and we will try to >improve, but I want to assure everyone that substantive comments our >performance will get lots of attention in our process. > > - Joi >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun May 13 03:56:49 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 00:56:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since > this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review > it and get involved. Why? Let me point out one such written evaluation of ICANN's performance which also contains several concrete recommendations. It is an official ICANN communication from a sitting board member of ICANN to the entire board of directors delivered during a public meeting of that board. ICANN has never bothered to publish it despite a routine practice of publishing similar materials. http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/icann-evaluation-public-version.pdf That evaluation is as valid now as it was when published. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sun May 13 06:31:41 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:31:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <02f001c794e3$960add90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <02f001c794e3$960add90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <008001c79549$e8495620$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I agree, I think Bernie Turcotte's response raises a very valid point and I will be pushing to have the OECD principles he refers to adopted by ICANN in future consultations. Nonetheless, we do have this RFC in progress and so my point and the reason for my post is to encourage people to take it seriously. Put simply: 1. The RFC is serious - please respond 2. I will - as general manager of public participation - push to have this issue discussed openly 3. If people interact and there are useful results, I will make sure that those views are heard at all appropriate levels in ICANN People complain ICANN isn't transparent or accountable enough. Well, I've just stated what I will do, and I have just made myself directly accountable. Take me up on it. Kieren _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:19 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In the context of this discussion folks might be interested to take note of the comments made by CIRA (the folks who look after the .ca domain) in response to the ICANN questionnaire. http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.html MG -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: May 12, 2007 11:26 AM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Hi Kieren, Just one perhaps unusual (and given the comments that will probably ensue, somewhat off topic) thought. You suggest that, "the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly." That's one idea, but there are other possibilities in such a dialogue, including highlighting the bits that do work relatively well, and considering whether these offer any generalizable lessons worth applying elsewhere. For example, long ago and far away, the WGIG did a little exercise where we tried to look at how some of the key organizations did or didn't comply with the WSIS principles. When we compared ITU and ICANN it became immediately evident that the latter was more transparent and inclusively participatory/multistakeholder, which made the notion of somehow transferring functions to the ITU even more patently indefensible, and it disappeared from the debate. Proponents of intergovernmental 'oversight' were then left to propose various sorts new councils etc. that were plainly not going to go anywhere. An instinctive 'circle the wagons' response to proposals for mere discussion may be as contrary to ICANN's long-term interests as it is to preferences of ICANN's critics. Why not view this as an unique opportunity tell ICANN's story and carpe diem, rather than shutting it down? And BTW, while there are undoubtedly people with grievances "that are rapidly becoming historical," that's not what the caucus is proposing to talk about. We deleted the history language long ago and suggested discussion of, "ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN," which are forward looking topics. Best, Bill On 5/12/07 4:26 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" wrote: I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get involved. Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why the IGF will likely not discuss them. For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes. ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time. So, that RFC: As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. You can see this announcement here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just ask. And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. Kieren Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 *********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** !DSPAM:2676,46460705297288067955487! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From guru at itforchange.net Sun May 13 06:48:05 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:18:05 +0530 Subject: FW: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Message-ID: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> Kieren, I am surprised by the tenor of your mail. If one is genuinely interested in finding out how one (or ones institution) can improve; humility and openness are pre-requisites. If you have already decided what will be valuable and what will not be valuable in others views, and also are using colorful language on possible feedback (see excerpts below) "the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over " . "please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions" "I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults" "If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time" it is unlikely to be conducive to getting to know and understand what others think about icann. Bill Drake has already responded with why the discussions on this list relating to icann are not 'historical' or purely 'negative'. There are other reasons why your posting on the RFC can be considered flawed. 1. the critical issue for this list is not just 'how icann can be made more efficient' but rather that what is the ig space and includes what can be the icann role in that space and what is the legitimacy icann requires in order to play such a role (current icann structure is illegitimate - it plays a role in governing global resources and is under the control of a single govt, secondly with this illegitimacy, it seems to be moving from working for 'technical stability" to clearly issues of public policy domain as was evident from the recent discussions on the .xxx gtld - see also the report from Karl Auerbach). 2. the goal is not merely being "driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes." ... it can also be how to make a new paradigm as the internet meaningful to the large sections across the world who have been historically marginalized. The focus is not solely on the internet itself, but how development and equity goals can be furthered (as they indeed can be) through the new information society that we are attempting to build. The current set of internet users are the ones who may benefit most from a better functioning internet, but to make internet actually 'available' (not in terms of mere access, but rather of effective use) to everybody in the world is a challenge for internet governance, far bigger than 'better functioning'. And as we have argued earlier on this list, the internet community is not merely those who logon today, but all those who are impacted by the net (which is or will soon be the entire humanity). And in the same vein, the views in Dhaka or Accra may be different from what you may find in San Juan on icann. 3. The support to the above view comes from the goal of a 'development oriented information society' that the WSIS DOP calls for; and how icann and other institutions can help towards building such a society. The goal also is how such a process itself can be as participatory and democratic as possible, beyond usual 'inter-governmental pacts' or beyond 'privatised arrangments' (such as icann) to one with greater role for civil society and other constitutencies. Sorry to say it, but the sort of arrogance / intolerance i see in your mail is what can put others off. Just as we have to assume (and rightly so imo) that those who see icann as the best possible institutional arrangement for internet governance are driven by their vision of a better society, those that find icann an illegitimate, non-transparent, exclusive, non-accountable institution should be assumed to be equally so driven and discussions on this list have often been brave efforts across this spectrum to figure out some ways forward. I have tried to keep my post as mild as possible and hope it wont be labelled as a 'diatribe'! Hope you can reconsider your RFP terms and more importantly the underlying thinking. It may enthuse more to contribute to your efforts in this regard, as general manager for 'public participation'. Guru _____ From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get involved. Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why the IGF will likely not discuss them. For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes. ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time. So, that RFC: As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. You can see this announcement here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just ask. And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. Kieren Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN kieren.mccarthy at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sun May 13 06:49:58 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:49:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <008501c7954c$7406bc00$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Hi Bill, I agree with you that one of the things that ICANN really needs to do is be more confident of its successes. We all know the history, and the defensive mentality still lingers in parties on all sides. ICANN is certainly changing - I've seen it first-hand both inside and out the organisation - and the RFC is a way to review those that changes that have already happened and try to pick out a path for future changes. As I understood it - but I've not been following it closely enough - there was a suggestion that various Internet bodies give an update at the start of the IGF about what they're been up in the past year. I'm sure ICANN would sign up to that. If there's a circling of wagons though, I've missed it. That said, I said consistently as a journalist covering the IGF that I thought discussing ICANN as a main topic in Athens was a very bad idea. And I actually think that doing that this year would also be a mistake. The ideal scenario in my mind would be for every stakeholder to submit the same single paragraph saying that the IGF should be about access in 2007. It is shameful that we always talk about access and yet that is the one topic that somehow never gets the spotlight. If you simply made the topic unavoidable we might actually get somewhere. And it's only one year - we've another three IGFs to go. I would also like to see some future-looking guru stuff at the IGF - looking at the future of the Internet by extrapolating from the past. That and a review of some of the social impacts of the Internet (and they are huge) to see if there are any lessons that can be learnt. A review of international laws and approaches used in dealing with the tough parts of the Net - piracy, pornography, gambling. And so on. This sort of thing could make the IGF both practical and inspirational. I suppose that's why I think trying to drag up ICANN and other related organisations at this point is a bad idea. Even if it is discussed, I doubt if any good will come of it. Anyway, I'm going to stick with what I *can* do - which is promote open discussions about ICANN within and around ICANN. So please do review the RFC and put in some inputs. Also - if people want to try out the more interactive blog and public participation site as a way of having a conversation about this rather than the current email-and-wait process, I would be delighted. Kieren _____ From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:26 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Hi Kieren, Just one perhaps unusual (and given the comments that will probably ensue, somewhat off topic) thought. You suggest that, "the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly." That's one idea, but there are other possibilities in such a dialogue, including highlighting the bits that do work relatively well, and considering whether these offer any generalizable lessons worth applying elsewhere. For example, long ago and far away, the WGIG did a little exercise where we tried to look at how some of the key organizations did or didn't comply with the WSIS principles. When we compared ITU and ICANN it became immediately evident that the latter was more transparent and inclusively participatory/multistakeholder, which made the notion of somehow transferring functions to the ITU even more patently indefensible, and it disappeared from the debate. Proponents of intergovernmental 'oversight' were then left to propose various sorts new councils etc. that were plainly not going to go anywhere. An instinctive 'circle the wagons' response to proposals for mere discussion may be as contrary to ICANN's long-term interests as it is to preferences of ICANN's critics. Why not view this as an unique opportunity tell ICANN's story and carpe diem, rather than shutting it down? And BTW, while there are undoubtedly people with grievances "that are rapidly becoming historical," that's not what the caucus is proposing to talk about. We deleted the history language long ago and suggested discussion of, "ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN," which are forward looking topics. Best, Bill On 5/12/07 4:26 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" wrote: I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get involved. Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why the IGF will likely not discuss them. For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes. ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time. So, that RFC: As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. You can see this announcement here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just ask. And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. Kieren Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sun May 13 06:58:32 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:58:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Thankyou for proving my point Guru. However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up sufficiently and made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to consideration within ICANN. I will now go back to being just an occasional reader of this mailing list. If anyone wishes to contact me personally, please email me. Kieren _____ From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:48 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: FW: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Kieren, I am surprised by the tenor of your mail. If one is genuinely interested in finding out how one (or ones institution) can improve; humility and openness are pre-requisites. If you have already decided what will be valuable and what will not be valuable in others views, and also are using colorful language on possible feedback (see excerpts below) "the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over " . "please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions" "I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults" "If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time" it is unlikely to be conducive to getting to know and understand what others think about icann. Bill Drake has already responded with why the discussions on this list relating to icann are not 'historical' or purely 'negative'. There are other reasons why your posting on the RFC can be considered flawed. 1. the critical issue for this list is not just 'how icann can be made more efficient' but rather that what is the ig space and includes what can be the icann role in that space and what is the legitimacy icann requires in order to play such a role (current icann structure is illegitimate - it plays a role in governing global resources and is under the control of a single govt, secondly with this illegitimacy, it seems to be moving from working for 'technical stability" to clearly issues of public policy domain as was evident from the recent discussions on the .xxx gtld - see also the report from Karl Auerbach). 2. the goal is not merely being "driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes." ... it can also be how to make a new paradigm as the internet meaningful to the large sections across the world who have been historically marginalized. The focus is not solely on the internet itself, but how development and equity goals can be furthered (as they indeed can be) through the new information society that we are attempting to build. The current set of internet users are the ones who may benefit most from a better functioning internet, but to make internet actually 'available' (not in terms of mere access, but rather of effective use) to everybody in the world is a challenge for internet governance, far bigger than 'better functioning'. And as we have argued earlier on this list, the internet community is not merely those who logon today, but all those who are impacted by the net (which is or will soon be the entire humanity). And in the same vein, the views in Dhaka or Accra may be different from what you may find in San Juan on icann. 3. The support to the above view comes from the goal of a 'development oriented information society' that the WSIS DOP calls for; and how icann and other institutions can help towards building such a society. The goal also is how such a process itself can be as participatory and democratic as possible, beyond usual 'inter-governmental pacts' or beyond 'privatised arrangments' (such as icann) to one with greater role for civil society and other constitutencies. Sorry to say it, but the sort of arrogance / intolerance i see in your mail is what can put others off. Just as we have to assume (and rightly so imo) that those who see icann as the best possible institutional arrangement for internet governance are driven by their vision of a better society, those that find icann an illegitimate, non-transparent, exclusive, non-accountable institution should be assumed to be equally so driven and discussions on this list have often been brave efforts across this spectrum to figure out some ways forward. I have tried to keep my post as mild as possible and hope it wont be labelled as a 'diatribe'! Hope you can reconsider your RFP terms and more importantly the underlying thinking. It may enthuse more to contribute to your efforts in this regard, as general manager for 'public participation'. Guru _____ From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get involved. Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why the IGF will likely not discuss them. For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes. ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time. So, that RFC: As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. You can see this announcement here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just ask. And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. Kieren Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 veni at veni.com Sun May 13 07:00:43 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 07:00:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> Hi, Karl. I guess Kieren may respond to this, but there are two ways to approach this. One is the way, described by Joi Ito in a message to this list yesterday.... > I'm at a board retreat right now and we > are spending a lot of time reviewing the performance of various > aspects of ICANN including our own performance. I want to convey that > we are honestly and in earnest trying to receive input and your > thoughts would be greatly appreciated. > Criticism about the questions or process are fine and we will try to > improve, but I want to assure everyone that substantive comments our > performance will get lots of attention in our process. ... and the second way is the one which goes back in historic times. But ICANN has changed since the time you wrote it. Your recommendations were published at this time, they were part of the hearings at the US Senate, and they are in many records. It would be quite helpful if you, with your knowledge and experience, would positively contribute with something new, which can be used from now on. Many of your recommendations were taken into account, as one could objectively point out. Here's a positive way to deal with them, if you are still not convinced: go back, read them again, see which ones are fulfilled. Check your statement to the US Senate, and see which of your questions are already not valid, because ICANN has changed. Then review the Request for Comments, and contribute with something news. Also, of course don't forget that when tens or hundreds of recommendations are made, and some of them are used to change an organization, the ones which are not used are also valuable for the Board. Unless you believe that everyone should follow what you say, you shouldn't be hurt if not all of your recommendations were followed. Sometimes it may be also due to cross-cultural problem. I, for one thing, have problems accepting some of your thoughts, because I believe they represent a US point of view. My East European culture is different from your US (or Californian, as often that's also different from the US:-) So, in other words - contribute positively, not negatively. Best, Veni At 00:56 5/13/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >>ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And >>since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you >>should review it and get involved. > >Why? > >Let me point out one such written evaluation of ICANN's performance >which also contains several concrete recommendations. It is an >official ICANN communication from a sitting board member of ICANN to >the entire board of directors delivered during a public meeting of >that board. ICANN has never bothered to publish it despite a routine >practice of publishing similar materials. > >http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/icann-evaluation-public-version.pdf > >That evaluation is as valid now as it was when published. > > --karl-- > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sun May 13 07:06:54 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:36:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070513110700.1495BC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> Amazing. In any other case, such a report from a member of the board should have led to the liquidation of that organization. Or at least large scale restructuring / reform. I hope Kieren will take in these recommendations. Guru -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:27 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Kieren McCarthy wrote: > ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since > this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should > review it and get involved. Why? Let me point out one such written evaluation of ICANN's performance which also contains several concrete recommendations. It is an official ICANN communication from a sitting board member of ICANN to the entire board of directors delivered during a public meeting of that board. ICANN has never bothered to publish it despite a routine practice of publishing similar materials. http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/icann-evaluation-public-version.pdf That evaluation is as valid now as it was when published. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sun May 13 07:42:07 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 13:42:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> (kierenmccarthy@gmail.com) References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <20070513114207.B813F4DCFE@quill.bollow.ch> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's > performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up sufficiently and > made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to consideration > within ICANN. That is not good enough. There also needs to be accountability in the consideration itself, not only in the route from comment to consideration. I wish to provide useful feedback to internet-related governance processes of all kinds, and I'm capable of doing so in a competent and constructive manner. However, due to time constraints, I need to be selective in deciding to whom I choose to make myself available in this manner. My only feedback to you at this time is that I feel that your response to Guru was totally inappropriate and that Karl's message deserves a careful, substantive response, and that unless ICANN responds to that in an appropriate manner, I have no reason to believe that working on a response to ICANN's RFC would be a productive use of my time. Yours sincerely Norbert Bollow President of the Swiss Internet User Group ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sun May 13 08:09:18 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 13:09:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513114207.B813F4DCFE@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <20070513114207.B813F4DCFE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <009601c79557$8ccd59f0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Norbert, I agree with you. Like I said, I have read CIRA's response and will push the OECD guidelines from this point on. They include what you are asking for. At the moment however there is this RFC. It is serving a particular purpose and any responses made to it that made totally different points will simply not form part of the discussion. That is how consultations work. Guru's response highlighted exactly the reason I felt the need to post a fairly blunt message about the RFC to this particular list (it also highlighted my point about personal abuse, among other things). Karl Auerbach's post referred wholly to a paper written in 2003 (my post said: "This RFC is not about... moaning about something that happened three or more years ago.") He also received a considered response from Veni Markovski which I whole-heartedly agree with. I think Bill Drake's response was well considered and a useful point. And Michael Gurstein helpfully drew attention to another useful response from CIRA. Any useful responses - even critical ones - any useful responses that fit within the framework of the RFC as outlined are heartily welcomed and will be considered in full. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:42 PM To: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Kieren McCarthy wrote: > However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's > performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up sufficiently and > made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to consideration > within ICANN. That is not good enough. There also needs to be accountability in the consideration itself, not only in the route from comment to consideration. I wish to provide useful feedback to internet-related governance processes of all kinds, and I'm capable of doing so in a competent and constructive manner. However, due to time constraints, I need to be selective in deciding to whom I choose to make myself available in this manner. My only feedback to you at this time is that I feel that your response to Guru was totally inappropriate and that Karl's message deserves a careful, substantive response, and that unless ICANN responds to that in an appropriate manner, I have no reason to believe that working on a response to ICANN's RFC would be a productive use of my time. Yours sincerely Norbert Bollow President of the Swiss Internet User Group ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sun May 13 08:13:50 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:13:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513114207.B813F4DCFE@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <20070513114207.B813F4DCFE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20070513121348.D2EC0334FBA@mxr.isoc.bg> At 13:42 5/13/2007 +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > > However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's > > performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up sufficiently and > > made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to consideration > > within ICANN. > >That is not good enough. There also needs to be accountability in the >consideration itself, not only in the route from comment to >consideration. Norbert, if you can phrase this positively, that could be a contribution. On the other hand, when someone makes a proposal, and it is not accepted, the natural thing is to feel the process is not right. Let me give you an example, also from history, but with some current moments. I've had such experience on a number of occasions, when trying to suggest changes in the laws, passed by the Bulgarian Parliament - esp. in 1999, 2000. However, I didn't give up, and I didn't take the pose of an insulted by the members of the Parliament guy. I kept on trying, and in 2001 we started the changes in the Telecommunications laws, we implemented computer crime chapter in the Penal Code, and we made it possible that the current government of Bulgaria created a special body - State Agency for IT and Communications to the Council of Ministers, to deal with all issues, related to development of Information Society. Could we have done something differently? Yes, we could have continued bashing the government, and keep on saying, "didn't we warn you?" Instead, we worked with governments, with members of Parliament, with non-profits. We got the prime minister to join ISOC, and we also did that with the President. We changed everything, and we succeeded. Were we unhappy when we couldn't do something? Of course. Did we pose like insulted? No. We kept on trying, and we found more and more ways to influence the policy making of a whole country. (oh, and by the way, that didn't stop us from being the organizers of the Bulgarian editions of the Big Brother Awards). You are not happy with the way Kieren responded to Guru, and with what you say was not a good response from ICANN to Karl's message. Well... let's put it this way: with all the work ICANN has been doing since Karl is not on the board, it has actually addressed if not all, then at least most, or some, of his concerns. There are many facts to prove this. Just read what he said to the US Senate, and then see where ICANN was, while he was on the Board, and where it is now. It's not 2002 today, and ICANN is not the same organization. The feelings that some people might have about ICANN could be the driving force behind their actions, but should they? 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 ca at rits.org.br Sun May 13 09:00:58 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 10:00:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: This, mind you, is the response from ICANN's *general manager of public participation*!! Is this the view of public participation ICANN encourages?? It seems once some people get a position within ICANN they become almighty teachers of how-to and the absolute reference on what is acceptable, "positive" or whatever. Kieren only wants "positive", "objective" feedback from us stupid students and will discard what he thinks are "moanings". Veni teaches poor stubborn Norbert how to write a "positive" contribution. Have you noticed this is a discussion list among peers, whatever our jobs, origins, inclinations or expertises? --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: "Kieren McCarthy" To: , "'Guru at ITfC'" Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:58:32 +0100 Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance > Thankyou for proving my point Guru. > > > > However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's > performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up > sufficiently and > made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to > consideration > within ICANN. > > > > I will now go back to being just an occasional reader of this mailing > list. > If anyone wishes to contact me personally, please email me. > > > > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > _____ > > From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:48 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: FW: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance > > > > Kieren, > > > > I am surprised by the tenor of your mail. If one is genuinely > interested in > finding out how one (or ones institution) can improve; humility and > openness > are pre-requisites. If you have already decided what will be valuable > and > what will not be valuable in others views, and also are using > colorful > language on possible feedback (see excerpts below) > > > > "the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN > can be > restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more > years > ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over " . > > "please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then > expect > it to be included in discussions" > > "I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults" > > "If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of > other > comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time" > > > > it is unlikely to be conducive to getting to know and understand what > others > think about icann. > > > > Bill Drake has already responded with why the discussions on this > list > relating to icann are not 'historical' or purely 'negative'. There > are other > reasons why your posting on the RFC can be considered flawed. > > > > 1. the critical issue for this list is not just 'how icann can be > made more > efficient' but rather that what is the ig space and includes what can > be the > icann role in that space and what is the legitimacy icann requires in > order > to play such a role (current icann structure is illegitimate - it > plays a > role in governing global resources and is under the control of a > single > govt, secondly with this illegitimacy, it seems to be moving from > working > for 'technical stability" to clearly issues of public policy domain > as was > evident from the recent discussions on the .xxx gtld - see also the > report > from Karl Auerbach). > > > > 2. the goal is not merely being "driven solely by a desire to improve > the > Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you > can't > simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that > will be to > work within ICANN's self-changing processes." ... > > > > it can also be how to make a new paradigm as the internet meaningful > to the > large sections across the world who have been historically > marginalized. The > focus is not solely on the internet itself, but how development and > equity > goals can be furthered (as they indeed can be) through the new > information > society that we are attempting to build. The current set of internet > users > are the ones who may benefit most from a better functioning internet, > but to > make internet actually 'available' (not in terms of mere access, but > rather > of effective use) to everybody in the world is a challenge for > internet > governance, far bigger than 'better functioning'. And as we have > argued > earlier on this list, the internet community is not merely those who > logon > today, but all those who are impacted by the net (which is or will > soon be > the entire humanity). And in the same vein, the views in Dhaka or > Accra may > be different from what you may find in San Juan on icann. > > > > 3. The support to the above view comes from the goal of a > 'development > oriented information society' that the WSIS DOP calls for; and how > icann and > other institutions can help towards building such a society. The goal > also > is how such a process itself can be as participatory and democratic > as > possible, beyond usual 'inter-governmental pacts' or beyond > 'privatised > arrangments' (such as icann) to one with greater role for civil > society and > other constitutencies. > > > > Sorry to say it, but the sort of arrogance / intolerance i see in > your mail > is what can put others off. Just as we have to assume (and rightly so > imo) > that those who see icann as the best possible institutional > arrangement for > internet governance are driven by their vision of a better society, > those > that find icann an illegitimate, non-transparent, exclusive, > non-accountable > institution should be assumed to be equally so driven and discussions > on > this list have often been brave efforts across this spectrum to > figure out > some ways forward. > > > > I have tried to keep my post as mild as possible and hope it wont be > labelled as a 'diatribe'! Hope you can reconsider your RFP terms and > more > importantly the underlying thinking. It may enthuse more to > contribute to > your efforts in this regard, as general manager for 'public > participation'. > > > > Guru > > _____ > > From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:57 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance > > I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of > throwing a > lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* > seemed > more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on > this > list. > > > > ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And > since this > list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review > it and > get involved. > > > > Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of > discussing > ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the > elements of > the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There > are some > genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would > wish them > raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that > most of > these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the > reason why > the IGF will likely not discuss them. > > > > For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the > Internet > and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't > simply > assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to > work > within ICANN's self-changing processes. > > > > ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC > is out > there for public comment. It is structured around a series of > questions > about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them > below). > > > > I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I > consider > it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet > community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard > at the > relevant levels within ICANN. > > > > I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my > record > stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this > field. I > would request that people make use of that. > > > > Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out > the > usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about > something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is > concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the > job done. > So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will > be > gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if > ICANN is > going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts > as > possible. They will be listened to. > > > > If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever > reason, > then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and > then > expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to > get your > issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN > with a > helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. > > > > The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites > on 6 > June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be > considering > material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a > request > for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and > freely > and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a > report on > what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows > about > it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material > is > useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, > the > usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of > other > things to take up my time. > > > > So, that RFC: > > > > As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is > seeking > community feedback about its performance. > > All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas > of > performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are > of > particular interest: > > * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? > What > improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements > have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? > What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements > have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of > the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? > * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for > more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the > Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? > * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the > application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints > and other > mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of > the > reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. > > Comments will be received at > http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ > until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. > > > > > > You can see this announcement here: > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm > > > > I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: > http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 > > > > And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open > and > proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance > > > > Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you > want a > chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for > it, just > ask. > > > > And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you > can. > > > > > > Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > Kieren McCarthy > > General manager of public participation, ICANN > > > > kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 veni at veni.com Sun May 13 09:13:31 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 09:13:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <20070513131328.A6DD6335A34@mxr.isoc.bg> Carlos, the public here, in this list, participates - one way or the other. What Kieren is trying to show, is that there's something new in today's ICANN. He is not required to be part of this list, but he decided to do so, and that's called showing a good will. Of course, he, like me before, will soon be blamed for all the "sins" some people think ICANN was born with. As for me - I am not teaching anyone, because I am not a teacher. I am giving an example of how to provide solutions. Whether you like the example or not (and obviously you don't, as you didn't focus on it), is a different story. I wish there will be more people, from more countries, to tell us what they've done in their countries, instead of exactly teaching us how we should be doing what we do. But every time I try to ask this question, there's silence. veni At 10:00 5/13/2007 -0300, carlos a. afonso wrote: >This, mind you, is the response from ICANN's *general manager of public >participation*!! Is this the view of public participation ICANN encourages?? > >It seems once some people get a position within ICANN they become >almighty teachers of how-to and the absolute reference on what is >acceptable, "positive" or whatever. Kieren only wants "positive", >"objective" feedback from us stupid students and will discard what he >thinks are "moanings". Veni teaches poor stubborn Norbert how to write a >"positive" contribution. > >Have you noticed this is a discussion list among peers, whatever our >jobs, origins, inclinations or expertises? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jito at neoteny.com Sun May 13 09:19:46 2007 From: jito at neoteny.com (Joichi Ito) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 06:19:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <7B51AE56-CB65-4CD1-99E8-5939893D2A54@neoteny.com> While it is more pleasant to receive positive messages, I assure you that all arguments and comments are read and digested regardless of the packaging. For instance, I believe the CIRA comments are being reflected on and discussed sincerely despite the "not so positive" tone of the delivery. I do think it's easier to digest more constructively worded comments and without putting words in Kieren's mouth, I think he was just advising on what sort of thing might make the most impact. IMHO, YMMV, etc. - Joi On May 13, 2007, at 6:00 PDT, carlos a. afonso wrote: > It seems once some people get a position within ICANN they become > almighty teachers of how-to and the absolute reference on what is > acceptable, "positive" or whatever. Kieren only wants "positive", > "objective" feedback from us stupid students and will discard what he > thinks are "moanings". Veni teaches poor stubborn Norbert how to > write a > "positive" contribution. -- San Francisco - UTC -8 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=224 LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1391 Plazes Location: http://beta.plazes.com/user/JoiIto ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 13 10:45:18 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:45:18 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Message-ID: <200705131445.l4DEjI26013110@merlin.enst.fr> My preference is: (2) Core Internet Resources and their current governance institutions. My vote is: yes with or without "their" I dislike "ICANN and Core Internet Resources" because speed readers can interpret it as synonymus scopes. Cheers - - On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:51:10 +0530, Parminder wrote: >We ARE NOT taking opinions as much as a clear YES or NO... opinions can however accompany a clear yes or no (in fact they are welcome). This is still not the voting stage, but only a consensus gathering one (hopefully you wont have to repeat your yes and no) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 13 11:08:03 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:08:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <008001c79549$e8495620$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <038501c79570$84d0ca20$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Kieren I guess,there is an obvious question in light of what you admit following CIRA, is a seriously flawed process. Why not postpone or cancel this one and set up a process that isn't flawed, and that does follow the OECD guidelines? This would, I think, go quite some way to satisfying the concerns that you have expressed about the possible nature of this discussion, fixing what might be a very contentious (and even delegitimized) process, and responding to the publicly expressed concerns of a very significant stakeholder in ICANN i.e. CIRA. That will take this process out of the realm of "trust me" and "we'll do better next time", and into a framework of public accountability and widely acceptable legitimacy. MG -----Original Message----- From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: May 13, 2007 3:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance I agree, I think Bernie Turcotte's response raises a very valid point and I will be pushing to have the OECD principles he refers to adopted by ICANN in future consultations. Nonetheless, we do have this RFC in progress and so my point and the reason for my post is to encourage people to take it seriously. Put simply: 1. The RFC is serious - please respond 2. I will - as general manager of public participation - push to have this issue discussed openly 3. If people interact and there are useful results, I will make sure that those views are heard at all appropriate levels in ICANN People complain ICANN isn't transparent or accountable enough. Well, I've just stated what I will do, and I have just made myself directly accountable. Take me up on it. Kieren _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:19 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In the context of this discussion folks might be interested to take note of the comments made by CIRA (the folks who look after the .ca domain) in response to the ICANN questionnaire. http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.html MG -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: May 12, 2007 11:26 AM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Hi Kieren, Just one perhaps unusual (and given the comments that will probably ensue, somewhat off topic) thought. You suggest that, "the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly." That's one idea, but there are other possibilities in such a dialogue, including highlighting the bits that do work relatively well, and considering whether these offer any generalizable lessons worth applying elsewhere. For example, long ago and far away, the WGIG did a little exercise where we tried to look at how some of the key organizations did or didn't comply with the WSIS principles. When we compared ITU and ICANN it became immediately evident that the latter was more transparent and inclusively participatory/multistakeholder, which made the notion of somehow transferring functions to the ITU even more patently indefensible, and it disappeared from the debate. Proponents of intergovernmental 'oversight' were then left to propose various sorts new councils etc. that were plainly not going to go anywhere. An instinctive 'circle the wagons' response to proposals for mere discussion may be as contrary to ICANN's long-term interests as it is to preferences of ICANN's critics. Why not view this as an unique opportunity tell ICANN's story and carpe diem, rather than shutting it down? And BTW, while there are undoubtedly people with grievances "that are rapidly becoming historical," that's not what the caucus is proposing to talk about. We deleted the history language long ago and suggested discussion of, "ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN," which are forward looking topics. Best, Bill On 5/12/07 4:26 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" wrote: I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get involved. Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why the IGF will likely not discuss them. For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes. ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time. So, that RFC: As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. You can see this announcement here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just ask. And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. Kieren Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 *********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** !DSPAM:2676,4646e92c297281538616383! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun May 13 11:09:12 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 00:09:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <02f001c794e3$960add90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <02f001c794e3$960add90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: I think it would be helpful if ICANN were more consistent in how it asks for comments. There are public comments that are part of official policy develop processes (agreements posted for public comment, etc), actions that either require or ICANN desires formal comment (request for proposals for contractors, etc), and more recently, and particularly with the blog etc, there have been more general "have your say" type requests. This latest request seems to fall between the formal and informal. While the intention behind the request is excellent, it's unfortunate "request for public comments" was used when "Dialogue on ICANN's Performance" better describes what's being sought, and the informality of it. "Request for Public Comments and Dialogue on ICANN's Performance" seems to be part of the same overall thread as last year's "Request for Comments on ICANN Accountability and Transparency Management Operating Principles". CIRA of course has a particular interest in that (they pretty much instigated it, and still have cash riding on it, or have they paid?) so should not be a surprise they reacted as they did. Answer might be to cut the request for comments part from this initial month long dialogue, extend the discussion up to and including the San Juan meeting, and begin a formal "request for comments" along the lines CIRA suggests, building on this initial dialogue, after San Juan. And internally decide how to describe the different requests for input. Very good that ICANN has become much more open and informative --been a breath of fresh air-- but I think it needs a bit more control over when to be chatty and informal, and when more it's being stuffy and international organization-like. Adam >In the context of this discussion folks might be >interested to take note of the comments made by >CIRA (the folks who look after the .ca >domain)  in response to the ICANN questionnaire. > >http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.html > >MG > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sun May 13 12:10:23 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:10:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <02f001c794e3$960add90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <00ad01c79579$36d79cf0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I agree with you Adam. ICANN's public comment process needs reviewing and standardizing. In fact, it is already under review and that's why these comments are so useful. ICANN is preparing a series of "Management Operating Principles" (as you noted below) and public comment will form a part of one of them. While I understand and appreciate the views expressed about the process as it is at the moment though, I don't follow the argument that ICANN should therefore stop the comment process until that is done. The Internet and all its processes are gloriously imperfect and constantly undergoing change. If we wait for what we perceive as a better method before embarking on any work, we'll never get anywhere. The point of my post which everyone seems to have missed is that I am creating a clear process of comment-to-consideration in my role as general manager of public participation. For as long as I remember people have complained that comments made to ICANN's public forums are not accounted for, or are ignored. I was recently re-reading the report by John Palfrey and others at Berkman from 2003 which went into this in great detail. In fact, it's not true that the comments aren't considered and I am trying to devise ways in which it can be made clear the impact that useful comments actually have a policy development process - but it's not easy. (If anyone knows of structures in place elsewhere for this, please get in touch with me.) However this is the point of the RFC I have tried to draw attention to: if people want to provide their opinions, views and perspectives on recent changes in ICANN then this is the time and the place to do it. What's more, I will make sure they are listened to, and I will make sure everyone knows what they are. That strikes me as something worth doing. So could we try to get to the point where rather than complaining about the processes themselves, we actually use them? Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance I think it would be helpful if ICANN were more consistent in how it asks for comments. There are public comments that are part of official policy develop processes (agreements posted for public comment, etc), actions that either require or ICANN desires formal comment (request for proposals for contractors, etc), and more recently, and particularly with the blog etc, there have been more general "have your say" type requests. This latest request seems to fall between the formal and informal. While the intention behind the request is excellent, it's unfortunate "request for public comments" was used when "Dialogue on ICANN's Performance" better describes what's being sought, and the informality of it. "Request for Public Comments and Dialogue on ICANN's Performance" seems to be part of the same overall thread as last year's "Request for Comments on ICANN Accountability and Transparency Management Operating Principles". CIRA of course has a particular interest in that (they pretty much instigated it, and still have cash riding on it, or have they paid?) so should not be a surprise they reacted as they did. Answer might be to cut the request for comments part from this initial month long dialogue, extend the discussion up to and including the San Juan meeting, and begin a formal "request for comments" along the lines CIRA suggests, building on this initial dialogue, after San Juan. And internally decide how to describe the different requests for input. Very good that ICANN has become much more open and informative --been a breath of fresh air-- but I think it needs a bit more control over when to be chatty and informal, and when more it's being stuffy and international organization-like. Adam >In the context of this discussion folks might be >interested to take note of the comments made by >CIRA (the folks who look after the .ca >domain)  in response to the ICANN questionnaire. > >http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.htm l > >MG > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 13 12:18:30 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:48:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <009601c79557$8ccd59f0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <20070513161838.98DBC5C68@smtp2.electricembers.net> Kieren "Guru's response highlighted exactly the reason I felt the need to post a fairly blunt message about the RFC to this particular list (it also highlighted my point about personal abuse, among other things)." My posting was one of surprise at the tenor of the mail from a person in charge of "public participation" seeking feedback for organizational improvement. If my mail constitutes 'personal abuse' then you should reflect on your own mail where there is heavy condescension and arrogance, totally out of tune with any feedback seeking process. People will give as feedback, what they think is appropriate and the person/institution receiving it can then decide what to do with it. Making several prescriptions and using intemperate language suggests that you want only a certain kind of feedback, and that you can browbeat people who think different. I am also surprised that some people are so touchy about icann and rush through their postings to advise the rest on how to present our views or feedback to that organization. There are others who do not want to treat icann as a holy cow. Your response to my posting, the inability to see the 'circling of wagons' that Bill Drake pointed out, as well as the silence of icann to the damning report of Karl Auerbach ("ICANN has never bothered to publish it despite a routine practice of publishing similar materials") gives me an idea of the 'openness' of icann and its working. IMO, such a culture has no place in civilized global governance. On the other hand, I do appreciate the openness and cordiality that Joichi attempts in his own invitation for feedback, so maybe there is still hope! Guru -----Original Message----- From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 5:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Norbert, I agree with you. Like I said, I have read CIRA's response and will push the OECD guidelines from this point on. They include what you are asking for. At the moment however there is this RFC. It is serving a particular purpose and any responses made to it that made totally different points will simply not form part of the discussion. That is how consultations work. Guru's response highlighted exactly the reason I felt the need to post a fairly blunt message about the RFC to this particular list (it also highlighted my point about personal abuse, among other things). Karl Auerbach's post referred wholly to a paper written in 2003 (my post said: "This RFC is not about... moaning about something that happened three or more years ago.") He also received a considered response from Veni Markovski which I whole-heartedly agree with. I think Bill Drake's response was well considered and a useful point. And Michael Gurstein helpfully drew attention to another useful response from CIRA. Any useful responses - even critical ones - any useful responses that fit within the framework of the RFC as outlined are heartily welcomed and will be considered in full. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:42 PM To: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Kieren McCarthy wrote: > However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's > performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up > sufficiently and > made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to > consideration within ICANN. That is not good enough. There also needs to be accountability in the consideration itself, not only in the route from comment to consideration. I wish to provide useful feedback to internet-related governance processes of all kinds, and I'm capable of doing so in a competent and constructive manner. However, due to time constraints, I need to be selective in deciding to whom I choose to make myself available in this manner. My only feedback to you at this time is that I feel that your response to Guru was totally inappropriate and that Karl's message deserves a careful, substantive response, and that unless ICANN responds to that in an appropriate manner, I have no reason to believe that working on a response to ICANN's RFC would be a productive use of my time. Yours sincerely Norbert Bollow President of the Swiss Internet User Group ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 13 12:18:45 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:48:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <7B51AE56-CB65-4CD1-99E8-5939893D2A54@neoteny.com> Message-ID: <20070513161850.6D0F65C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> Joichi San, IMHO, if you really want feedback then "I think he was just advising on what sort of thing might make the most impact" ... Does come across as presumptuous. When somebody asks me for feedback I don't want their advice on what they think I should say to make impact!! The situation is all the more ridiculous since this feedback is sought by the 'general manager of public participation'. You cant dicate to the public what views you want to hear from them and call that 'participation' !! Also in your earlier posting you had said "I want to convey that we are honestly and in earnest trying to receive input and your thoughts would be greatly appreciated." I fully concur with this sentiment. However, did you get the feeling that the general manager of public participation of icann greatly appreciated my posting! Or that his mail was honestly and in earnest trying to receive input? -----Original Message----- From: Joichi Ito [mailto:jito at neoteny.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 6:50 PM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance While it is more pleasant to receive positive messages, I assure you that all arguments and comments are read and digested regardless of the packaging. For instance, I believe the CIRA comments are being reflected on and discussed sincerely despite the "not so positive" tone of the delivery. I do think it's easier to digest more constructively worded comments and without putting words in Kieren's mouth, I think he was just advising on what sort of thing might make the most impact. IMHO, YMMV, etc. - Joi On May 13, 2007, at 6:00 PDT, carlos a. afonso wrote: > It seems once some people get a position within ICANN they become > almighty teachers of how-to and the absolute reference on what is > acceptable, "positive" or whatever. Kieren only wants "positive", > "objective" feedback from us stupid students and will discard what he > thinks are "moanings". Veni teaches poor stubborn Norbert how to write > a "positive" contribution. -- San Francisco - UTC -8 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=224 LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1391 Plazes Location: http://beta.plazes.com/user/JoiIto ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 13 12:22:19 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:52:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513121348.D2EC0334FBA@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070513162225.2B20E5C4B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Veni, "The feelings that some people might have about ICANN could be the driving force behind their actions, but should they?" Is your support for icann and its efforts completely devoid of the feelings you have about it? How can it be? People will also base their communications on their feelings about anything. Feelings are themselves likely to be a result of assimilated learnings and experiences. Unless you are saying that some people are the custodians of 'objective facts' and work on the basis of that only, while others act only on their feelings. Also while I do agree with you that 'positive comments provide energies for others to take action', negative comments also have their place. If I see something wrong happening, I don't see why I should always sugar coat my response. In this light, always offering your postive experiences in Bulgaria, (which I am sure is highly commendable work) to every critical comment is not meaningful ! The more important point is how the person is receiving the feedback. A person with an open mind would be willing to explore very negative feedback as well and benefit from it. A closed mind will resent negative feedback, but then feedback to a closed mind is also quite useless! Guru -----Original Message----- From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 5:44 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow; kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance At 13:42 5/13/2007 +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > > However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's > > performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up > > sufficiently and made it clear that there is a clear route from > > comment to consideration within ICANN. > >That is not good enough. There also needs to be accountability in the >consideration itself, not only in the route from comment to >consideration. Norbert, if you can phrase this positively, that could be a contribution. On the other hand, when someone makes a proposal, and it is not accepted, the natural thing is to feel the process is not right. Let me give you an example, also from history, but with some current moments. I've had such experience on a number of occasions, when trying to suggest changes in the laws, passed by the Bulgarian Parliament - esp. in 1999, 2000. However, I didn't give up, and I didn't take the pose of an insulted by the members of the Parliament guy. I kept on trying, and in 2001 we started the changes in the Telecommunications laws, we implemented computer crime chapter in the Penal Code, and we made it possible that the current government of Bulgaria created a special body - State Agency for IT and Communications to the Council of Ministers, to deal with all issues, related to development of Information Society. Could we have done something differently? Yes, we could have continued bashing the government, and keep on saying, "didn't we warn you?" Instead, we worked with governments, with members of Parliament, with non-profits. We got the prime minister to join ISOC, and we also did that with the President. We changed everything, and we succeeded. Were we unhappy when we couldn't do something? Of course. Did we pose like insulted? No. We kept on trying, and we found more and more ways to influence the policy making of a whole country. (oh, and by the way, that didn't stop us from being the organizers of the Bulgarian editions of the Big Brother Awards). You are not happy with the way Kieren responded to Guru, and with what you say was not a good response from ICANN to Karl's message. Well... let's put it this way: with all the work ICANN has been doing since Karl is not on the board, it has actually addressed if not all, then at least most, or some, of his concerns. There are many facts to prove this. Just read what he said to the US Senate, and then see where ICANN was, while he was on the Board, and where it is now. It's not 2002 today, and ICANN is not the same organization. The feelings that some people might have about ICANN could be the driving force behind their actions, but should they? veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 13 12:54:08 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:24:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20070511092113.1E4C25C60@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070513165412.87172E0FF7@smtp3.electricembers.net> The co-coordinators are convinced that the proposed document of input by IGC for the open consultations for discussing the agenda for IGF, Rio, on the 23rd has the consensus of this group behind it. Also, that there is a rough consensus to change the heading 2 in the document to ' Core Internet Resources and their Current Governance Institutions'. The enclosed document will therefore be sent to the IGF secretariat on the behalf of IGC in 3 hours from now. We thank all those who have contributed to, and commented on, this document. Meanwhile it is important that we lobby using this input document with all MAG members that we know, as well as with others whose opinions will have weight at the consultations - important individuals, governments etc. I propose that we email this doc to all MAG members and others who we know will/ may attend the open consultation. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC's contribution to Rio agenda 0507.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 13386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun May 13 13:39:15 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 10:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG In-Reply-To: 20070513165412.87172E0FF7@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: *THANK YOU* Parminder, [Bill as well] For putting up with us and pulling forward with this. Your dedication and diligence in the matter is appreciated by all. - Parminder: >I propose that we email this doc to all >MAG members and others who we know >will/ may attend the open consultation. Regarding the 'Attendees', Would you please post a list of the members in attendance as-soon-as possible. With regards to these Individuals, I look upon them as my "Delegates" of representation at the meeting, and I would like the opportunity to 'lobby' them publicly (via-the mail list), Although they are Primus-inter-pares among the CPRS Group. This will also inform us, which �part� they intent to carry in the deliberation, and will �help us-help them� prepare oral-argument. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun May 13 15:57:44 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 12:57:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> I am only adding to this thread on this list because I believe that the growth of internet governance must learn from the lessons of the past. And in that regard, our experience with ICANN, is book that we must examine without rose colored glasses. That said, let me proceed to illustrate how ICANN teaches us that we must embed into new bodies of internet governance, in a very deep and organic way, mechanisms that require it to have real openness, real transparency, and real accountability to the community of internet users. If we chose not to learn our new bodies of internet governance may become, as ICANN appears to have become, captured by exactly those forces it is purported to oversee and become ossified and non-responsive to the needs for which it was established. I believe that Kieren's presence at ICANN is a very large positive change and I deeply appreciate that he chose to give notice here of the ICANN request for comments. And I personally very much appreciate the way he is working to create communications channels. Kieren deserves our standing applause, and then some. So with the primary intent of learning through re-examination of events past, let me proceed: Veni Markovski wrote: > But ICANN has changed since the time you wrote it. Changed? Yes - it has added a few frills and a lot of staff. But the core shape and issues remain the same. Yet it still remains that previous, and still valid, concrete recommendations are being actively ignored. Those recommendations to which I refer are as valid today as they were three years ago. And unlike the "thousands" of comments to which you refer, these were made in the form of an official ICANN communication written in the performance of his duty and after considerable research by a sitting Director to the Board of Directors. It is sad that the main place where this official communication is to be found is in testimony before the United States Senate ( http://www.cavebear.com/rw/senate-july-31-2003.htm ) rather than in any ICANN place. You may try to write them off as years old. But does not ICANN's failure to hear what was said not add reinforce underlying message that ICANN simply does not care and that it will use this current round of comments, exactly has it has used previous rounds, to create merely an appearance without actual substance? You again and again say "contribute something new". Perhaps that would be a valid comment had ICANN ever changed and had its old flaws been repaired. Perhaps ICANN ought to respond to the concrete, specific comments that were made rather than trying to evade their existence. Tell me why this recommendation from the report is stale or inappropriate: Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, litigation (or potential litigation), and contract negotiations may be discussed off the audio record. Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's directors each receive a stipend so that they can afford the time and expense to independently inform themselves on matters is a recommendation that is somehow stale or inappropriate? Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's board have its own separate legal counsel so that it may know when it is being led around by the nose by ICANN's President and "staff", is somehow stale or inappropriate? Your recommendations > were published at this time, they were part of the hearings at the US > Senate, and they are in many records. And you point is what? That ICANN is selective about which of its official communications it choses to publish? You will not find these recommendations on on ICANN operated repository. In other words, ICANN suppressed, and apparently still suppresses, concrete written recommendations made during the course of a public meeting by a sitting director. I find it amusing how ICANN brackets the spectrum - at one end it has unlawfully denied sitting directors the exercise of their legal rights. And at the other end it tries to selectively pretend that some of its official communications do not exist. Perhaps we might conclude that ICANN's role in internet governance, to the very limited degree that it is even a body of *internet* governance, as opposed to a body of trademark and registry protection, is to show us the road *not* to be followed in the future. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Sun May 13 16:44:44 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Lest anyone think this sort of openness is idealistic or impossible, let me assure you that the state of Florida -- and every single regional and local governmental entity -- operates under rules of near-total transparency under the "Sunshine" provisions of the state constitution. It is an existence proof of concept. Our law does not even allow three elected members to discuss business over lunch in a private meeting. That may be going too far, but what Karl suggests about transparency is certainly possible. On Sun, 13 May 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > I am only adding to this thread on this list because I believe that the > growth of internet governance must learn from the lessons of the past. And in > that regard, our experience with ICANN, is book that we must examine without > rose colored glasses. > > That said, let me proceed to illustrate how ICANN teaches us that we must > embed into new bodies of internet governance, in a very deep and organic way, > mechanisms that require it to have real openness, real transparency, and real > accountability to the community of internet users. > > If we chose not to learn our new bodies of internet governance may become, as > ICANN appears to have become, captured by exactly those forces it is > purported to oversee and become ossified and non-responsive to the needs for > which it was established. > > I believe that Kieren's presence at ICANN is a very large positive change and > I deeply appreciate that he chose to give notice here of the ICANN request > for comments. And I personally very much appreciate the way he is working to > create communications channels. Kieren deserves our standing applause, and > then some. > > So with the primary intent of learning through re-examination of events past, > let me proceed: > > Veni Markovski wrote: > >> But ICANN has changed since the time you wrote it. > > Changed? Yes - it has added a few frills and a lot of staff. But the core > shape and issues remain the same. > > Yet it still remains that previous, and still valid, concrete recommendations > are being actively ignored. > > Those recommendations to which I refer are as valid today as they were three > years ago. And unlike the "thousands" of comments to which you refer, these > were made in the form of an official ICANN communication written in the > performance of his duty and after considerable research by a sitting Director > to the Board of Directors. > > It is sad that the main place where this official communication is to be > found is in testimony before the United States Senate ( > http://www.cavebear.com/rw/senate-july-31-2003.htm ) rather than in any ICANN > place. > > You may try to write them off as years old. But does not ICANN's failure to > hear what was said not add reinforce underlying message that ICANN simply > does not care and that it will use this current round of comments, exactly > has it has used previous rounds, to create merely an appearance without > actual substance? > > You again and again say "contribute something new". Perhaps that would be a > valid comment had ICANN ever changed and had its old flaws been repaired. > > Perhaps ICANN ought to respond to the concrete, specific comments that were > made rather than trying to evade their existence. > > Tell me why this recommendation from the report is stale or inappropriate: > > Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its committees > should be audio-recorded and made available to the public. No matter may be > elided except after an on-record decision that a particular matter should be > discussed off the audio recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel > matters, litigation (or potential litigation), and contract negotiations may > be discussed off the audio record. > > Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's directors each receive a stipend > so that they can afford the time and expense to independently inform > themselves on matters is a recommendation that is somehow stale or > inappropriate? > > Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's board have its own separate legal > counsel so that it may know when it is being led around by the nose by > ICANN's President and "staff", is somehow stale or inappropriate? > > Your recommendations >> were published at this time, they were part of the hearings at the US >> Senate, and they are in many records. > > And you point is what? That ICANN is selective about which of its official > communications it choses to publish? > > You will not find these recommendations on on ICANN operated repository. In > other words, ICANN suppressed, and apparently still suppresses, concrete > written recommendations made during the course of a public meeting by a > sitting director. > > I find it amusing how ICANN brackets the spectrum - at one end it has > unlawfully denied sitting directors the exercise of their legal rights. And > at the other end it tries to selectively pretend that some of its official > communications do not exist. > > Perhaps we might conclude that ICANN's role in internet governance, to the > very limited degree that it is even a body of *internet* governance, as > opposed to a body of trademark and registry protection, is to show us the > road *not* to be followed in the future. > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sun May 13 09:43:21 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 09:43:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <7B51AE56-CB65-4CD1-99E8-5939893D2A54@neoteny.com> References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7B51AE56-CB65-4CD1-99E8-5939893D2A54@neoteny.com> Message-ID: <20070513220629.1864E337405@mxr.isoc.bg> I'd like also to say, based on experience, that even though now there's a formal call for public comments, ICANN has never stopped collecting such responses at every meeting. One of the achievements of this model is that the Board and the staff meet with the community all the time, and often there are written or oral statements on ICANN performance. The results are clear for every objective observer. The impact is good from every experience - and sometimes it takes a while before some proposals are implemented, just because we live in a real world, and it takes time to do things. veni At 06:19 5/13/2007 -0700, Joichi Ito wrote: >While it is more pleasant to receive positive messages, I assure you >that all arguments and comments are read and digested regardless of >the packaging. For instance, I believe the CIRA comments are being >reflected on and discussed sincerely despite the "not so positive" >tone of the delivery. I do think it's easier to digest more >constructively worded comments and without putting words in Kieren's >mouth, I think he was just advising on what sort of thing might make >the most impact. > >IMHO, YMMV, etc. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 13 18:38:46 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 04:08:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <20070513224204.0E79A5C85@smtp2.electricembers.net> Kieren As Guru noted your email is incredibly arrogant, more so for a manager of public participation - shows how such good terms can be easily abused. When I read your email, I wondered hard why you would have written like this. I have my differences with ICANN, but I know most ICANN people to be intelligent and smart. And I thought I may just be over-reacting, and that my reactions to the language of your email may be because of a cultural difference. Well, on that note, be convinced that a big majority of people in the world would be plainly insulted by the way you have asked for contributions/ inputs/ participation. But then, on deeper thought, I saw it that it wasn't just a cultural thing.. You as a manager of public participation came on to a public group, IGC - one of the main ones that deals with IG issues, and whose mainstream culture is same as yours - western, generally, if I may so generalize - and this is what you say about that group... that 'this list seems to discuss little else' (meaning ICANN) and that the discussion is basically a set of 'usual rants' ('as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time') and that 'I will not be considering material in response to this post'. So, it is really disappointing that this is your view of, and about, the public that you seek participation from. And I, and many others, who still feel that this IGC group itself is largely 'North'-based and 'North'-oriented, and just not representative enough of most of the world, wonder if this is your view of this 'public' what would you think of the wider 'public' which we want included more and more in IG issues and its decision making.. >I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also >consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. So, let me tell you about how well you are doing your 'job'. Few things have put me off from engaging with ICANN so much as your single email has. I normally have good respect for ICANN and its people, and I have said so in my emails to this list. However, I was surprised to see that others close to ICANN failed to recognize the gaffe you made in writing this email to the IGC in this manner. Veni tells us that "He (Kieren) is not required to be part of this list, but he decided to do so, and that's called showing a good will". Think we should all kneel in gratitude.. And a board member, Joichi Ito, writing from a board retreat, came out in support of Kieren's email, though in a latter email Joichi seem to feel that things did go overboard a bit. Now, Kieren, I doubt whether you are able to make much of what I am speaking here about the wider public and their participation etc. So, I will try to make it simple, trying to stay within your 'language'. You say your job is to 'encourage participation and input from the Internet community'. It is a simple assumption that for doing your job you would know what constitutes this 'Internet community' you are trying to encourage participation from. Can you clarify it to me? And since your job description is 'public participation manager' you would know which is this public you seek participation from is? Is this 'public' same as the 'internet community'? Is internet community the technical/ professional Internet guys (ISOC's definition, it seems) or is it all Internet users, or is it all people of the world? I know I have asked these questions before, but it is one of my 'usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured' (your words). But leaving my fantasy aside, I cant see how you will be able to undertake your job of public participation without being able to provide to me the description and contours of this public? Do you think this is an unreasonable question to ask you/ ICANN? I think it is a question without which we can t even start the process of public participation. But I doubt you can answer this simple question. Such is the political nebulousness in which ICANN exists, and then it throws up such righteousness as your email does, in sheer self-doubt. 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: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and get involved. Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why the IGF will likely not discuss them. For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work within ICANN's self-changing processes. ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time. So, that RFC: As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org. You can see this announcement here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just ask. And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. Kieren Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 veni at veni.com Sun May 13 18:43:36 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:43:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> Hi, Karl. At 12:57 5/13/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I am only adding to this thread on this list because I believe that >the growth of internet governance must learn from the lessons of the >past. And in that regard, our experience with ICANN, is book that we >must examine without rose colored glasses. Absolutely, and there's one thing, though - a page of history could (should) be read, and turned. We could, - but should we? concentrate on that very same page, because then we lose track of reality, while reading over and over the same page. >Veni Markovski wrote: > >>But ICANN has changed since the time you wrote it. > >Changed? Yes - it has added a few frills and a lot of staff. But >the core shape and issues remain the same. Actually no - it has improved in many ways, which is clear by a number of facts. Some of them were mentioned also in your testimony to the Senate. >Those recommendations to which I refer are as valid today as they >were three years ago. And unlike the "thousands" of comments to >which you refer, these were made in the form of an official ICANN >communication written in the performance of his duty and after >considerable research by a sitting Director to the Board of Directors. Actually, all of the comments made, are on the ICANN site. Sometimes I wonder what is more important - the form, or the content? If I want something on a site, esp. on one like the ICANN, where anyone - from directors to people with valid e-mail addresses - I can do that, even if I am not a director. I think that being a director is not like being a President, where one remains a President, even after he or she is not in office. As >You may try to write them off as years old. But does not ICANN's >failure to hear what was said not add reinforce underlying message >that ICANN simply does not care and that it will use this current >round of comments, exactly has it has used previous rounds, to >create merely an appearance without actual substance? Disagree with you. What you wrote in your comments, has been taken into account, and it's obvious by so many facts today, that I find it strange even that I have to state this. >You again and again say "contribute something new". Perhaps that >would be a valid comment had ICANN ever changed and had its old >flaws been repaired. When I say "something new" and "positive", I mean it. I don't want to hear anymore about ICANN not giving a director access to documents, because this is not the case today. I don't want to hear an advise to have audits, because there are audits, there are people who perform audits in the Board, and the Board hires external auditors, etc., etc. - you can go back to your list of recommendations and see that clearly it's an old one. >Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its >committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the >public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision >that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio >recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, litigation >(or potential litigation), and contract negotiations may be >discussed off the audio record. Karl, four points here: a) Would you agree that some people, who are non-native English speakers may have problems having their words recorded? b) Do you think that with 15 people from 10 countries, from different cultures, etc., if something bad was happening, it will remain unnoticed? Because if you do believe that, then you think the constantyl-changing-board is some kind of a secret group, which discusses something behind hidden doors, in hiding, or working in deep under cover. c) I was personally against audio-recroding, and I am happy that today there are detailed minutes. Wouldn't you agree that the minutes today are different from the ones earlier? d) Unlike you, I've lived in a state, where not only all mine, my father's and grandfather's meetings were audio-recorded. Actually since 1975, after my father's death in a car accident, also all our phone calls were recorded, and my grandfather was followed 24 hrs/day by a body guard, who was reporting every move of his. I don't want this to happen to any director in the 21st century, at least not against her or his will. If they all agree - fine, but if even one feels monitored, and it is not in the by-laws, so that they would have know beforehand about this requirement, then I am for their free will, not yours. Sorry. >Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's directors each receive a >stipend so that they can afford the time and expense to >independently inform themselves on matters is a recommendation that >is somehow stale or inappropriate? The people who are on the Board do not need money, as far as I know. In some countries time is not money. Actually, in the majority of the countries. I've only heard this proverb in the US. > Your recommendations >>were published at this time, they were part of the hearings at the >>US Senate, and they are in many records. > >And you point is what? My point is that some of them were taken into account, and some of them were not. Are you unhappy that ICANN didn't implement all? Perhaps. Is ICANN function to make you happy? I don't think so. >You will not find these recommendations on on ICANN operated >repository. In other words, ICANN suppressed, and apparently still >suppresses, concrete written recommendations made during the course >of a public meeting by a sitting director. No, I think it's more important that ICANN has changed, also using your recommendations, and has changed for good. And frankly, if you think that it's so important to have them on the ICANN web site, you can publish them on your own, including during the current process - just copy & paste them. If you believe they are still relevant, that's what you could do. I hope you don't expect that someone from your and ICANN's past should do it. >I find it amusing how ICANN brackets the spectrum - at one end it >has unlawfully denied sitting directors the exercise of their legal rights. I don't see anything amusing going always into your case against ICANN. This happened long time ago, and one of the signs ICANN has changed is, that the next directors didn't have the problems you've had. best, veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sun May 13 18:49:04 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:49:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:44 5/13/2007 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >Lest anyone think this sort of openness is idealistic or impossible, >let me assure you that the state of Florida -- and every single >regional and local governmental entity -- operates under rules of >near-total transparency under the "Sunshine" provisions of the state >constitution. It is an existence proof of concept. > >Our law does not even allow three elected members to discuss >business over lunch in a private meeting. That may be going too >far, but what Karl suggests about transparency is certainly possible. So, let's see if you will put that into language that can be used to contribute to ICANN. I am sure that if you suggest it, with enough arguments, and if all directors agree, and if money is put into the budget, this can be make possible. Of course, needless to say, current directors, who have agreed to serve without being eavesdropped, should all agree to that. veni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Sun May 13 18:57:22 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:57:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513224204.0E79A5C85@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <20070513224204.0E79A5C85@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070513230127.3FDDC337445@mxr.isoc.bg> I hope that Kieren would not bother responding to a personal message - as we all know, that's the usual way to escape from talking about the substance of his e-mail (e.g. contribute positively) to something, where some people are very "good" at (e.g. contribute negatively). Look, the facts are simple, regardless of what you say: Kieren was not required to come to this list, he did it in good will; perhaps thinking this is a good idea. If he would have asked me, as one of the early participants here, I would have advised him differently, but he did what he though was right. I am sure that he will take into consideration your remarks about his own performance in his new job, but, unfortunately, this will not go into the record as described below: >As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is >seeking community feedback about its performance. > >All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas >of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, >are of particular interest: > * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and > accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still > needs to be done? > * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What > improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of > Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Has ICANN increased international participation? What > improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? > * Have there been improvements in participation and in > efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? > * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN > for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of > the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? > * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the > application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints > and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include > the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and > independent review. >Comments will be received at >http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ >until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: >performance-2007 at icann.org. > > >You can see this announcement here: >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm > >I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: >http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 > >And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide >open and proud of it) here: >http://public.icann.org/issues/performance > >Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you >want a chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum >page for it, just ask. > >And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can. > > >Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks. > > > > >Kieren > > >Kieren McCarthy >General manager of public participation, ICANN > >kieren.mccarthy at icann.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 Sun May 13 21:28:16 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:28:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4647BB30.3010400@cavebear.com> Veni Markovski wrote: Your comments prove my point - that mechanisms of openness, transparency, and accountability must be built into institutions of internet governance at the genetic foundation level else they will be excused, avoided, vitiated, and replaced with placebo substitutes. You continue to assert that ICANN has changed. OK, let's hold a real election to see what the internet community says. What would be more demonstrative that a body of internet governance is responsive to ask the opinion of those for whom that body is intended to serve? I am not afraid to put that question before the community of internet users. Indeed, it would be a good principle of internet governance to require every such body to demonstrate, by a concrete question posed to the internet community, that the body has continued reason to exist. I would suggest that in ICANN's case the outcome, outside the circles of trademark lawyers and registry owners, would be most uncertain. On another point: You have never even tried to explain why ICANN has chosen to hide, much less is justified in hiding, an official written communication made by a sitting director to the full board made during a public meeting. Do you believe that bodies of internet governance should be empowered to manipulate their histories and official documents? To continue: >> Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its >> committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the public. ... > Karl, four points here: > a) Would you agree that some people, who are non-native English speakers > may have problems having their words recorded? A famous line in US politics is "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." If a person on ICANN's board or committee can not make decisions in a manner which allows the internet community to observe, to provide input, to provide corrective guidance, and ultimately be called to account, then that person should immediately resign. Your arguments for secrecy in ICANN remind me of the claims of my own President when he locks people up in foreign jails for indeterminate period and without even the protections the civilized world began to accept in the year 1215. You wrote: > I don't see anything amusing going always into your case against ICANN. > This happened long time ago, and one of the signs ICANN has changed is, > that the next directors didn't have the problems you've had. Why am I often making negative comments on ICANN? The reason is that there is so much about ICANN that is worthy of negative comment. Those negative matters have existed, and even gotten worse, during the 9 years of ICANN's existence. Today is mother's day - so let's use that as a context for an example: Suppose a mother were to tell her child that it is bad to run with scissors? Do you think that the child should turn on her, rejecting her advice, and assailing her intent on the grounds that such advice was given to children in prior days and is thus inappropriate? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun May 13 21:27:33 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:27:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG Message-ID: Great, Parminder! []s fraternos --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "Parminder" To: Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:24:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG > > The co-coordinators are convinced that the proposed document of input > by IGC > for the open consultations for discussing the agenda for IGF, Rio, on > the > 23rd has the consensus of this group behind it. Also, that there is a > rough > consensus to change the heading 2 in the document to ' Core Internet > Resources and their Current Governance Institutions'. > > The enclosed document will therefore be sent to the IGF secretariat > on the > behalf of IGC in 3 hours from now. We thank all those who have > contributed > to, and commented on, this document. > > Meanwhile it is important that we lobby using this input document > with all > MAG members that we know, as well as with others whose opinions will > have > weight at the consultations - important individuals, governments etc. > > I propose that we email this doc to all MAG members and others who we > know > will/ may attend the open consultation. > > 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 karl at cavebear.com Sun May 13 21:41:02 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:41:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4647BE2E.7070109@cavebear.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > At 16:44 5/13/2007 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >> Lest anyone think this sort of openness is idealistic or impossible, >> let me assure you that the state of Florida -- and every single >> regional and local governmental entity -- operates under rules of >> near-total transparency under the "Sunshine" provisions of the state >> constitution. It is an existence proof of concept. > So, let's see if you will put that into language that can be used to > contribute to ICANN. > I am sure that if you suggest it, with enough arguments, and if all > directors agree, and if money is put into the budget, this can be make > possible. Of course, needless to say, current directors, who have agreed > to serve without being e*avesdropped*, should all agree to that. You require concrete language? OK. Here's the concrete language that I wrote in year 2003 that you reject out of hand. Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, litigation (or potential litigation), and contract negotiations may be discussed off the audio record. How much will it cost? Nothing. There have been offers by serious members of the community to do this on a gratis basis. How much would it cost were ICANN to use one of its own staff members to do it? Perhaps $500 one time cost for equipment plus a few cents per century to store it onto the ICANN website. As far as "evesdropping" goes - that is a ridiculous argument. It is an argument that would justify utter secrecy in any and all bodies of governance. As I said previously, if any board member of ICANN, or any other body of internet governance is afraid of having the community hear what that person is doing in their name, then that person should resign and open the way for someone who is willing to do the job. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sun May 13 21:50:38 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:50:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <4647BB30.3010400@cavebear.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <4647BB30.3010400@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070514015127.8286D337622@mxr.isoc.bg> At 18:28 5/13/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Your comments prove my point - that mechanisms of openness, >transparency, and accountability must be built into institutions of >internet governance at the genetic foundation level else they will >be excused, avoided, vitiated, and replaced with placebo substitutes. But that's a good example of what you could do - right? Instead of writing in this list, go ahead, suggest it to the public. Make your contribution known, by publishing it within the current process. Is this process good? Perhaps it could be better? Is it timely? Perhaps some would disagree. But can you contribute? Yes, you can. >You continue to assert that ICANN has changed. OK, let's hold a >real election to see what the internet community says. Again - make this as part of your proposals. I am just one of the members of this community, and chair of ISOC-Bulgaria. I do what I have to in my own country to change things positively. I don't keep on complaining about the things that don't change, regardless of my desire - I just try to make my case, and persuade the others that I am right. But I don't do that by starting from 1999, when I was suing the Bulgarian government against the licensing of the Internet Service Providers, regardless of the fact that this was the first ever such a case in my country, and regardless of the fact that we won (see http://www.isoc.bg/kpd for more). This is just history, and I don't read it every day to see how right I was. >On another point: You have never even tried to explain why ICANN has >chosen to hide, much less is justified in hiding, an official >written communication made by a sitting director to the full board >made during a public meeting. I don't think I should try to explain why ICANN has or has not done something. I've read your statements, I've talked to you on a number of occasions. I believe I am informed about many things, and I think anyone could be as informed as I am. >Do you believe that bodies of internet governance should be >empowered to manipulate their histories and official documents? I don't believe the transcript of a hearing is manipulated. >To continue: > >>>Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its >>>committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the public. ... > >>Karl, four points here: >>a) Would you agree that some people, who are non-native English >>speakers may have problems having their words recorded? > >A famous line in US politics is "If you can't take the heat, get out >of the kitchen." > >If a person on ICANN's board or committee can not make decisions in >a manner which allows the internet community to observe, to provide >input, to provide corrective guidance, and ultimately be called to >account, then that person should immediately resign. Karl, this is funny. You are not a non-native English speaker. I believe you and I share same background - law, but went into other type of businesses. But that alone is not enough for you to understand how I'd feel (although I believe that I speak relatively good English, for a foreigner). When I have chosen to be part of the ICANN Board, I agreed on certain terms. They did not include having every word of mine recorded. I am not a politician, or a member of the Parliament, to be looking for public performance, or rating, so that I'd love to have everything I say on the record. Besides, some of my jokes may have ground in a face, or a gesture, which you can't see in an audio-recording. So, it would be strange. As for the famous lines in the US politics - I really don't care that much about the US politics and what their "famous" lines are. I come from a country, which has written history records of about 2500 years, and famous lines like "If you are afraid of bears, don't go in the forest". Note, this is way before there were US politicians. But then, people knew beforehand what's to be expected in the forest. And if I've joined a board with minutes, then I've joined a board with minutes, not with audio-recording. And if I've felt that I am breaking the by-laws, or my moral standards, I would have resigned immediately. I have done so in some other organizations, by the way. >Your arguments for secrecy in ICANN remind me of the claims of my >own President when he locks people up in foreign jails for >indeterminate period and without even the protections the civilized >world began to accept in the year 1215. Karl, I don't know your President, I don't vote for your President, and actually if I have to comment on that, he is your responsibility, not mine. So, if he reminds ME of something, that is that your elected him. >You wrote: > >>I don't see anything amusing going always into your case against >>ICANN. This happened long time ago, and one of the signs ICANN has >>changed is, that the next directors didn't have the problems you've had. > >Why am I often making negative comments on ICANN? The reason is >that there is so much about ICANN that is worthy of negative >comment. Those negative matters have existed, and even gotten >worse, during the 9 years of ICANN's existence. Well, that's your opinion. Mine is different. But then, I didn't sue the organization, and every time when I was on the Board I needed something from the staff, they would deliver it. May be because I knew how to ask, without necessarily going to court :-) >Today is mother's day - so let's use that as a context for an >example: Suppose a mother were to tell her child that it is bad to >run with scissors? Do you think that the child should turn on her, >rejecting her advice, and assailing her intent on the grounds that >such advice was given to children in prior days and is thus inappropriate? So, shall we call you "Mom"? Or ICANN is your child ;) I guess you understand that I'd prefer to focus on something more positive - e.g. I've noted already several things, which you could suggest to ICANN. But just stating something doesn't make it true. If you can put aside your own bad memories from ICANN, I am sure you could contribute much more positively. And that doesn't mean that you have to say "ICANN is great!", but rather that you may say, "I think this could be better - here's how". best, Veni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Sun May 13 22:00:28 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:00:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <4647BE2E.7070109@cavebear.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <4647BE2E.7070109@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070514020025.B2B05337622@mxr.isoc.bg> At 18:41 5/13/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its >committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the >public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision >that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio >recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, litigation >(or potential litigation), and contract negotiations may be >discussed off the audio record. So, this is really funny. The fact that I'd disagree with you on that makes you believe I am wrong. But that doesn't change anything. What you need to do, is to suggest it as a change in the bylaws, and see if this will happen. If it happens, from now on every director would know their words will be recorded. And you will be hearing much more of the native-English speakers speaking at the Board meetings - that's for sure. I've talked to many of my former colleagues; if they don't feel comfortable, they would stay quiet. Then we will all wonder why X voted that way, since he/she didn't express any opinion on the audio-recording. >As far as "evesdropping" goes - that is a ridiculous argument. It >is an argument that would justify utter secrecy in any and all >bodies of governance. As I said previously, if any board member of >ICANN, or any other body of internet governance is afraid of having >the community hear what that person is doing in their name, then >that person should resign and open the way for someone who is >willing to do the job. ... and as I said also previously, you shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game, and say, "well, it was soccer, but now it's football" (to use some American English). Have you been eavesdropped for 14 years of your life? Have the secret service of the US Treasury written reports about every move of yours? Have you been forbidden to travel abroad (which reminds me - what is your international experience, as I couldn't find on your web anything on that; I am not trying to be mean - I just want to know how well you know East Europe/Russia for example). Can you speak based on experience, or you just have some knowledge from reading the US media and books? I'd agree with you, if you've actually seen in your file your neighbour spying on what you said, or when you've travelled abroad, and have made an innocent statement, to see it reported back to the Secret Service, with potential danger for your freedom. Etc, etc. When you say that my argument is ridiculous - please, make your case better, than just sayin something, which you've stated before, which - by the way, has already been addressed by me. 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun May 13 22:00:36 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 19:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Message-ID: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Preposterous is the first thought that comes from this idea, that of audio recording all board meetings and making them available to the public. How many companies and organisations around the world do this? I can only imagine the number that do it for all meetings would be negligible. I'm all for transparency and accountability, but I don't see why this should be expected. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Karl Auerbach Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Monday, 14 May, 2007 11:41:02 AM Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Veni Markovski wrote: > At 16:44 5/13/2007 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >> Lest anyone think this sort of openness is idealistic or impossible, >> let me assure you that the state of Florida -- and every single >> regional and local governmental entity -- operates under rules of >> near-total transparency under the "Sunshine" provisions of the state >> constitution. It is an existence proof of concept. > So, let's see if you will put that into language that can be used to > contribute to ICANN. > I am sure that if you suggest it, with enough arguments, and if all > directors agree, and if money is put into the budget, this can be make > possible. Of course, needless to say, current directors, who have agreed > to serve without being e*avesdropped*, should all agree to that. You require concrete language? OK. Here's the concrete language that I wrote in year 2003 that you reject out of hand. Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, litigation (or potential litigation), and contract negotiations may be discussed off the audio record. How much will it cost? Nothing. There have been offers by serious members of the community to do this on a gratis basis. How much would it cost were ICANN to use one of its own staff members to do it? Perhaps $500 one time cost for equipment plus a few cents per century to store it onto the ICANN website. As far as "evesdropping" goes - that is a ridiculous argument. It is an argument that would justify utter secrecy in any and all bodies of governance. As I said previously, if any board member of ICANN, or any other body of internet governance is afraid of having the community hear what that person is doing in their name, then that person should resign and open the way for someone who is willing to do the job. --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 Switch to Yahoo!7 Mail: Transfer all your contacts and emails from Hotmail and other providers to Yahoo!7 Mail. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/trueswitch_info.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 veni at veni.com Sun May 13 22:09:42 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:09:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070514020938.624C4337622@mxr.isoc.bg> At 19:00 5/13/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Preposterous is the first thought that comes from this idea, that of >audio recording all board meetings and making them available to the >public. How many companies and organisations around the world do >this? I can only imagine the number that do it for all meetings >would be negligible. > >I'm all for transparency and accountability, but I don't see why >this should be expected. You don't? But it's obvious: because that's one of the about 400 ways to keep ICANN off its mission, and distract the public opinion in the wrong direction. We have a saying in Bulgaria, "Let me say publicly that your sister is a bad person, and then try to explain that you don't have a sister at all". So, when people say that ICANN is not transparent, they say, "You see - they don't even record their meetings - something which costs nothing, and we have even volunteers to do that". And somebody may not even ask the question you are asking, but think, "Hmmm... right - why don't they?" 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Sun May 13 22:22:35 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:22:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Alas, the language is already there. You just chose not to implement it. On Sun, 13 May 2007, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 16:44 5/13/2007 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >> Lest anyone think this sort of openness is idealistic or impossible, let me >> assure you that the state of Florida -- and every single regional and local >> governmental entity -- operates under rules of near-total transparency >> under the "Sunshine" provisions of the state constitution. It is an >> existence proof of concept. >> >> Our law does not even allow three elected members to discuss business over >> lunch in a private meeting. That may be going too far, but what Karl >> suggests about transparency is certainly possible. > > So, let's see if you will put that into language that can be used to > contribute to ICANN. > I am sure that if you suggest it, with enough arguments, and if all directors > agree, and if money is put into the budget, this can be make possible. Of > course, needless to say, current directors, who have agreed to serve without > being eavesdropped, should all agree to that. > > veni -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sun May 13 22:47:06 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:17:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514020938.624C4337622@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070514024710.AA74C5CCF@smtp2.electricembers.net> "it's obvious: because that's one of the about 400 ways to keep ICANN off its mission, and distract the public opinion in the wrong direction" Attributing motives is a zero sum game. For any person or institution interested in improving, willingness to listen to criticism is indispensable requirement. Labelling critical comments or the people who gave them indicate a closed mind. This is even more applicable to the 'general manager of public participation' of a global governance institution. My first response to Kieren related to the tenor of his communication and not to his intentions (I do understand and acknowledge his intention to get feedback for improvement as valid and genuine). His response immediately was to label my mail as personal abuse! The series of your mails insisting on a particular format in which we should give feedback and defending icann against several indicting comments, as also Kierens response to Mike Gurstein on persisting with a flawed process of consultation suggest that this RFC process is indeed a "placebo substitute". Veni, Kieren .... I echo Karl ... "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". ******* My own response to David would be- Icann claims to be a global governance institution. The accountability standards that need to apply to any such 'public institution' cant be compared to private sector corporate accountability. The stakeholders for a private entity are likely to be much smaller and then again in most cases, the accountability would tend to be for making 'economic surplus' (profit). Private institutions follow the law, while public institutions also make law/policy and therefore need to be following (and seen to be following) much higher standards of probity and transparency. A public institution accountability is wider in both scope (many more objectives) and extent (number of stakeholders and people). Icann is accountable to the internet community as a technical manager of the internet. In its widest (and usually appropriate) meaning, the internet community is every person in this world. The idea of audio recording is a good way to help icann demonstrate transparency in its internal oversight. ******* To go back to Kierens response to Mike Gurstein - "....I have just made myself directly accountable. Take me up on it." I admire this cowboy spirit, but am doubtful if it this is the brick with which we want to build the global governance processes with. -----Original Message----- From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:40 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance At 19:00 5/13/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Preposterous is the first thought that comes from this idea, that of >audio recording all board meetings and making them available to the >public. How many companies and organisations around the world do this? >I can only imagine the number that do it for all meetings would be >negligible. > >I'm all for transparency and accountability, but I don't see why this >should be expected. You don't? But it's obvious: because that's one of the about 400 ways to keep ICANN off its mission, and distract the public opinion in the wrong direction. We have a saying in Bulgaria, "Let me say publicly that your sister is a bad person, and then try to explain that you don't have a sister at all". So, when people say that ICANN is not transparent, they say, "You see - they don't even record their meetings - something which costs nothing, and we have even volunteers to do that". And somebody may not even ask the question you are asking, but think, "Hmmm... right - why don't they?" veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon May 14 01:51:19 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:51:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> hi, Just repsoning to the idea of the recording of board meetings. On 14 maj 2007, at 00.43, Veni Markovski wrote: > >> Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its >> committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the >> public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision >> that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio >> recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, >> litigation (or potential litigation), and contract negotiations >> may be discussed off the audio record. I am answering this as a member of the ICANN GNSO Council were every word we say is record and most are transcribed. And where all the mailing lists except for the one that sends out notifications of the phone numbers and codes to use for phone calls is archived and open to all to read. > > Karl, four points here: > a) Would you agree that some people, who are non-native English > speakers may have problems having their words recorded? That is the case in the GNSO. I think all people have trouble knowing their words are recorded to some extent, but you get used to it. There are those who are not 'english as a first language' speakers in the group. And it is hard to say who has more trouble making themselves understood, some of us who speak native English circuitously with awkward phrasing and slang or some ESL speakers who speak clearly with erudition. > b) Do you think that with 15 people from 10 countries, from > different cultures, etc., if something bad was happening, it will > remain unnoticed? Because if you do believe that, then you think > the constantyl-changing-board is some kind of a secret group, which > discusses something behind hidden doors, in hiding, or working in > deep under cover. Well it is noticed, but it is noticed in the form of rumor and hearsay. And is not sometimes noticed in a timely manner. From my experience, there are some people who listen to all recordings and read all of the GNSO transcripts, and I often get email with opinions, opinions that are often helpful, within days and sometimes hours of one of my errant utterances or a question i speculate about. Being as open as we can be allows people to comment on things currently under discussion. and this is helpful, not only for transparency' sake but for getting the work done. > c) I was personally against audio-recroding, and I am happy that > today there are detailed minutes. Wouldn't you agree that the > minutes today are different from the ones earlier? Minutes are certainly useful, but minutes are fragmentary and, from my experience in other groups, are often severely redacted. I don't know if that is the case with the ICANN board. > d) Unlike you, I've lived in a state, where not only all mine, my > father's and grandfather's meetings were audio-recorded. Actually > since 1975, after my father's death in a car accident, also all > our phone calls were recorded, and my grandfather was followed 24 > hrs/day by a body guard, who was reporting every move of his. I > don't want this to happen to any director in the 21st century, at > least not against her or his will. If they all agree - fine, but if > even one feels monitored, and it is not in the by-laws, so that > they would have know beforehand about this requirement, then I am > for their free will, not yours. Sorry. I knew coming into the GNSO that is was all recorded. Nobody made me accept it. And if I was uncomfortable with it, I could leave the council and no longer have any of my words recorded by ICANN. I don't think the comparison of the GNSO recording my meeting words is on a par with governments recording my words surreptitiously. (I don't think anyone is following me about 24/7, but then again I am only on the council not the board) Having lived under a regime of recorded phone calls for 2 years now, I have to state that I think it is a good thing and now advocate it for every group I am involved with. I think it would be a good thing if the ICANN board were to reconsider it and were to take the GSNO council experience into account. It may seem very scary at first, but the sky does not fall in. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Mon May 14 02:41:41 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 23:41:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> David Goldstein wrote: Thanks for the breath of fresh air and a real question. > Preposterous is the first thought that comes from this idea, that of > audio recording all board meetings and making them available to the > public. How many companies and organisations around the world do > this? I can only imagine the number that do it for all meetings would > be negligible. In this post Sarbanes-Oxley era, it may be more than we think. However, you do ask a good question, which I would paraphrase as "how much openness to we need to require of institutions of internet governance?" My answer is based not on what would occur should an instition of internet governance be staffed by angels but rather on what could occur if it were staffed and run by people, a rather more fallible species. Institutions of internet governance are institutions into which the collective "we" are going to be investing a degree of authority. We use the word "governance" to express the fact that this kind of delegation of power is being made. I think we all agree that that authority needs to be exercised with intelligence and discretion and for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries. But how does the collective "we" obtain confidence that the authority is exercised in the desired way and not used to enhance other interests? The answer is that "we" need to be able to know how decisions are being made, on what information, with what assumptions, with what criteria, and with what weights. Otherwise we can not perceive whether the governance body is acting with wisdom or folly. Moreover, "we" need to know who is making those decisions, else corrective measures can not be applied. If we do not create, at the outset, clear standards of public discourse on the part of decision makers then we run a great risk that the body of governance will slam the doors, shutter the windows, and raise the drawbridge. We have all, I trust, observed how easily even the slightest exception to open and transparent behavior can, and often will be, utilized. Sometimes we like to say that private companies are not required to operate in public. That's true. But in those cases there is a very clear path of accountability - the shareholders can kick the board members out at the next election or, in some cases, recall them. And given the degree of closure, it is often necessary to remove all of them rather than retain the good and eject only the ill. In institutions of public governance, particularly those on the ICANN model, there is no clear path of accountability. ICANN explicitly tried to distance itself from the idea that it could be held accountable by the community of internet users. And with the ALAC and "nominating committee" a tremendous barrier has been placed between the public who is affected by ICANN and those who make ICANN's decisions. In other words, right now the only bodies that has the authority to inquire into ICANN's behaviour and hold ICANN accountable is the California Attorney General and the California Secretary of State. Is that a model we wish to adopt for internet governance? Or would it be better to simply audio-record every meeting and make those recordings available to the public? I would suggest that the level of discourse that you and I are having has already exceeded anything that has every occurred on the ICANN board on this question. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon May 14 07:01:40 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:01:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513110700.1495BC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110700.1495BC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <096901c79617$5d95efb0$18c1cf10$@com> I read Karl's report, and yes, it was quite distressing. And ICANN has undergone quite a lot of reform, which is ongoing, apparently. But I don't see the same issues now, in 2007. It would be really useful if it could be updated, to see what has changed and what is still to change. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 7:07 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Amazing. In any other case, such a report from a member of the board should have led to the liquidation of that organization. Or at least large scale restructuring / reform. I hope Kieren will take in these recommendations. Guru -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:27 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Kieren McCarthy wrote: > ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since > this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should > review it and get involved. Why? Let me point out one such written evaluation of ICANN's performance which also contains several concrete recommendations. It is an official ICANN communication from a sitting board member of ICANN to the entire board of directors delivered during a public meeting of that board. ICANN has never bothered to publish it despite a routine practice of publishing similar materials. http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/icann-evaluation-public-version.pdf That evaluation is as valid now as it was when published. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/797 - Release Date: 5/10/2007 5:10 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 5/13/2007 12:17 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 veni at veni.com Mon May 14 07:03:07 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:03:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070514110510.469432BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 22:22 5/13/2007 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >Alas, the language is already there. You just chose not to implement it. Michael, surely Karl could have put this on the Board agenda, when he was there. Did he? What was the outcome of the vote? veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 07:05:29 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:05:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514024710.AA74C5CCF@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070514020938.624C4337622@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514024710.AA74C5CCF@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070514111010.6C3392BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 08:17 5/14/2007 +0530, Guru at ITfC wrote: >Veni, Kieren .... I echo Karl ... "If you can't take the heat, get out of >the kitchen". [c:\]echo ECHO is OFF veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 07:08:48 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:08:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070514111011.8C0D12BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> At 07:51 5/14/2007 +0200, you wrote: >I knew coming into the GNSO that is was all recorded. Nobody made me >accept it. And if I was uncomfortable with it, I could leave the >council and no longer have any of my words recorded by ICANN. Exactly my point. Thanks for making it clear how it is within the GNSO. If this becomes a policy on the Board level, then of course, future directors will know it. 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon May 14 07:24:12 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:24:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> Message-ID: <096a01c7961a$767eb540$637c1fc0$@com> Hi Avri It's the same with the ALAC - all meetings are recorded, transcripts and recordings are posted on the website as well as minutes. Mailing lists are public - the ALAC lives its life in public. Sometimes it is a bit uncomfortable (especially in a long meeting, sometimes it's embarrassing to hear after a couple of hours!) But it was clear in advance of signing up. Maybe the Board can take this up as a suggestion, and then all new Board members will sign on. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:51 AM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance hi, Just repsoning to the idea of the recording of board meetings. On 14 maj 2007, at 00.43, Veni Markovski wrote: > >> Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its >> committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the >> public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision >> that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio >> recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, >> litigation (or potential litigation), and contract negotiations >> may be discussed off the audio record. I am answering this as a member of the ICANN GNSO Council were every word we say is record and most are transcribed. And where all the mailing lists except for the one that sends out notifications of the phone numbers and codes to use for phone calls is archived and open to all to read. > > Karl, four points here: > a) Would you agree that some people, who are non-native English > speakers may have problems having their words recorded? That is the case in the GNSO. I think all people have trouble knowing their words are recorded to some extent, but you get used to it. There are those who are not 'english as a first language' speakers in the group. And it is hard to say who has more trouble making themselves understood, some of us who speak native English circuitously with awkward phrasing and slang or some ESL speakers who speak clearly with erudition. > b) Do you think that with 15 people from 10 countries, from > different cultures, etc., if something bad was happening, it will > remain unnoticed? Because if you do believe that, then you think > the constantyl-changing-board is some kind of a secret group, which > discusses something behind hidden doors, in hiding, or working in > deep under cover. Well it is noticed, but it is noticed in the form of rumor and hearsay. And is not sometimes noticed in a timely manner. From my experience, there are some people who listen to all recordings and read all of the GNSO transcripts, and I often get email with opinions, opinions that are often helpful, within days and sometimes hours of one of my errant utterances or a question i speculate about. Being as open as we can be allows people to comment on things currently under discussion. and this is helpful, not only for transparency' sake but for getting the work done. > c) I was personally against audio-recroding, and I am happy that > today there are detailed minutes. Wouldn't you agree that the > minutes today are different from the ones earlier? Minutes are certainly useful, but minutes are fragmentary and, from my experience in other groups, are often severely redacted. I don't know if that is the case with the ICANN board. > d) Unlike you, I've lived in a state, where not only all mine, my > father's and grandfather's meetings were audio-recorded. Actually > since 1975, after my father's death in a car accident, also all > our phone calls were recorded, and my grandfather was followed 24 > hrs/day by a body guard, who was reporting every move of his. I > don't want this to happen to any director in the 21st century, at > least not against her or his will. If they all agree - fine, but if > even one feels monitored, and it is not in the by-laws, so that > they would have know beforehand about this requirement, then I am > for their free will, not yours. Sorry. I knew coming into the GNSO that is was all recorded. Nobody made me accept it. And if I was uncomfortable with it, I could leave the council and no longer have any of my words recorded by ICANN. I don't think the comparison of the GNSO recording my meeting words is on a par with governments recording my words surreptitiously. (I don't think anyone is following me about 24/7, but then again I am only on the council not the board) Having lived under a regime of recorded phone calls for 2 years now, I have to state that I think it is a good thing and now advocate it for every group I am involved with. I think it would be a good thing if the ICANN board were to reconsider it and were to take the GSNO council experience into account. It may seem very scary at first, but the sky does not fall in. 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 5/13/2007 12:17 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 5/13/2007 12:17 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 veni at veni.com Mon May 14 07:10:25 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:10:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> At 23:41 5/13/2007 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >David Goldstein wrote: > >Thanks for the breath of fresh air and a real question. Actually, the real question was put by Kieren, then followed all the shots in the dark, to make his appeal disappera, and be replaced with a discussion about recording meetings. And, in the meantime, get me being chased down for not agreeing with your proposal ;-) 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon May 14 08:17:43 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:17:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> Message-ID: CGI.br, the Brazilian organization running ".br", a pluralist (multistakeholder) organization, records all of its board meetings, which are available for public scrutiny. The board includes a balanced representation of government, NGOs, private sector and academia (non-governmental members are elected by their peers in a direct online election). None of us, board members, have found this contrary to nature, reason, or common sense (aka "preposterous"). --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria To: Governance Caucus Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:51:19 +0200 Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance > hi, > > Just repsoning to the idea of the recording of board meetings. > > On 14 maj 2007, at 00.43, Veni Markovski wrote: > > > > >> Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its > >> committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the > >> public. No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision > > >> that a particular matter should be discussed off the audio > >> recording. Only matters pertaining to personnel matters, > >> litigation (or potential litigation), and contract negotiations > >> may be discussed off the audio record. > > I am answering this as a member of the ICANN GNSO Council were every > word we say is record and most are transcribed. And where all the > mailing lists except for the one that sends out notifications of the > phone numbers and codes to use for phone calls is archived and open > to all to read. > > > > > > Karl, four points here: > > a) Would you agree that some people, who are non-native English > > speakers may have problems having their words recorded? > > That is the case in the GNSO. I think all people have trouble > knowing their words are recorded to some extent, but you get used to > it. There are those who are not 'english as a first language' > speakers in the group. And it is hard to say who has more trouble > making themselves understood, some of us who speak native English > circuitously with awkward phrasing and slang or some ESL speakers who > > speak clearly with erudition. > > > > b) Do you think that with 15 people from 10 countries, from > > different cultures, etc., if something bad was happening, it will > > remain unnoticed? Because if you do believe that, then you think > > the constantyl-changing-board is some kind of a secret group, which > > > discusses something behind hidden doors, in hiding, or working in > > deep under cover. > > Well it is noticed, but it is noticed in the form of rumor and > hearsay. And is not sometimes noticed in a timely manner. > > From my experience, there are some people who listen to all > recordings and read all of the GNSO transcripts, and I often get > email with opinions, opinions that are often helpful, within days and > > sometimes hours of one of my errant utterances or a question i > speculate about. Being as open as we can be allows people to comment > > on things currently under discussion. and this is helpful, not only > for transparency' sake but for getting the work done. > > > c) I was personally against audio-recroding, and I am happy that > > today there are detailed minutes. Wouldn't you agree that the > > minutes today are different from the ones earlier? > > Minutes are certainly useful, but minutes are fragmentary and, from > my experience in other groups, are often severely redacted. I don't > > know if that is the case with the ICANN board. > > > d) Unlike you, I've lived in a state, where not only all mine, my > > father's and grandfather's meetings were audio-recorded. Actually > > since 1975, after my father's death in a car accident, also all > > our phone calls were recorded, and my grandfather was followed 24 > > hrs/day by a body guard, who was reporting every move of his. I > > don't want this to happen to any director in the 21st century, at > > least not against her or his will. If they all agree - fine, but if > > > even one feels monitored, and it is not in the by-laws, so that > > they would have know beforehand about this requirement, then I am > > for their free will, not yours. Sorry. > > I knew coming into the GNSO that is was all recorded. Nobody made me > > accept it. And if I was uncomfortable with it, I could leave the > council and no longer have any of my words recorded by ICANN. I don't > > think the comparison of the GNSO recording my meeting words is on a > par with governments recording my words surreptitiously. (I don't > think anyone is following me about 24/7, but then again I am only on > the council not the board) > > Having lived under a regime of recorded phone calls for 2 years now, > I have to state that I think it is a good thing and now advocate it > for every group I am involved with. I think it would be a good thing > > if the ICANN board were to reconsider it and were to take the GSNO > council experience into account. It may seem very scary at first, > but the sky does not fall in. > > 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 veni at veni.com Mon May 14 08:39:20 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:39:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Good. Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. So far at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ there's nothing about it. Or, in other words, whoever raised that topic, is not interested in real progress, but just in having something to say against....argl... about ICANN. veni At 09:17 5/14/2007 -0300, you wrote: >CGI.br, the Brazilian organization running ".br", a pluralist >(multistakeholder) organization, records all of its board meetings, >which are available for public scrutiny. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon May 14 08:46:51 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:46:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070514124651.GA9119@nic.fr> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:39:20AM -0400, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 22 lines which said: > Good. Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the > courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. So far at > http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ I know that ICANN people have a thick head so let me repeat what Norbert already said: people have other things to do and must prioritize. There is little evidence (and, indeed, many counter-evidence, for instance from McCarthy and Markovski's postings) that spending time writing detailed responses to ICANN is wasting time. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Mon May 14 08:51:07 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr.Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:51:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: The recent discussion seems to be focusing on Q1 of the RFC. Let me review the question and try to summarize the variety of comments that have come in so far... http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm Q1 . Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? The recent discussion seems to imply that many believe that ICANN should follow best practices used by public government agencies and not private organizations. As a public organization, more could be done to make ICANN more transparent, accessible and accountable. In terms of an improvement , several members of list recommend that board should implement the same policy as the GNSO and ALAC in regards to taping its discussions. However, some believe that though greater openness and transparency is needed, taping the board discussions go too far. What's left to answer , i guess, is how the organization has lived up to the commitments, resolutions and/or benchmarks it might have set for itself in the past. A complex question to answer, as one would have to comb through years of statements, press statements and board resolutions. Though knowing the expertise present on this list - likely that has been done already. The question - how to best compile the statements and see if indeed " improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?". A suggestion - could a table of sorts be developed on icannwiki and presented at the upcoming ICANN meeting? Other questions are also mentioned in the RFC. they are below. Given most list members went through the WSIS process, I am personally curious if anyone cares to comment on Q 4&5. That being said, of course comments on the other questions are most welcome as well ... regards, Robert --- http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm Request for Public Comments and Dialogue on ICANN's Performance Q2. Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? Q3. Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? Q4. Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? Q5. Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? Q6. What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? Q7. What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Refs of interest... 1. Transparency - Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency 2. Public Consultation - Best Practices, a collection http://del.icio.us/rguerra/consultation 3. CIRA's Response to ICANN's Request for Public Comments (May 11, 07) http://cira.ca/en/home.html 4. OECD best practices for conducting consultations http://www.oecd.org/document/ 40/0,2340,en_2649_34495_37539752_1_1_1_1,00.html Note: Section 5.0 reads - Allow adequate time for responses. Allow 8 to 12 weeks for responses – and, just as importantly, allow enough time between the end of the consultation and the formal discussion of the results to distil the responses and summarise them in a way that is can easily comprehensible. Where a consultation takes place over a holiday, remember to allow extra response time (up to an additional four weeks). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 14 08:54:35 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:54:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Veni, Looking at my trash folder from today, I see 13 messages from you. If you could perhaps aggregate some of your 1-2 sentence remonstrations to all the many people you feel deserve them into fewer and larger messages it would make the deletion process less time consuming for the 300+ people on the list. Thanks, Bill On 5/14/07 2:39 PM, "Veni Markovski" wrote: > Good. Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the > courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. > So far at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ there's > nothing about it. Or, in other words, whoever raised that topic, is > not interested in real progress, but just in having something to say > against....argl... about ICANN. > > veni > > At 09:17 5/14/2007 -0300, you wrote: >> CGI.br, the Brazilian organization running ".br", a pluralist >> (multistakeholder) organization, records all of its board meetings, >> which are available for public scrutiny. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon May 14 08:58:41 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:58:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Veni: Two paragraphs in CIRA's comments to the RFC might explain why key actors involved in IG and ICANN discussions don't seem to be responding as you believe they should... http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.html [snipped] * The Request for Public Comments does not include any background documentation or previously developed materials. The questions themselves are overly broad: the scope and responses to any of which could constitute a demanding consultation in their own right; and * Inadequate time is permitted for responses. Given the short 30 day response period, it is unreasonable to expect respondents will have the sufficient time to research and prepare detailed responses to the complex, open-ended questions posed by the consultation. regards, Robert On 14-May-07, at 8:39 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > Good. Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the > courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. > So far at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ there's > nothing about it. Or, in other words, whoever raised that topic, is > not interested in real progress, but just in having something to > say against....argl... about ICANN. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 08:54:56 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:54:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514124651.GA9119@nic.fr> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514124651.GA9119@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070514125916.481D6334549@mxr.isoc.bg> At 14:46 5/14/2007 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >Norbert already said: people have other things to do and must >prioritize. Really? They have the time to write in the mailing list, without expecting anything to happen, except to prove how well they know the history, but they don't have half of that time, or even less, to write the very same thing, and submit it through the proper channels. Perhaps you are right - obviously I have a thick head, and can not understand this. But here's a good example of what I was talking about non-native English speakers. What you said above contradicts with this: >There is little evidence (and, indeed, many >counter-evidence, for instance from McCarthy and Markovski's postings) >that spending time writing detailed responses to ICANN is wasting >time. Because what you say is, to put it in the positive way, that there's a lot of evidence that spending time writing detailed response to ICANN is not wasting time. I can only imagine how, if you are on the Board, with audio-recording, this could be interpreted by a lawyer, who may use this in a case. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 09:07:09 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:07:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070514130912.AABCC33460A@mxr.isoc.bg> At 08:51 5/14/2007 -0400, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > Allow 8 to 12 weeks for responses ╜ and, just as importantly, >allow enough time between the end of the consultation and the formal >discussion of the results to distil the responses and summarise them >in a way that is can easily comprehensible. Where a consultation >takes place over a holiday, remember to allow extra response time (up >to an additional four weeks). btw, Robert, that would be a good point to talk about the IGC, too. Because, if ICANN is to accept the OECD rules for discussions, that should be valid for the constituencies, as well, including this group. Let's also not forget that the OECD members include only some countries, and it's probably not by accident. It's also good to point, that within ICANN there's at least the GAC, that takes decisions only when they meet, not by e-mail. And I don't see any suggestions from the IGC for audio-recording the GAC meetings. I wonder why? Is it because, if the IGC tells the GAC what to do, the GAC might tell the IGC where to go? As for the timeline... We work mainly online. We for sure could discuss something within a month. The very fact how many people spent time on this list to write down things, which are irelevant for the RFC, but very relevant to prove that I am not right, is a sign that clearly people have time. I don't understand why the same people, who spend so much time in sending thoughts about life, universe, and everything else, can not and would not send their contribution to an RFC. After all, they almost do that in this list. 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon May 14 09:15:06 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:15:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514124651.GA9119@nic.fr> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514124651.GA9119@nic.fr> Message-ID: <097701c7962a$02ebd030$08c37090$@com> Hi Stephane I don't think it's fair or polite to characterize "ICANN people" as having "thick heads". You can say that some people on this list are difficult to get your point through to, but being insulting and tarring hundreds of people (staff and volunteers) with the same brush is highly unfair. Loads of ICANN people are understanding, open-minded and genuinely want to make things better. Some are not. Like everywhere. The people and the organization are different entities. Criticize and insult the organization all you want, but why do this to all the people? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:47 AM To: Veni Markovski Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN RFC on its performance On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:39:20AM -0400, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 22 lines which said: > Good. Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the > courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. So far at > http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ I know that ICANN people have a thick head so let me repeat what Norbert already said: people have other things to do and must prioritize. There is little evidence (and, indeed, many counter-evidence, for instance from McCarthy and Markovski's postings) that spending time writing detailed responses to ICANN is wasting time. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 5/13/2007 12:17 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 5/13/2007 12:17 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Mon May 14 09:15:34 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:15:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN is holding a request for comments on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <00af01c79629$f5e1f400$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I am very encouraged to see such interest shown in ICANN's processes. I fear that amid the many comments though, the most important element may have been missed, so this a quick notice to let people know that ICANN has posted a request for comments on its performance. The RFC comprises a series of questions that cover recent and future changes within ICANN and everyone in the Internet community is invited and encouraged to send a response. The formal announcement and questions can be found here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm There is also a blog post to which people are able to add comments, here: http://blog.icann.org/?p=125 And an interactive page on ICANN's Public Participation website is also available for the community to share their thoughts with one another: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance The deadline for comments is 5 June 2007 - so you have three weeks to respond. Comments should be sent to performance-2007 at icann.org, and all comments received can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ The comments will form part of an internal ICANN review, and the general manager of public participation has offered to hold a session on the responses at the upcoming meeting in Puerto Rico at the end of June. Thanks Kieren McCarthy General manager of public participation, ICANN ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon May 14 09:43:04 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514110510.469432BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514110510.469432BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: It's in the ICANN by-laws: maxiumum feasible transparency. Many people made practical suggestions along the way, e.g. recording the telephone Board meetings; I believe at one point Bret even offered to do it for free. They were all turned down. On Mon, 14 May 2007, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 22:22 5/13/2007 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > >> Alas, the language is already there. You just chose not to implement it. > > Michael, surely Karl could have put this on the Board agenda, when he was > there. Did he? What was the outcome of the vote? > > veni -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon May 14 09:45:13 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514130912.AABCC33460A@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514130912.AABCC33460A@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Incidentally, Veni, I don't belive you ever replied to my question about who if anyone in the ICANN space has paid you since you left the Board. That would be a useful form of transparency and requires no action by others. On Mon, 14 May 2007, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 08:51 5/14/2007 -0400, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Allow 8 to 12 weeks for responses ? and, just as importantly, >> allow enough time between the end of the consultation and the formal >> discussion of the results to distil the responses and summarise them >> in a way that is can easily comprehensible. Where a consultation >> takes place over a holiday, remember to allow extra response time (up >> to an additional four weeks). > > > btw, Robert, that would be a good point to talk about the IGC, too. Because, > if ICANN is to accept the OECD rules for discussions, that should be valid > for the constituencies, as well, including this group. > Let's also not forget that the OECD members include only some countries, and > it's probably not by accident. It's also good to point, that within ICANN > there's at least the GAC, that takes decisions only when they meet, not by > e-mail. And I don't see any suggestions from the IGC for audio-recording the > GAC meetings. I wonder why? Is it because, if the IGC tells the GAC what to > do, the GAC might tell the IGC where to go? > > As for the timeline... > We work mainly online. We for sure could discuss something within a month. > The very fact how many people spent time on this list to write down things, > which are irelevant for the RFC, but very relevant to prove that I am not > right, is a sign that clearly people have time. > > I don't understand why the same people, who spend so much time in sending > thoughts about life, universe, and everything else, can not and would not > send their contribution to an RFC. After all, they almost do that in this > list. > > 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 > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Mon May 14 10:13:47 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:13:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514130912.AABCC33460A@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514130912.AABCC33460A@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <0F984EE6-7059-4DF3-B324-0DBB246B4B1F@privaterra.info> Veni: You have been posting a lot of message on this list recently. As you are now a member of ICANN's staff, there is a key question that I and no doubt others are likely asking - Are you speaking on behalf of the organization, or are replying in your own personal capacity ? I ask, as it will help me (and likely others) appropriately frame our responses both on this list and in other fora. ref: http://icann.org/general/staff.html regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 14-May-07, at 9:07 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 08:51 5/14/2007 -0400, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Allow 8 to 12 weeks for responses ╜ and, just as importantly, >> allow enough time between the end of the consultation and the formal >> discussion of the results to distil the responses and summarise them >> in a way that is can easily comprehensible. Where a consultation >> takes place over a holiday, remember to allow extra response time (up >> to an additional four weeks). > > > btw, Robert, that would be a good point to talk about the IGC, too. > Because, if ICANN is to accept the OECD rules for discussions, that > should be valid for the constituencies, as well, including this group. > Let's also not forget that the OECD members include only some > countries, and it's probably not by accident. It's also good to > point, that within ICANN there's at least the GAC, that takes > decisions only when they meet, not by e-mail. And I don't see any > suggestions from the IGC for audio-recording the GAC meetings. I > wonder why? Is it because, if the IGC tells the GAC what to do, the > GAC might tell the IGC where to go? > > As for the timeline... > We work mainly online. We for sure could discuss something within a > month. The very fact how many people spent time on this list to > write down things, which are irelevant for the RFC, but very > relevant to prove that I am not right, is a sign that clearly > people have time. > > I don't understand why the same people, who spend so much time in > sending thoughts about life, universe, and everything else, can not > and would not send their contribution to an RFC. After all, they > almost do that in this list. > > veni > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon May 14 10:20:14 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:20:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <08EADFD2-B905-405D-A37E-4206AB543386@psg.com> On 14 maj 2007, at 14.39, Veni Markovski wrote: > Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the > courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. I am not sure what courage has to do with it. Unless you are suggesting that someone from the IGC, perhaps the coordinators, take the discussion that was held on this list a produces a synthesis that they then submit to the performance-2007 as a contribution from the IGC (after following IGC processes of course). And yes, being coordinator of this group and creating that synthesis may indeed take some modicum of courage. But I don't think it would take courage for any of us to post a comment as individuals. At least not for those of us who are not also ICANN staff. I do agree it might take courage for the members of this list who are also ICANN staff members to post evaluations and recommendations to performance-2007 as I am sure there is an internal process for doing that. 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 veni at veni.com Mon May 14 11:09:59 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:09:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <0F984EE6-7059-4DF3-B324-0DBB246B4B1F@privaterra.info> References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514130912.AABCC33460A@mxr.isoc.bg> <0F984EE6-7059-4DF3-B324-0DBB246B4B1F@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <20070514151047.5E90E3359E8@mxr.isoc.bg> At 10:13 5/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: >Veni: > >You have been posting a lot of message on this list recently. > >As you are now a member of ICANN's staff, there is a key question >that I and no doubt others are likely asking - Are you speaking on >behalf of the organization, or are replying in your own personal >capacity ? Of course, as before, when I was on the Board, I could not speak on behalf of the organization. I am a member of this list in my own capacity. Sometimes, if I have to make a statement on behalf of an organization, I'd clearly say so - e.g. see my remarks during the WSIS, when I was speaking as ISOC-Bulgaria chair of the Board, or as representative of the government. >I ask, as it will help me (and likely others) appropriately frame our >responses both on this list and in other fora. Robert, I am sure that you are well aware, that if I was speaking on behalf of an organization (any organization), I would have made such a note. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 11:11:03 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:11:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514110510.469432BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070514151547.2446E336940@mxr.isoc.bg> At 09:43 5/14/2007 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >It's in the ICANN by-laws: maxiumum feasible transparency. I am sure that if that meant "have audio-recording", it would have been in the by-laws, as well. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 11:13:31 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:13:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070514151549.754253370EF@mxr.isoc.bg> Bill, Thank you for the advise. veni At 14:54 5/14/2007 +0200, you wrote: >Veni, > >Looking at my trash folder from today, I see 13 messages from you. If you >could perhaps aggregate some of your 1-2 sentence remonstrations to all the >many people you feel deserve them into fewer and larger messages it would >make the deletion process less time consuming for the 300+ people on the >list. > >Thanks, ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 11:12:53 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:12:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <08EADFD2-B905-405D-A37E-4206AB543386@psg.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <08EADFD2-B905-405D-A37E-4206AB543386@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070514151548.503D3337082@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:20 5/14/2007 +0200, Avri Doria wrote: >On 14 maj 2007, at 14.39, Veni Markovski wrote: > >>Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the >>courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. > > >I am not sure what courage has to do with it. Sorry - that's an example of translating from Bulgarian to English. Perhaps I should have used another word. The bottom line is: people spend time here, to talk about other people, or about ICANN, but they don't spend the very same amount of time to go and comment on iCANN performance, where they will be heard. Interesting.... veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 14 11:30:16 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:30:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514151549.754253370EF@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Which you've duly ignored. I've now deleted 18 messages from you today. Perhaps ICANN needs to run a staff seminar on netiquette. Or else add mandatory use of tranquilizers to its health plan. On 5/14/07 5:13 PM, "Veni Markovski" wrote: > Bill, > Thank you for the advise. > > veni > > At 14:54 5/14/2007 +0200, you wrote: >> Veni, >> >> Looking at my trash folder from today, I see 13 messages from you. If you >> could perhaps aggregate some of your 1-2 sentence remonstrations to all the >> many people you feel deserve them into fewer and larger messages it would >> make the deletion process less time consuming for the 300+ people on the >> list. >> >> Thanks, > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 11:37:06 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:37:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <20070514151549.754253370EF@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070514153746.5F9DE33462A@mxr.isoc.bg> At 17:30 5/14/2007 +0200, you wrote: >Which you've duly ignored. I've now deleted 18 messages from you today. Bill, the fact that I am thankful for your advise does not mean I will follow it. I am just being polite in expressing my thanks to you for the time you've spent - whether deleting, writing, reading, it's up to you. Perhaps you can just create a filter, which will delete my mails directly, so that you'll save time deleting them on your own. To hear such remarks from you, is ironic. Veni P.S. I am happy to see, though, that you are counting. You made my day :) v. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Mon May 14 11:50:01 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:50:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514151547.2446E336940@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514110510.469432BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514151547.2446E336940@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <901F7175-58A7-4E68-B3ED-6B33AF4E2753@internet.law.pro> For the last seven years, the GNSO Council has made audio recordings of all of its conferences and publicly archived all of its discussion lists. So you tell me, Veni, which one is more transparent, the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board? What part of "maximum extent feasible" from Article III, Section 1 of the bylaws do you not understand? On May 14, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > I am sure that if that meant "have audio-recording", it would have > been in the by-laws, as well. -------------- 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 Mon May 14 11:53:52 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:53:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <901F7175-58A7-4E68-B3ED-6B33AF4E2753@internet.law.pro> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514110510.469432BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514151547.2446E336940@mxr.isoc.bg> <901F7175-58A7-4E68-B3ED-6B33AF4E2753@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <20070514155400.65D0533462A@mxr.isoc.bg> Bret, let's focus on the substance of the discussion - perhaps you, as well as the others, instead of asking what I think about this or that, could spend your time on contributing to the process, of which Kieren informed the list. I don't mind discussing my own views, but the %subject is different. veni At 08:50 5/14/2007 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote: >For the last seven years, the GNSO Council has made audio recordings >of all of its conferences and publicly archived all of its >discussion lists. So you tell me, Veni, which one is more >transparent, the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board? What part of >"maximum extent feasible" from Article III, Section 1 of the bylaws >do you not understand? > >On May 14, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: >> >>I am sure that if that meant "have audio-recording", it would have >>been in the by-laws, as well. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 12:02:56 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:02:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Veni's diatribe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070514160315.565B733462A@mxr.isoc.bg> Milton, some time ago you said... At 12:46 4/22/2007 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: >You have even manufactured a false, completely invented >number ($170,000). This is something you made up, Veni. Please retract, >for the sake of your credibility. ... and until today I didn't have time to go through my archives, but here they are: >Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:55:16 -0500 >From: Robert Guerra >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org [cut] >Syracuse, New York, 1 March 2006-- The Internet Governance Project >(IGP), a university-based research and policy analysis consortium, was >awarded a two-year grant of $175,000 by the Ford Foundation. best, veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon May 14 12:23:07 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:23:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514151548.503D3337082@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <08EADFD2-B905-405D-A37E-4206AB543386@psg.com> <20070514151548.503D3337082@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <961026AF-90A4-4078-8FF4-B88B50A42EC3@psg.com> On 14 maj 2007, at 17.12, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 16:20 5/14/2007 +0200, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 14 maj 2007, at 14.39, Veni Markovski wrote: >> >>> Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the >>> courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. >> >> >> I am not sure what courage has to do with it. > > Sorry - that's an example of translating from Bulgarian to English. > Perhaps I should have used another word. The bottom line is: people > spend time here, to talk about other people, or about ICANN, but > they don't spend the very same amount of time to go and comment on > iCANN performance, where they will be heard. Interesting.... > Actually as I was sort of pointing out (or rather as a corollary of what i was pointing out), if the members of this list want to send a comment from the IGC as opposed to just from individuals, then discussing it on the list was absolutely the right thing to do. In fact instead of wasting their time, they were doing the exact sort of thing that needs to happen on this list: discussion that evolves to a rough consensus of a caucus position. I am not saying we are there yet (it is not for me to say), but i am saying that this was not a wasted activity. The one thing that may have been wasted activity was having to explain why the caucus did not need to apologize or feel bad about discussing something that is of interest to many of the members of the caucus. Personally i kind of hope the caucus does arrive at a caucus statement and that they do submit it to performance-2007. As a member of the GSNO council, i will probably not participate in creating such a statement because in a sense it also reflects on the volunteer efforts (e.g. the board is composed of volunteers) and i am one of those volunteers who value ICANN but who also want to know as much as possible about what others think about it so that it can continue to evolve and improve. And i support Kieren's request that as many people, as individuals who wish do send in their private comments. Though I may join those who feel he did not express himself as well as he might have when inviting the caucus to participate (a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, indeed!), I believe his intentions were good and we should take him up on the opportunity. Once I have had time to think about the wording I may indeed post a recommendation that the Board reconsider its decision on recording meetings and suggest that they use the GNSO and ALAC as well as the .br board as case studies in the practicality and realities of such a practice. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon May 14 12:42:34 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:42:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514151548.503D3337082@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <08EADFD2-B905-405D-A37E-4206AB543386@psg.com> <20070514151548.503D3337082@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Maybe we have found the problem with Veni's messages -- difficulties in translating from Bulgarian to English, as he reveals to us in the msg below! There is still hope, after all. --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Veni Markovski To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Avri Doria , Governance Caucus Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:12:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance > At 16:20 5/14/2007 +0200, Avri Doria wrote: > > >On 14 maj 2007, at 14.39, Veni Markovski wrote: > > > >>Now, it is really interesting to see if anyone will have the > >>courage to sit down and write this as part of the RFC. > > > > > >I am not sure what courage has to do with it. > > Sorry - that's an example of translating from Bulgarian to English. > Perhaps I should have used another word. The bottom line is: people > spend time here, to talk about other people, or about ICANN, but they > don't spend the very same amount of time to go and comment on iCANN > performance, where they will be heard. Interesting.... > > veni > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 13:04:28 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:04:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <961026AF-90A4-4078-8FF4-B88B50A42EC3@psg.com> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <7A4CA803-1D65-4A81-B5B2-C427C2E932E1@psg.com> <20070514124034.D60CD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <08EADFD2-B905-405D-A37E-4206AB543386@psg.com> <20070514151548.503D3337082@mxr.isoc.bg> <961026AF-90A4-4078-8FF4-B88B50A42EC3@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070514170547.220F933462A@mxr.isoc.bg> At 18:23 5/14/2007 +0200, you wrote: >Personally i kind of hope the caucus does arrive at a caucus >statement and that they do submit it to performance-2007. As a That would be difficult to achieve, if the caucus itself decides to follow the recommendation of some of its members, namely the OECD ones ;) That's why I believe more weight today would have the opinions of individual members of the IGC, rather than the caucus itself, since there's no policy on accepting caucus statements while keeping in mind all the different points of view. >inviting the caucus to participate (a lump of meat to a pack of >starving wolves, indeed!), So, the people who attack him are actually starving wolves;) No wonder they want to see blood ;) >I believe his intentions were good and we >should take him up on the opportunity. I believe the same. If I believed differently, I wouldn't have engaged in a conversation here, which - I knew in advance - would lead just to yet another portion of personal accusations, allusions, and hints about my real motivation. It's funny to hear such allusions from people who actually should know me better. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 14 13:47:44 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:47:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514153746.5F9DE33462A@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: On 5/14/07 5:37 PM, "Veni Markovski" wrote: > P.S. I am happy to see, though, that you are counting. You made my day :) And it makes my day to make you happy. You're now at 22 messages to the list in one day. That has to be some kind of record, but why stop there? C'mon, you can make 30, easy. I didn't know ICANN pays idle people to spam. A cutting edge innovation for an IG institution, and an excellent demonstration of self-regulation at work. 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 karl at cavebear.com Mon May 14 14:10:41 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:10:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070514110510.469432BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513225127.50C9E336868@mxr.isoc.bg> <20070514110510.469432BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4648A621.8030207@cavebear.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > At 22:22 5/13/2007 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > >> Alas, the language is already there. You just chose not to implement it. > > Michael, surely Karl could have put this on the Board agenda, when he > was there. Did he? What was the outcome of the vote? By-the-way, I would also recommend that any institution of internet governance adopt a rule that imposes a three year period between the separation of any Director from the board and any employment, consulting, or other relationship between ICANN and that ex-director that involves money or any other thing of monetary value. Would you support such a rule for ICANN? As for your question: Andy M-M (the elected director for Europe) and I (the elected director for North America) proposed several items to be placed on the agenda. However, we were always confronted with some unwritten procedural gambit or another that caused our proposed items to never appear. Since there were no recording and no minutes there is no way that you or the internet public could have seen this occurring. One might peruse my online diary of my activity on the board (see http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/diary/index.htm )and to obtain a feel for how futile it was for us even to attempt to propose items. Moreover I had to burn nearly 18 months of my two year term fighting ICANN's attempts to muzzle and silence me that were eventually declared by a court to be unlawful. (See http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/Auerbach_v_ICANN/ ) I might add that we argued for many of these reforms even before ICANN was created by NTIA and Jones Day. See the Boston Working Group proposal made to NTIA as an alternative initial structure for ICANN at http://www.cavebear.com/bwg/ --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Mon May 14 14:28:27 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:28:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4648AA4B.3050904@cavebear.com> Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > The recent discussion seems to be focusing on Q1 of the RFC. As we address the general topic of internet governance, we should consider how to inject a grasp of reality into the bodies of IG that are created. With regard to Q6, there is an intriguing discussion in the IETF and IP address areas, in which at least to former IETF chairs, and many others, are carrying on a discussion that includes an implicit presumption that the IETF, not ICANN, is body that directs IANA with respect to IP address policy and allocations. Given that the RIRs are doining a pretty decent job and that ICANN's IP address policy is best described as "when a RIR asks, IANA shall grant", it makes sense that IP address policy be elided from ICANN's job description. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon May 14 16:22:41 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:22:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <4648AA4B.3050904@cavebear.com> References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> <4648AA4B.3050904@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 5/14/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > > The recent discussion seems to be focusing on Q1 of the RFC. > > As we address the general topic of internet governance, we should > consider how to inject a grasp of reality into the bodies of IG that are > created. > > With regard to Q6, there is an intriguing discussion in the IETF and IP > address areas, in which at least to former IETF chairs, and many others, > are carrying on a discussion that includes an implicit presumption that > the IETF, not ICANN, is body that directs IANA with respect to IP > address policy and allocations. I think you have mis-characterised the disccussion. Given that the RIRs are doining a pretty decent job and that ICANN's IP > address policy is best described as "when a RIR asks, IANA shall grant", probably not as fast as the RIR would like it makes sense that IP address policy be elided from ICANN's job > description. I don't see how one follows from another? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon May 14 17:08:33 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Veni's diatribe In-Reply-To: 20070514160315.565B733462A@mxr.isoc.bg Message-ID: Hey Ven/Milt, Vin, Pardon me for asking, curiosity has gotten hold of me. What�s the big-deal with IGP receiving grant money? Milt, Obviously there was an application to the Foundation, What were its stated objectives? -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 14 17:20:43 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:20:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: At 8:51 AM -0400 5/14/07, Mr.Robert Guerra wrote: > ... I am personally >curious if anyone cares to comment on Q 4&5. ... >Q5. Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency >of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? I'm still a relative newcomer to this arena, but I can make a comment about the current setup without regard to comparisons with the past. Forgive me that it is not officially within the RFC process per se, and only informally on this list. Feel free to convey these thoughts elsewhere within ICANN as you see fit. ----- If ICANN wants to address "Internet Governance" with regard to public policy of an increasingly general nature, then I agree with the idea that the standard to adhere to is not private hierarchies but rather public governance structures (with a focus on the ones that are genuinely representative in nature as opposed to authoritarian regimes). Public governance standards of representation are that constituencies form themselves from the bottom up, not from the top down. (The only top-down segmentation is geographical, not "interest-oriented".) Thus the ICANN setup of various advisory groups such as GAC and GNSO (and the multi-constituency setup within the GNSO, for example) is set from the top, not organically emerging from the bottom. Even in principle, this could only work for well-defined (i.e., fixed) policy topics where a particular (i.e., fixed) segmentation of stakeholders is appropriate to that topic. For example, there may have been some sense to the GNSO constituency structure in the case of narrowly technical operational matters. But when policy domains expand to other general topics such as personal privacy or access to knowledge, the stakeholder balance is suddenly out of balance. In fact, each different policy domain has a different set of stakeholders, and policy domains are constantly evolving as well. Thus a top-down fiat-based method of defining multi-stakeholder participation is irrecoverably flawed from the very start. Defining the mix (and voting strength) of stakeholders prior to the determination of policy domain imposes a profound skew on the representational process, and there is no way to fix it by using similar top-down methods -- you can't fix it by just tweaking the number of stakeholders and/or their number of votes, because in an expansive policy domain there will always been a majority of policies for which that breakdown is inaccurate, and thus inappropriate and ineffective for balanced representation. I don't know what the stakeholder setup was in the past, perhaps there were fewer stakeholders participating. But increasing the number of stakeholder classes does not necessarily improve representation overall -- it could in fact make things worse if it increases the skew in representation. Also, if there is "policy mission creep" that is driving an increase in stakeholders, what may be happening is that a feasibly narrow mission that is reasonably addressed by a fixed top-down representational structure for that well-defined policy domain is being stretched in a way that attempts to address a much more complex and varied policy domain for which effective representation cannot be handled in a top-down fashion. In short, as the mission expands from a narrow policy domain to a broad/complex policy domain, the "elegant solution" of a fixed stakeholder structure for the initial narrow mission is increasingly recognized as systematically non-scalable to a broader policy domain. I think that ICANN has basically two choices in order to return to effective governance structure and processes: (1) Scale back to the narrow technical policy mission with the narrowly-effective top-down stakeholder setup, or (2) Scrap the top-down (multi-)stakeholder setup entirely if ICANN wishes to address the broader public policy domain that it seems to be endeavoring to address these days, and instantiate a truly bottom-up representational process that follows public governance standards and allows constituencies to form themselves organically in response to specific topics. In time (perhaps relatively short order), this process should merge smoothly with other public governance processes at large around the globe, because this scenario suggests that the distinction between "Internet" governance and "general public" governance is artificial at best. Trying to patch the top-down definition of stakeholder structure to address a consistently expanding public policy domain will simply not work. The greater the expansion of policy domain, the worse the representation will be, because of the previously noted dependence of appropriateness of stakeholder balance on the specific policy topic being addressed, and the complex multiplicity of topics and stakeholder overlaps that grows as the policy domain expands. Coming from a policy background, this is the essential tension I see at ICANN at present, and I don't think it can endure indefinitely. Governance structure and policy scope simply do not match. One of these two parameters has to change in order to find a good match once again. If ICANN wants to address genuinely public policy matters effectively, it should have a genuinely public governance structure. There's no quick fix to avoid the hard work here, without distorting and damaging public accountability in a fundamental and increasingly profound manner. You can't square the circle, or trisect the angle, and approximation methods increasingly fail at larger scales. 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Mon May 14 17:52:32 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:52:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: <129022.96836.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <464804A5.9020400@cavebear.com> <20070514114354.72C18337C42@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <005a01c79672$2e7869f0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Sorry to pop up again, but I'm concerned the comment I made about responses to this list not being included in the RFC has been misinterpreted as me somehow criticising the list, or refusing to accept information, or something - I'm not quite sure what - something negative anyway. What I was trying to say was: please don't have a long and useful discussion on this list and then be annoyed if the results of that discussion don't appear in the ICANN discussion. This is nothing to do with the list and everything to do with the fact that I am trying to involve people from right across the Net community and it is simply impossible for me to collate all the interesting snippets from different sites and mailing lists across the world. I recognise that the email-to-forum approach can seem a bit formal and hard work, and that is why I have set up a blog post (http://blog.icann.org/?p=125) and a page on the public participation website (http://public.icann.org/issues/performance) to elicit the sort of remarks that are happening on this list but which I already know I am going to miss. So if people do go to the trouble of thinking about the RFC and then write something in response, can I please ask you go just one step further and either email it to the RFC - the traditional route - or post a comment on the blog, or just copy/paste it to the Public Participation site? Cheers Kieren (McCarthy) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon May 14 21:53:06 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 21:53:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Milton Mueller and the $ 175,000 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070515015333.166DE2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Hi. It's not a big deal. The big deal is about the following: On April 22nd I wrote.... >2. There's no statement on the web site as to who is >funding this projects. Let's see the MIGP - one could >found a file (http://osp.syr.edu/highlights/FiscalYear2006/FebruaryHighlights.xls), >where it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the Ford Foundation for that >project, but nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumoured to have been awarded >to the project only by the Ford, and nothing about other donors? ... to which Milton said... >Whoa. There are no other donors. And there are no other funds. And here >you make it clear that you have descended to the level of unfounded >insinuations. You have even manufactured a false, completely invented >number ($170,000). This is something you made up, Veni. Please retract, >for the sake of your credibility ... to which I responded with an e-mail from Robert Guerra. In the meantime I also got an e-mail with this link: http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?grant_id=33480 which says Milton got in fact $ 175,000, not $ 170,000. But since my number is quite close to the real one, and I was blamed as a manifacturer of a false, completely invented number ($ 170,000), I felt I should come back to the list, and report where I got the original number from - it was an e-mail from Robert Guerra. On the Syracuse University web site the number is different - $ 87,500, so I was just sayin, again in my email from April 22nd, that I'd like to know who has what interests in this whole IG process. That's it. I was just setting the facts - who said what, who provided the information, and when. Needless to say, I don't expect an appology from Milton - it's probably my misunderstanding of English language, and he actually meant that the number I've made up is not exactly the number he got from the Ford (compare $ 170,000 to $ 175,000, there's a substential difference of about 3%, for which I will punish myself with an epithalamia) Veni At 14:08 5/14/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Hey Ven/Milt, > >Vin, >Pardon me for asking, curiosity has gotten hold of me. >What's the big-deal with IGP receiving grant money? > >Milt, >Obviously there was an application to the Foundation, >What were its stated objectives? > >-- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon May 14 22:30:31 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: 20070515015333.166DE2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg Message-ID: Thanks Veni, Letting us know your things from perspective Re: > http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?grant_id=33480 which says Milton (IGP) got in fact $ 175,000. Milton, Would you please post or direct us to the grant-application itself, and comment of its 'objectives'. Certainly you can understand our interest in the matter. It�s important for us all to know the 'objective-goals' and how they are budgeted to meet their criteria. Particularly so, we do not overlap the WSIS campaign and its programs. While were on the subject, perhaps Bertrand de La Chapelle can fill us in on the expenditures� of approximately 4.5 CHF [4,309,289] raised in the WSIS campaign. How & Where the money was spent. What new programs did the funds develop? How are they doing? What�s left in reserves? Re: Contributions to the WSIS/ITU: /wsis/funding/contributors1.html /wsis/funding/contributors2.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 Mon May 14 22:56:35 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:56:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Veni and the $ 175,000 Message-ID: Veni, $87,500 per year for two years = what? Can you do the arithmetic? The "two" grants you refer to are one and the same. You made it sound as if we were getting 87.5k + another 170k. You are off by 50% not 3%. And you were flat wrong to say we didn't identify the source, because it's the same Ford grant that was publicly announced. So I'm still waiting for a retraction. It's ok, everyone makes mistakes. Might be wise to be more careful when you pounce in public, though. What was the point of this whole conversation, anyway? Is it that there is something wrong with funding independent sources of expertise and advocacy about Internet governance? If so, who will you go after next? Wolfgang K? The Oxford Internet Institute? Amnesty International? RSF? APC? IT4Change? I'll let you in on a dirty little secret -- they all get grants, too. The only embarassing thing in your message is, frankly, the small size of our budget. ;-) Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> veni at veni.com 05/14/07 9:53 PM >>> Hi. It's not a big deal. The big deal is about the following: On April 22nd I wrote.... >2. There's no statement on the web site as to who is >funding this projects. Let's see the MIGP - one could >found a file (http://osp.syr.edu/highlights/FiscalYear2006/FebruaryHighlights.xls), >where it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the Ford Foundation for that >project, but nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumoured to have been awarded >to the project only by the Ford, and nothing about other donors? ... to which Milton said... >Whoa. There are no other donors. And there are no other funds. And here >you make it clear that you have descended to the level of unfounded >insinuations. You have even manufactured a false, completely invented >number ($170,000). This is something you made up, Veni. Please retract, >for the sake of your credibility ... to which I responded with an e-mail from Robert Guerra. In the meantime I also got an e-mail with this link: http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?grant_id=33480 which says Milton got in fact $ 175,000, not $ 170,000. But since my number is quite close to the real one, and I was blamed as a manifacturer of a false, completely invented number ($ 170,000), I felt I should come back to the list, and report where I got the original number from - it was an e-mail from Robert Guerra. On the Syracuse University web site the number is different - $ 87,500, so I was just sayin, again in my email from April 22nd, that I'd like to know who has what interests in this whole IG process. That's it. I was just setting the facts - who said what, who provided the information, and when. Needless to say, I don't expect an appology from Milton - it's probably my misunderstanding of English language, and he actually meant that the number I've made up is not exactly the number he got from the Ford (compare $ 170,000 to $ 175,000, there's a substential difference of about 3%, for which I will punish myself with an epithalamia) Veni At 14:08 5/14/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Hey Ven/Milt, > >Vin, >Pardon me for asking, curiosity has gotten hold of me. >What's the big-deal with IGP receiving grant money? > >Milt, >Obviously there was an application to the Foundation, >What were its stated objectives? > >-- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 14 23:25:10 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:25:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 05/12/07 10:26 AM >>> >ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. >And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you >should review it and get involved. I think we should, too. Far from being mutually exclusive with civil society's proposed IGF discussion of ICANN, I would suggest that the two are complementary and mutually reinforcing. If ICANN is serious about getting a wide-ranging set of comments from diverse sources, it should be the foremost advocate of tying its self-review to the IGF process. The IGF process opens what business people call a a new "channel." Although there is about 30% overlap, different people go to IGF and ICANN meetings. The IGF process not only holds out the possibility of a plenary discussion, it is also (as Adam Peake pointed out), contemplating workshops or sessions in which international organizations such as ICANN highlight their work. Why not float the RFC questions there? A good PR person (sorry, Kieren, that's essentially what you are now) would seize that opportunity and run with it. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon May 14 23:46:54 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: s648e933.083@gwia203.syr.edu Message-ID: Milton, How can we help you meet the Grants Objectives? After all, that�s what is important. -- Bertrand please give us an update: Re: � Bertrand de La Chapelle can fill us in on the expenditures� of approximately 4.5 CHF [4,309,289 CHF / 3,538,062.32 USD] raised in the WSIS campaign. How & Where the money was spent. What new programs did the funds develop? How are they doing? What�s left in reserves? Re: Contributions to the WSIS/ITU: http://www.itu.int/wsis/funding/contributors1.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/funding/contributors2.html -- Thanks Veni, For letting us know your things from your perspective. Re: > http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?grant_id=33480 which says Milton (IGP) got in fact $ 175,000. Milton, Would you please post or direct us to the grant-application itself, and comment of its 'objectives'. Certainly you can understand our interest in the matter. It�s important for us all to know the 'objective-goals' and how they are budgeted to meet their criteria. Particularly so, we do not overlap the WSIS campaign and its programs. While were on the subject, perhaps Bertrand de La Chapelle can fill us in on the expenditures� of approximately 4.5 CHF [4,309,289 CHF / 3,538,062.32 USD] raised in the WSIS campaign. How & Where the money was spent. What new programs did the funds develop? How are they doing? What�s left in reserves? Re: Contributions to the WSIS/ITU: http://www.itu.int/wsis/funding/contributors1.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/funding/contributors2.html -- * Note sorry about the double post, I experience difficulty switching between Rt-2-Lf and Lt-2-Rt , and loose some paragraph ticking. From: veni at veni.com Subject: Milton Mueller and the $ 175,000 Hi. It's not a big deal. The big deal is about the following: On April 22nd I wrote.... 2. There's no statement on the web site as to who is funding this projects. Let's see the MIGP - one could found a file ( http://osp.syr.edu/highlights/FiscalYear2006/FebruaryHighlig http://osp.syr.edu/highlights/FiscalYear2006/FebruaryHighlig where it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the Ford Foundation for that project, but nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumored to have been awarded to the project only by the Ford, and nothing about other donors? .... to which Milton said... Whoa. There are no other donors. And there are no other funds. And here you make it clear that you have descended to the level of unfounded insinuations. You have even manufactured a false, completely invented number ($170,000). This is something you made up, Veni. Please retract, for the sake of your credibility .... to which I responded with an e-mail from Robert Guerra. In the meantime I also got an e-mail with this link: http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?gra which says Milton got in fact $ 175,000, not $ 170,000. But since my number is quite close to the real one, and I was blamed as a manufacturer of a false, completely invented number ($ 170,000), I felt I should come back to the list, and report where I got the original number from - it was an e-mail from Robert Guerra. On the Syracuse University web site the number is different - $ 87,500, so I was just saying, again in my email from April 22nd, that I'd like to know who has what interests in this whole IG process. That's it. I was just setting the facts - who said what, who provided the information, and when. Needless to say, I don't expect an apology from Milton - it's probably my misunderstanding of English language, and he actually meant that the number I've made up is not exactly the number he got from the Ford (compare $ 170,000 to $ 175,000, there's a substantial difference of about 3%, for which I will punish myself with an epithalamia) Veni At 14:08 5/14/2007 -0700, you wrote: Hey Ven/Milt, Vin, Pardon me for asking, curiosity has gotten hold of me. What's the big-deal with IGP receiving grant money? Milt, Obviously there was an application to the Foundation, What were its stated objectives? -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 04:30:11 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 04:30:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Milton and the $ 175,000 Message-ID: <2aa69fe40705150130g40b537e0oa887ae8741e54f27@mail.gmail.com> Eh, Milton, Milton... There's so much grief in today's world... On 5/14/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > > Veni, $87,500 per year for two years = what? Can you do the arithmetic? > > The "two" grants you refer to are one and the same. You made it sound as > if we were getting 87.5k + another 170k. You are off by 50% not 3%. And > you were flat wrong to say we didn't identify the source, because it's > the same Ford grant that was publicly announced. So I'm still waiting > for a retraction. Let me try to type it again (copy & paste, and btw, if I have said, as you wrongully quote me, 87.5 + 170K, I would have been off not with 50% but with approx. 200 % as 100% of 87.5 = another 87.5). And quite frankly, seeing how you continue to not admit you made a mistake, I don't expect you to beg my pardon.... >where it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the Ford Foundation for that >project, but nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumoured to have been awarded >to the project only by the Ford, and nothing about other donors? So, I am not a native-English speaker, and I could be excused, when I make a mistake, but here's how I read it, and you, as an English-native speaker, probably would have read it the same, if you were not somewhat... I don't know (afraid to publish a politically incorrect word here)...: " [syr.edu] says Milton has received $ 87.500...", but there's no information about the rest of the $ 170.000 [rest = $ 82.500]... awarded to the MIGP by the ford... [and are there other donors?]" Obviously for someone like you, who knows everything around the IGP, you could have said, "Oh, Veni, it's not $ 170K, it's $ 175K, and $ 87.5 is half of this; the [syr.edu] reports in the excel spreadsheet you linked only the part of the funding for the 2006-2007, but the actual grant is $ 175K. Instead, you wrote it as if the amount $ 170 K is made by me. And I considered this as you saying I am a liar. It's ok, everyone makes mistakes. Might be wise to be more careful when > you pounce in public, though. You're right, everyone makes mistakes, including you (unlesss, of course, you consider yourself a God, huh?) ... What was the point of this whole conversation, anyway? The point was that you said I am a liar. And I just pointed out to the facts, which you don't like. They are not bad facts, they are just facts. veni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue May 15 05:24:46 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 02:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] keep to the topic & list netiquette Message-ID: <204455.69433.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Can there be some refining of what gets posted to the list. Personal insults (I'm probably somewhat guilty here too) and ongoing discussion on what funding Milton may or may not have had gets tedious. Frankly, having worked for an NGO doing fundraising, we should be pleased the funding was won as I can only imagine the topic isn't easy to convince funders to give funds for. If there's a point, please make it, but there's no need for repeated postings that add nothing. In addition, we native English speakers need to give some latitude to non-English speakers in their postings. If it doesn't sound right, maybe checking the intent first before ridiculing/attacking the author publicly could be courteous. As is obvious, there are a lot of points of view here. Some are right, some are wrong and some are just different. Let's work together. Cheers David PS A lot of the internet governance issues are covered on my website - http://technewsreview.com.au. Anyone with a relevant story to post is welcome to send it to me. --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery Switch to Yahoo!7 Mail: Transfer all your contacts and emails from Hotmail and other providers to Yahoo!7 Mail. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/trueswitch_info.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 veni at veni.com Tue May 15 06:05:57 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 06:05:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] keep to the topic & list netiquett In-Reply-To: <204455.69433.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <204455.69433.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40705150305g78c43a25ob96e94764092bde8@mail.gmail.com> David, agree with you (will send you an off-list e-mail). I'd like to state that being in a mailing list, is not like writing a book, as someone pointed out some time ago. It's like getting involved in a conversation - one writes, the other responds, a third interacts, and so on, and so forth. That is, if there are 10, 15 or 20 messages in a mailing list, on the same subject, that's a live and vivid conversation. I don't think there's too much heat here, although sometimes people lose their sense of humour, and become very serious. I don't also think we should be that serious. We are not having a heart surgery, where every milisecond counts, and where gesture should be planned. We are a group of people, who share common interests towards the Internet. Thanks for the point about the native English speakers - that would be helpful, if people keep that in mind, when thinking how to respond. Your site looks good. You could check my blog at http://blog.veni.com - by the way, some of the questions people ask here, have their responses there - one just need to read :) thanks, and have a good night! On 5/15/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > Can there be some refining of what gets posted to the list. Personal > insults (I'm probably somewhat guilty here too) and ongoing discussion on > what funding Milton may or may not have had gets tedious. Frankly, having > worked for an NGO doing fundraising, we should be pleased the funding was > won as I can only imagine the topic isn't easy to convince funders to give > funds for. > > If there's a point, please make it, but there's no need for repeated > postings that add nothing. > > In addition, we native English speakers need to give some latitude to > non-English speakers in their postings. If it doesn't sound right, maybe > checking the intent first before ridiculing/attacking the author publicly > could be courteous. > > As is obvious, there are a lot of points of view here. Some are right, > some are wrong and some are just different. Let's work together. > > --------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Tue May 15 06:59:48 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:59:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007801c796e0$291dad80$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > A good PR person (sorry, Kieren, that's essentially what > you are now) Let's just assume from this point on that I will always disagree entirely with this assertion. Especially since it's only real use is to try to niggle me. I don't mind being called a PP person though - public participation. As I believe I already proved at ICANN's Lisbon meeting recently, if someone raises a valid point, even if highly critical, I am willing to stand up and read it into a microphone, in a packed room, to the Board. I also made a point of compiling the public response over the RegisterFly issue (actually Maria Farrell did a great job of helping me compile several hundred comments) - which was *very* far from happy with ICANN - and sat up on stage and read it out. I did that because it is my job to tell ICANN what the public is saying. People are just going to have to get used to the fact that ICANN is listening and that the organisation cares what the community thinks. I'll add while here that it's not just ICANN that needs to go through a period of reflection on whether its approach and attitude remains valid. Anyway, this is the Internet Governance list so I will get it off it fast. Oh, hang on, your idea. I'll tell you what I'll do if there are sufficient comments that are useful, and if I have enough to work with to justify a meeting in San Juan. Assuming this idea about internet organisations giving a quick rundown of what they've done over the year goes ahead, and assuming ICANN gives a presentation, I will find out whoever is giving the presentation and ask them to include a boiled-down summary of the RFC's results. That's a legitimate request from my role, I would say. I do find it a bit bizarre though Milton that you would think I had any power to decide how the entire organisation approaches the Internet Governance Forum. I am the general manager of public participation, not the CEO. It's like you representing Syracuse University at an international meeting of university chancellors. ICANN is not a single entity, it is made of lots of people doing lots of different things. And all of them are working hard at doing their jobs as best they can - just like any other organisation. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:25 AM To: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 05/12/07 10:26 AM >>> >ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. >And since this list seems to discuss little else, I really think you >should review it and get involved. I think we should, too. Far from being mutually exclusive with civil society's proposed IGF discussion of ICANN, I would suggest that the two are complementary and mutually reinforcing. If ICANN is serious about getting a wide-ranging set of comments from diverse sources, it should be the foremost advocate of tying its self-review to the IGF process. The IGF process opens what business people call a a new "channel." Although there is about 30% overlap, different people go to IGF and ICANN meetings. The IGF process not only holds out the possibility of a plenary discussion, it is also (as Adam Peake pointed out), contemplating workshops or sessions in which international organizations such as ICANN highlight their work. Why not float the RFC questions there? A good PR person (sorry, Kieren, that's essentially what you are now) would seize that opportunity and run with it. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue May 15 08:42:18 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:42:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: References: 20070515015333.166DE2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg Message-ID: Why do you say "our interest in this matter" -- are you including all of us in this "our"?? Are we opening up a general verification of funding of all projects of all NGOs, academic organizations etc, participating in this list?? I keep wondering why there is an insistence from some to deviate the discussion from the central issues we are dealing with. As we were about to deliver our rough consensus statement to MAG/IGF, which has much to do with ICANN, a lot of diversionist discussions crept up, motivated mostly by two ICANN staff. Should we consider creating a moderation mechanism in this list? You have noticed many people are not participating already. Soon there will be the 8-10 "usual suspects" only, left barking at each other, and the list will die. Is this the actual objective of inserting these themes in the list? --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] > Thanks Veni, > > Letting us know your things from perspective > > Re: > > > http://www.fordfound.org/grants_db/view_grant_detail.cfm?grant_id=334 > 80 which > says Milton (IGP) got in fact $ 175,000. > > Milton, > > Would you please post or direct us to the grant-application itself, > and comment of its 'objectives'. > > Certainly you can understand our interest in the matter. > It’s important for us all to know the 'objective-goals' and how > they are > budgeted to meet their criteria. > > Particularly so, we do not overlap the WSIS campaign and its > programs. > > While were on the subject, perhaps Bertrand de La Chapelle can fill > us in on > the expenditures’ of approximately 4.5 CHF [4,309,289] raised in > the WSIS > campaign. How & Where the money was spent. What new programs did the > funds > develop? How are they doing? What’s left in reserves? > > Re: Contributions to the WSIS/ITU: > /wsis/funding/contributors1.html > /wsis/funding/contributors2.html > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Tue May 15 09:59:07 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 06:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [council] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal Message-ID: <466883.6898.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Note: forwarded message attached. FYI, along with a note sent to the GNSO Council 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Mawaki Chango Subject: [council] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 04:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Size: 7557 URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue May 15 10:26:39 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Diligent Performance Message-ID: David >Frankly, having worked for an NGO doing fundraising, >we should be pleased the funding was won as I can >only imagine the topic isn't easy to convince Funders >to give funds for. Ditto -- My point is that the WSIS process raised roughly 3.5 million USD in a transparent manor of donations, however distribution of the sum was not so �transparent� until it was ex-post-facto (after the fact). [and we still await Bertrand's up-to-date input]. Transparency and the Double Standard: (Milton aside / non-personal) When capital is raised for altruistic-ventures, in particularly with �Publicly Announced � Private Funds�, 99.999999% of the time there are �Objectives� written into the Grant application. WSIS had and made �transparent� (available) these �Objectives� during the Geneva & Tunis phases. �The Fronting� of these altruistic-objectives reinforced the legitimacy of the Internet Governance platform, too which Funders responded. WSIS was several years ago, Did the children of Botswana get their 100$ laptops?, did schools in Haiti, Ecuador, Paraguay get that internet connection?, and did the people of Bangladesh, Laos, Sri Lanka get that digital Library? [Balls in your Court � that was 3.5 Million Dollars Ago] Inroads � Benchmark check, How well is the �process-of-altruistic-capital� working? The Ford Foundation sets objectives for itself, thus Grants thereof share these. All I�m asking is: What are the Objectives?, How can we as literate humans help meet these Objectives?, and What areas need (lack) the most support?. I�m not asking for money, I�m asking to help, ... I want results. - No-one on this list wishes to be; used, compromised, and subordinated. I presume we all came here to help in one way or another. Having said that I must go on to say that; I will not be used as a Guinea Pig for some academic exploit, and I will not participate in the disenfranchisement of People & Places desperately in need of help through the systematic squandering of capital designated to help those in need. The Idea that ICANN, ITU, and the IGF needs to �Fly� around the World to meet and discuss IT/IP issues is repugnant. It�s disgusting in the size of the Carbon-Foot print alone, in which it creates. You know � Through the years we have been �discussing� IT/IP matters, we have lost the Yangzi White River Dolphin, � Bees, Birds and Fish stocks have come into huge �HUGE� decline, and fresh water supplies in what used to be wetlands habitat are gone. Dried up .. just like the money Pal. That really really, bothers me � that humans can be so stupid, not just to each-other, but to unto the world in which we live. Some of you are supposed to be the �Intellectual-Cream-of-the-Crop�, your pampered, your cared for now and after into retirement [some two & three dipps a-piece ]. Yet it seems you still can�t deliver Humanity from Servitude and the Destruction of which it creates. You can start the ICANN San Juan / IGF Rio meeting with a mandate for �Green� meetings in the future. -- Note to Kieren: Carbon-Free �Green� meetings from now on / Priority #1 -ICANN San Juan, Puerto Rico. Note to Milton: �Grant Objectives� please. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 15 11:01:22 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:01:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] privacy vs transparency (was Re: ICANN RFC) In-Reply-To: <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> (message from Veni Markovski on Sun, 13 May 2007 18:43:36 -0400) References: <46436479.4050308@rits.org.br> <769992.53599.qm@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> <004e01c794a1$92b4b3b0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4646C4C1.3000400@cavebear.com> <20070513110058.E9F38334AF5@mxr.isoc.bg> <46476DB8.3050006@cavebear.com> <20070513224627.73AB5336868@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070515150122.D921051BCD@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > d) Unlike you, I've lived in a state, where not only all mine, my > father's and grandfather's meetings were audio-recorded. Actually > since 1975, after my father's death in a car accident, also all our > phone calls were recorded, and my grandfather was followed 24 hrs/day > by a body guard, who was reporting every move of his. I don't want > this to happen to any director in the 21st century, at least not > against her or his will. If they all agree - fine, but if even one > feels monitored, and it is not in the by-laws, so that they would > have know beforehand about this requirement, then I am for their free > will, not yours. Sorry. Karl is only asking for recordings to be made of conversations that are related to _governance_ activities. When discussing how much privacy there should be, the distinction between personal activities, business activities and governance activities is crucial. With regard to personal activites, there should be great respect for privacy. With regard to business activites, there should be a balance between the public interest (that businesses should be checked upon to verify that they fulfil their obligations and responsibilities) and privacy interests (to safeguard legitimate business secrets as well as the personal privacy of the people who work in the firms.) With regard to governance activities, there should be great respect for the principle of transparency. It may be true that not everyone is able to work productively in a highly-transparant governance institution. But if ICANN board members were decently well-paid for the work they're supposed to do, I'm sure that enough well-qualified candidates could be found who would be happy to work under conditions of full transparency with regard to all discussions that pertain to matters of internet governance. > >Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's directors each receive a > >stipend so that they can afford the time and expense to > >independently inform themselves on matters is a recommendation that > >is somehow stale or inappropriate? > > The people who are on the Board do not need money, as far as I know. In other words, ICANN's current practices ensure that among all the people who would potentially be capable of doing the work that ICANN directors are supposed to do, everyone who is not a member of the small subset of people who "do not need money" is institutionally excluded from having any chance of becoming an ICANN board member. Now I think it's very plausible to predict that when decisions are made by those who "do not need money", the decisions will tend to unduly favor well-financed business interests. I'm sure that it'd be a good step forward when the requirement for ICANN board members to "not need money" is replaced by a requirement for being willing and capable of working under conditions of full transparency with regard to all discussions that pertain to matters of internet governance. While I'm sure that there must be some truth in what is being said again and again about ICANN making positive steps in good directions, I don't believe that it would be realistic to expect ICANN to undergo a sufficiently deep transformation to really solve the problem as long as there is no credible threat to ICANN that it will lose its internet governance powers unless true tranparency and accountability are implemented. 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 lists at privaterra.info Tue May 15 11:05:37 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:05:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Recommendation - Offset carbon footprint Message-ID: Might I propose a suggestion for both ICANN and the IGF , one that follows up on the earlier call for to mitigate the carbon emissions caused by those traveling to IG related meetings. Those of from around WSIS/ Geneva will likely remember that the Swiss govt had a direct link on WSIS page for one to purchase carbon offset credits. Might I suggest the same thing be done by organizers of the IGF and ICANN meetings. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 15 11:44:48 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 18:44:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Recommendation - Offset carbon footprint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/15/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > > > Those of from around WSIS/ Geneva will likely remember that the Swiss > govt had a direct link on WSIS page for one to purchase carbon offset > credits. Might I suggest the same thing be done by organizers of the > IGF and ICANN meetings. How about virtual attendance? That would be much more effective. I attend about 3/4 of the RIR meetings this way. It is much more efficient! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 15 11:50:37 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:20:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Milton and the $ 175,000 In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40705150130g40b537e0oa887ae8741e54f27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070515155042.B828CE04B7@smtp3.electricembers.net> >And I just pointed out to the facts, which you don't like. They are not bad facts, they are just facts. Veni, I like you spirit of inquiry. But please also see our desire to discuss ICANN at the IGF in the same light.I am simply unable to understand why some people here are bent on seeing our right to seek a discussion on an important global governance body at IGF as a declaration of hostility against that organization. When one is in public life one has to submit to the public's probing. All governments, even the best ones, do.. And there is always a healthy tension between those who hold representative power (ICANN does as a global governance body) and its constituencies. It is not unique to ICANN. We are as keen to discuss WTO, WIPO, ITU, UNDP etc (my group discusses all of them a lot).. and, to make what I do a part of it, I will be very keen to participate in a process that seeks greater accountability and transparency of NGOs and sets standards for it (I think such a process is badly needed if we are to establish greater credibility) ... So, can you explain to me why ICANN, or people speaking for it, are making so much of a simple request to have a main session discuss ICANN.. I understand, the response here will be, ICANN isnt important enough for a main session, there are other issues.. Frankly, I find this argument so specious that is isnt worth refuting it. I know people who have earlier held that development etc are not really IG issues now wanting that issue discussed as more important than ICANN. Doesn't such a big constituency which often discuses ICANN (including this group, whose such proclivity was rightly identified by Kieren) even have a right to put it on the main agenda.. And were all groups and constituents at WSIS with its strong ICANN undercurrents in IG discussions plainly stupid people (even, as some may say, if it was mainly about ITU / UN trying to take over ICANN, it still attests to the importance of the ICANN issue) And even if someone really thinks ICANN isn't important enough, why would some invest so much energy into refutation. That's beyond me. I think there is a stronger politics working behind this, which may (even) be legitimate, but which, in case it is legitimate, should identify itself and its logic and motivations clearly. That would be worth discussing.. So, lets leave this confrontation behind, and agree to work together to improve our governance systems. Let ICANN have a lot of time (of a main session) to present its point of view, and others have the time they are asking for to discuss ICANN as well. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Veni Markovski Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Milton and the $ 175,000 Eh, Milton, Milton... There's so much grief in today's world... On 5/14/07, Milton Mueller < mueller at syr.edu> wrote: Veni, $87,500 per year for two years = what? Can you do the arithmetic? The "two" grants you refer to are one and the same. You made it sound as if we were getting 87.5k + another 170k. You are off by 50% not 3%. And you were flat wrong to say we didn't identify the source, because it's the same Ford grant that was publicly announced. So I'm still waiting for a retraction. Let me try to type it again (copy & paste, and btw, if I have said, as you wrongully quote me, 87.5 + 170K, I would have been off not with 50% but with approx. 200 % as 100% of 87.5 = another 87.5). And quite frankly, seeing how you continue to not admit you made a mistake, I don't expect you to beg my pardon.... >where it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the Ford Foundation for that >project, but nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumoured to have been awarded >to the project only by the Ford, and nothing about other donors? So, I am not a native-English speaker, and I could be excused, when I make a mistake, but here's how I read it, and you, as an English-native speaker, probably would have read it the same, if you were not somewhat... I don't know (afraid to publish a politically incorrect word here)...: " [syr.edu] says Milton has received $ 87.500...", but there's no information about the rest of the $ 170.000 [rest = $ 82.500]... awarded to the MIGP by the ford... [and are there other donors?]" Obviously for someone like you, who knows everything around the IGP, you could have said, "Oh, Veni, it's not $ 170K, it's $ 175K, and $ 87.5 is half of this; the [syr.edu] reports in the excel spreadsheet you linked only the part of the funding for the 2006-2007, but the actual grant is $ 175K. Instead, you wrote it as if the amount $ 170 K is made by me. And I considered this as you saying I am a liar. It's ok, everyone makes mistakes. Might be wise to be more careful when you pounce in public, though. You're right, everyone makes mistakes, including you (unlesss, of course, you consider yourself a God, huh?) ... What was the point of this whole conversation, anyway? The point was that you said I am a liar. And I just pointed out to the facts, which you don't like. They are not bad facts, they are just facts. veni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue May 15 12:43:58 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 18:43:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [council] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: <466883.6898.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <466883.6898.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Extremely well done Mouhamet Diop. Kudos et el Lutta continua!! Yours is an eye opener. Africa is not only an area of Malaria, illness, debts and poverty, as Mr Nicolas Sarkozy alluded in his highly contemptous speech as french President elect last week, but also that of technology as well. On 5/15/07, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Note: forwarded message attached. > > FYI, along with a note sent to the GNSO Council > 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 > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue May 15 13:21:54 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:21:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance In-Reply-To: <20070513121348.D2EC0334FBA@mxr.isoc.bg> (message from Veni Markovski on Sun, 13 May 2007 08:13:50 -0400) References: <20070513104835.47BBBC9466@smtp1.electricembers.net> <008d01c7954d$a70bb050$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <20070513114207.B813F4DCFE@quill.bollow.ch> <20070513121348.D2EC0334FBA@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070515172154.E30FD5199A@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > At 13:42 5/13/2007 +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > > > > However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's > > > performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up sufficiently and > > > made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to consideration > > > within ICANN. > > > >That is not good enough. There also needs to be accountability in the > >consideration itself, not only in the route from comment to > >consideration. > > Norbert, > if you can phrase this positively, that could be a contribution. Well, since "there needs to be accountability in the consideration" is grammatically a positive statement, I'll assume that you mean the other meaning of the word "positive", which is "clearly or definitively stated". Since stating this point clearly and definitively is going to benefit not only ICANN (if ICANN choses to adopt this principle) but also all other internet governance processes, I'll take the time to try to do so. Here's a first draft: Principle of Accountability in Consideration of Public Comments All governance organisations should perceive themselves as agents acting in the interest of and on behalf of the general public. As the principal, the public is therefore not only entitled to being able to make comments, thereby providing input for consideration by the governance organisation, but in addition the public is also entitled to being able to verify that the comments are considered with appropriate diligence, and that all decisions are made with reasonable discretion in consideration of the public interest as the primary objective. When a governance organisation fails to fulfil reasonable expectations in this regard, the members of the public must be able to remove the people who are at fault for this failure from their positions of influence in the governance organisation. (There is a choice of several effective mechanisms by means of which such accountability can be implemented, including public elections of board members, or legally binding public commitments which can be enforced in a court of law.) > Well... let's put it this way: with all the work ICANN has been doing > since Karl is not on the board, it has actually addressed if not all, > then at least most, or some, of his concerns. The fundamental question is whether ICANN primarily serves the public interest, or some special interests. Judging ICANN by its actions, it looks to me like ICANN primarily serves some special interests. As I see it, that is the fundamental problem with ICANN. Implementing just some of Karl's good suggestions but not enough to change the fundamental nature of ICANN, so that ICANN becomes an organisation that actually, genuinely and competently, seeks to serve the public interest, isn't going to impress me. As long as not enough changes are made to achieve this profound effect, there is little significant effect on the actual decisions made by ICANN. Whether "most, or some, of his concerns" have been addressed is irrelevant. The question is whether _enough_ of his concerns have been addressed to change the fundamental nature of ICANN. Karl says that isn't the case, and that is my impression also. Gruss, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch Pr�sident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Die SIUG engagiert sich f�r Privatsph�re und Mitgestaltungsm�glichkeiten in der Informationsgesellschaft. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue May 15 14:32:48 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:32:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Recommendation - Offset carbon footprint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28F885E8-0581-4E04-BC69-D769B9D1037E@privaterra.info> On 15-May-07, at 11:44 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On 5/15/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > > > Those of from around WSIS/ Geneva will likely remember that the Swiss > govt had a direct link on WSIS page for one to purchase carbon offset > credits. Might I suggest the same thing be done by organizers of the > IGF and ICANN meetings. > > > > How about virtual attendance? That would be much more effective. > I attend about 3/4 of the RIR meetings this way. It is much more > efficient! > > I was referring to those who travel to meetings. For virtual attendance, one would have a smaller carbon emission to compensate.. As for virtual attendance, as you may know i've long been an advocate of using tools to allow for virtual participation and engagement. In the ICANN and IGF context, it would be great if steps where taken to allow for more effective remote participation and engagement during the physical meeting itself. ICANN meetings as well as those of the IGF have long streamed video and/or audio - allowing those not present to listen in, however virtually nothing has been done to allow the virtual audience to engage the physical meeting. Panels and/or sessions that include virtual participants should be tried using well known, and well tested technologies. regards Robert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue May 15 16:27:15 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:27:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: <466883.6898.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <466883.6898.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070515202715.GA2043@nic.fr> > But that's just the second registrar in that huge place called > Africa. The second ICANN-accredited registrar for ICANN gTLD. African ccTLD have registrars, do you know? PS: kheweul.com will not be noticed for its technical abilities: the authoritative name servers have different conventions for the serial number of the zone... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Tue May 15 16:54:49 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: <20070515202715.GA2043@nic.fr> Message-ID: <75502.33134.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> African > ccTLD > have registrars, do you know? Oh yeah, those generally called ccTLD managers? Yes I knew that, and that naming makes me suspect their models may vary a lot from ICANN's, I mean, how they operate in terms of separating the registry functions from the registrar business, etc. Anyway, when I said second registrar, I meant of gTLD (in fact, all of the non-ccTLD space!) I assume everyone, regardless of their geographic location, should be eligible to do business in the gTLD name space, and consider 2 registrars in that space for the whole Africa is really, really, really little. Mawaki --- Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > But that's just the second registrar in that huge place > called > > Africa. > > The second ICANN-accredited registrar for ICANN gTLD. African > ccTLD > have registrars, do you know? > > PS: kheweul.com will not be noticed for its technical > abilities: the > authoritative name servers have different conventions for the > serial > number of the zone... > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue May 15 17:11:09 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 23:11:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: <75502.33134.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20070515202715.GA2043@nic.fr> <75502.33134.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070515211109.GA6190@nic.fr> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:54:49PM -0700, Mawaki Chango wrote a message of 35 lines which said: > that naming makes me suspect their models may vary a lot from > ICANN's, I mean, how they operate in terms of separating the > registry functions from the registrar business, etc. Sure, there are many ways to operate a TLD, especially when you do not see it from Marina del Rey. > I assume everyone, regardless of their geographic location, should > be eligible to do business in the gTLD name space, and consider 2 > registrars in that space for the whole Africa is really, really, > really little. It is questionable to use a gTLD, which mean most of the money will go to the USA, instead of a local TLD. (I know that many people in Africa choose a gTLD because several ccTLD in Africa are ultra-broken or so expensive than paying US $ to Verisign is better. But this may change.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed May 16 04:09:09 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:09:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Recommendation - Offset carbon footprint In-Reply-To: <28F885E8-0581-4E04-BC69-D769B9D1037E@privaterra.info> References: <28F885E8-0581-4E04-BC69-D769B9D1037E@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <004f01c79791$7caca5d0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > ICANN meetings as well as those of the IGF have long streamed video > and/or audio - allowing those not present to listen in, however > virtually nothing has been done to allow the virtual audience to > engage the physical meeting. Panels and/or sessions that include > virtual participants should be tried using well known, and well > tested technologies. I agree, but what are these technologies you're referring to? Marratech doesn't appear to scale well - more than five people and there are issues. And it needs heavy bandwidth. Streaming technologies are expensive and complex and don't provide sufficient interaction. Chatrooms are good for chat but for some reason don't stretch over into deliberation. Ad hoc systems have an extraordinary habit of falling over. Real-time interaction remains extremely difficult to achieve because it requires people to be able to hear all that happens - something that is a consistent problem - because the disconnect is still physically there. Also because it is difficult for a physical presence (an arm raised, a nod to the chair) to be reproduced effectively online. And because a chair has tremendous difficulty following things offline and online at the same time. And so on. Is David Allen on this list? He has much more experience than I do in these matters. But very far from saying this is not possible, I am thoroughly committed to find practical solutions to this issue of effective remote participation. If you could provide a list of software you think might be useful in this area, I *guarantee* you that they will be put through proper testing and any that survive real-world scenarios will be pushed for use both within the IGF and ICANN contexts. Kieren ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 16 04:14:14 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:14:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Recommendation - Offset carbon footprint In-Reply-To: <004f01c79791$7caca5d0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <28F885E8-0581-4E04-BC69-D769B9D1037E@privaterra.info> <004f01c79791$7caca5d0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: On 5/16/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > > ICANN meetings as well as those of the IGF have long streamed video > > and/or audio - allowing those not present to listen in, however > > virtually nothing has been done to allow the virtual audience to > > engage the physical meeting. Panels and/or sessions that include > > virtual participants should be tried using well known, and well > > tested technologies. > > > > I agree, but what are these technologies you're referring to? > > Marratech doesn't appear to scale well - more than five people and there > are > issues. And it needs heavy bandwidth. > > Streaming technologies are expensive and complex and don't provide > sufficient interaction. Chatrooms are good for chat but for some reason > don't stretch over into deliberation. Ad hoc systems have an extraordinary > habit of falling over. > > Real-time interaction remains extremely difficult to achieve because it > requires people to be able to hear all that happens - something that is a > consistent problem - because the disconnect is still physically there. > Also > because it is difficult for a physical presence (an arm raised, a nod to > the > chair) to be reproduced effectively online. And because a chair has > tremendous difficulty following things offline and online at the same > time. > And so on. > > Is David Allen on this list? He has much more experience than I do in > these > matters. > > But very far from saying this is not possible, I am thoroughly committed > to > find practical solutions to this issue of effective remote participation. > > If you could provide a list of software you think might be useful in this > area, I *guarantee* you that they will be put through proper testing and > any > that survive real-world scenarios will be pushed for use both within the > IGF > and ICANN contexts. Ask Leo what RIPE do. they have the best online participation stuff of all the RIR's, tho ARIN and now AfriNIC not far behind. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed May 16 06:27:34 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:27:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: <20070515211109.GA6190@nic.fr> References: <20070515202715.GA2043@nic.fr> <75502.33134.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20070515211109.GA6190@nic.fr> Message-ID: Mawaki and stephane can you pople be very down to earth? You being too technical in your pronouncements. I want to write an article for the local audience on this achievement by our friend in Senegal. What does the whole process entails, who is gaining what for which outcome?. On a deeper note whic is the other African country to have that process and why according to you is Africa trailing behind? Gentlemen, you will be credited for your input. Warmly Aaron On 5/15/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:54:49PM -0700, > Mawaki Chango wrote > a message of 35 lines which said: > > > that naming makes me suspect their models may vary a lot from > > ICANN's, I mean, how they operate in terms of separating the > > registry functions from the registrar business, etc. > > Sure, there are many ways to operate a TLD, especially when you do not > see it from Marina del Rey. > > > I assume everyone, regardless of their geographic location, should > > be eligible to do business in the gTLD name space, and consider 2 > > registrars in that space for the whole Africa is really, really, > > really little. > > It is questionable to use a gTLD, which mean most of the money will go > to the USA, instead of a local TLD. > > (I know that many people in Africa choose a gTLD because several ccTLD > in Africa are ultra-broken or so expensive than paying US $ to > Verisign is better. But this may change.) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed May 16 06:52:48 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:52:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: References: <20070515202715.GA2043@nic.fr> <75502.33134.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20070515211109.GA6190@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070516105248.GB11105@nic.fr> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:27:34PM +0200, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote a message of 58 lines which said: > You being too technical in your pronouncements. Rereading the whole thread, there was only *one* technical issue, in a post-scriptum. This issue is now obsolete (they fixed the name servers). > I want to write an article for the local audience on this > achievement by our friend in Senegal. He may not be in Senegal. The whois output for kheweul.com shows an address "1501 4th Avenue, Los Angeles, CA", a city far away from Senegal... Do not take everything written by ICANN at face value. > What does the whole process entails, who is gaining what for which > outcome?. On a deeper note whic is the other African country to > have that process and why according to you is Africa trailing > behind? The important things to keep in mind, IMHO: * the whole thing is a non-event, mostly ICANN's public relations * some african ccTLD have a registry/registrar system so kheweul.com is NOT the second registrar in Africa, there are many others. It is the second *ICANN* registrar (for gTLD) which is quite different. You can get, as examples, the list of Ivory Coast registrars at http://www.nic.ci/ and the list of Kenya registrars at http://www.kenic.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=48. * links of kheweul.com with Africa seems to be quite weak. On their home page (http://www.kheweul.com/), you can see they sell ".com", ".org", ".fr", ".be", even ".cn" but not one african TLD, not even ".sn". Besides, none of their nameservers is in Africa. * the interesting discussion is wether african providers should promote US-based gTLD or local ccTLD. This is a complex issue: with the US-based gTLD, a part of the money flows from Africa to the USA, which is not a good idea. On the other hand, some african ccTLD are badly managed, very policy-heavy (lots of bureaucracy to register a domain), very expensive and sometimes very poor technically. (Others are quite good like ".ke" already mentioned.) Currently, it is a chicken-and-egg problem: many africans do not use the african ccTLD because of the reasons above. So, there is little incentive to improve them and so users do not use them and so on. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Wed May 16 07:15:38 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:15:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: References: <20070515202715.GA2043@nic.fr> <75502.33134.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20070515211109.GA6190@nic.fr> Message-ID: <464AE7DA.4000801@panos-ao.org> Nyangkwe Apart from what you can read here on that issue, to write your article read discussions on this issue here http://lists.reseauafricanet.org/index.html/arc/africa_net/2007-05/mail1.html (read messages with the subject : "Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal") Best KL Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit : > Mawaki and stephane > > can you pople be very down to earth? You being too technical in your > pronouncements. I want to write an article for the local audience on > this achievement by our friend in Senegal. > What does the whole process entails, who is gaining what for which > outcome?. > On a deeper note whic is the other African country to have that process > and why according to you is Africa trailing behind? > > Gentlemen, you will be credited for your input. > > Warmly > > Aaron > On 5/15/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:54:49PM -0700, >> Mawaki Chango wrote >> a message of 35 lines which said: >> >> > that naming makes me suspect their models may vary a lot from >> > ICANN's, I mean, how they operate in terms of separating the >> > registry functions from the registrar business, etc. >> >> Sure, there are many ways to operate a TLD, especially when you do not >> see it from Marina del Rey. >> >> > I assume everyone, regardless of their geographic location, should >> > be eligible to do business in the gTLD name space, and consider 2 >> > registrars in that space for the whole Africa is really, really, >> > really little. >> >> It is questionable to use a gTLD, which mean most of the money will go >> to the USA, instead of a local TLD. >> >> (I know that many people in Africa choose a gTLD because several ccTLD >> in Africa are ultra-broken or so expensive than paying US $ to >> Verisign is better. But this may change.) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > -- Ken Lohento Programme "Usages et politiques du numérique" (TIC)/ Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Institut Panos Afrique de l'Ouest/Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 849 16 66 www.panos-ao.org www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://mediatic.panos-ao.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 rguerra at privaterra.org Wed May 16 08:43:53 2007 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:43:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Virtual Participation - It doesn't have to be complex to work well. Message-ID: Kieren: Using technology for virtual participation isn't as complex as you make it seem. Suffice it to say that there are a variety of different tools and methods that can be used to help involve a virtual audience into a physical meeting. My experience has been that though bandwidth is important, it isn't the only factor. The setup and format of the physical meeting also is a key factor. Video though visually appearing doesn't necessarily add much. A good audio stream is at times sufficient . For example, a teleconference combined with interactive tools can perhaps suffice. In the ICANN context, a simple solution would to place an audio transcript of the meeting online. As the meetings are streamed anyway, I don't think recording them would add any additional work. The audio would have to be saved - that could either be done on the ICANN site, or preferably on archive.org . With an online archive individual users, the private sector, researchers, govts and others could thus have a way to access the discussion if one missed a particular meeting, or didn't catch part of the discussion on the stream. The Tunis phase WSIS meetings and well as the IGF meeting in Athens are online. If they can do it, then surely ICANN can do the same. I'd be happy to follow-up with you the experience here in Canada as well as novel approaches being using by the NGO sector to address the issue of bringing people to a meeting remotely. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 16-May-07, at 4:09 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> ICANN meetings as well as those of the IGF have long streamed video >> and/or audio - allowing those not present to listen in, however >> virtually nothing has been done to allow the virtual audience to >> engage the physical meeting. Panels and/or sessions that include >> virtual participants should be tried using well known, and well >> tested technologies. > > > > I agree, but what are these technologies you're referring to? > > Marratech doesn't appear to scale well - more than five people and > there are > issues. And it needs heavy bandwidth. > > Streaming technologies are expensive and complex and don't provide > sufficient interaction. Chatrooms are good for chat but for some > reason > don't stretch over into deliberation. Ad hoc systems have an > extraordinary > habit of falling over. > > Real-time interaction remains extremely difficult to achieve > because it > requires people to be able to hear all that happens - something > that is a > consistent problem - because the disconnect is still physically > there. Also > because it is difficult for a physical presence (an arm raised, a > nod to the > chair) to be reproduced effectively online. And because a chair has > tremendous difficulty following things offline and online at the > same time. > And so on. > > Is David Allen on this list? He has much more experience than I do > in these > matters. > > But very far from saying this is not possible, I am thoroughly > committed to > find practical solutions to this issue of effective remote > participation. > > If you could provide a list of software you think might be useful > in this > area, I *guarantee* you that they will be put through proper > testing and any > that survive real-world scenarios will be pushed for use both > within the IGF > and ICANN contexts. > > > > > Kieren > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed May 16 09:07:11 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 06:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Recommendation - Offset carbon footprint In-Reply-To: 004f01c79791$7caca5d0$0200a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356 Message-ID: Kieren, If the cost of Flying to San Juan is $1000 round trip per person, for one (1) meeting And each person buys a specified �conference-set� or the Organization Lease the systems and FedEx/DHL/UPS the units to the Individuals. The foot print would be reduced. Do a head count is San Juan or use stats from previous meetings, assuming there are at least 36 people in attendance (non-local) per meeting; � That�s 36,000 Dollars/meeting x 3 meeting/yr = 108,000 Dollars � Plenty enough money to lease the latest equipment. I think you would also find a few companies willing to donate or loan you their equipment (maybe for a small ad or endorsement). You could also setup Conference Centers, by having a conference room setup in select cities around the World, People would only need to travel to the center, not Continent-to-Continent. -- Another Idea: Dot.Travel is an ICANN Register, ask them to setup an Airline agreement for ICANN bound meetings (all people who are traveling too the event) wherein the Frequent-Flyer points of the Individuals attending are then pooled, and then hold a drawing for an under-privileged or under-represented area�s Person to be flown into the next meeting. Of course this program would have to convince People enough to give up their un-discussed �fringe-benefits� of ICANN travel expenses. But you could easily enforce the policy on ICANN Staffers who attend. [That does not reduce the Carbon-Footprint, but it does make use of economic efficiency and representation] -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 16 09:22:07 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 22:22:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: For consideration:ICC BASIS input on the draft programme and schedule for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro Message-ID: For info. PDF file not attached. Download from URL below. Thanks, Adam > > >Dear Colleague, > >Attached please find the ICC BASIS input on the draft programme and >schedule for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro >12-15 November 2007. This submission is also available at: >http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/Final_ICCBASIS_input_on_draft_IGFprogramme_Rio_16_05_07.pdf >, and responds to the draft programme and schedule posted for public >comment by the IGF Secretariat which is available at: >http://www.intgovforum.org/. > > >This input supplements ICC BASIS' preliminary input on the IGF Rio >topics which was circulated to you on 3 May 2007, and is available >at >http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/Preliminary_BASIS_IGF_Rio_topics_03_05_07.pdf > > >Thank you in advance for your consideration of the reflections and >priorities of global business on these important issues. > > >Best regards, >Ayesha ><> > > >Ayesha Hassan >International Chamber of Commerce >Senior Policy Manager >Electronic Business, IT, and Telecommunications >Executive in charge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy >38 Cours Albert 1er >75008 Paris, France > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed May 16 11:04:42 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: <20070516105248.GB11105@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070516150448.46116.qmail@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Ok, now here is, not my side of the story, but my perspective. When Stephane, objecting to what I wrote, says: "kheweul.com is NOT the second registrar in Africa, there are many others. It is the second *ICANN* registrar (for gTLD) which is quite different." And that's exactly my point! First, the message I forwarded here was initially sent to the GNSO council which is the ICANN policy body that deal with gTLD-related policies, so it is obviously part of ICANN community. Furthermore, I think the announcement forwarde was clear enough that this the second ICANN accredited registrar. So Stephane's objection may help some readers who have missed those details to understatnd that, but is in my view irrelevant as a *correction* to what I wrote, which unfortunately the way he seemed to present it. Seconf you all know that a Whois query provides you with the contact details of the registrant of the domain name. Not necessary the actual entity who owns the name or any business that is conducted behind or with it. So the Whois data doesn't even tell us where Kheweul as legal entity has been incorporated and where are its headquarters. What I know about Kheweul (the business, not the domain name) is that Mouhamet Diop at least part of the owners and managers. He's Senegalease and live in Dakar. (Also note, without any assumption whatsoever about the present case: Maybe thanks to globalization, there are many Senegaleses, Malians, Kenyans, etc. around the world who set up a business entity far from their country for diverse reason, such as the paperwork and management is easier there, while doing business in their country and still have some level of control over the proceedings and investments.) Mouhamet is known by ICANN for having sit on the board in the past, so you may say this (in addition to his hardwork) made it possible, but other than that, you may want. Last point: I have never meant to say the business model implied by ICANN registry/registrar processes are perfect. For the time being they are what they are, and I am indeed a strong believer that Africans, just as anybody else, need to be present at all levels of the chain. Now some people think (and I wonder if that is not Stephane's perspective) that improving the economies and people's life in Africa only takes, or mostly requires, development aid and state action/intervention. This, and only this (especially the aid part) makes me think Development will feature among the longest lasting political scandal of the humankind. I believe in genuinely respecting people, making large room to their perception of their own problems and in the crafting of possible solutions, contradicting them when necessary until a true conversation takes place, letting them try eventually solutions of their own and fail or succeed at reality check and then resume the conversation, and also letting them win when they just deserve it (like the Burkinabe, Malian and Beninese cotton on the global market) without tinkering with the rules just for the sake of keeping the winners always on the same side, and say, "Oh well, we'll help you with public aid to development"! This may seem out of context to you, but the reason I'm saying this is, if there are Africans who want to be ICANN registrars, why not? If by transferring money to North American registries or ICANN is an empediment for a registrar to make profit, then there wouldn't be registrars not even in North America (money that I make being transferred to someone else in my country is still no longer my money.) I think for any registrar to succeed in Africa, it must come up with some little innovative ways to do business. And my hope is a privately-owned ICANN-accredited registrar may well end up being a sort of proof-of-concept of alternative business models that would shed a light on the current assumptions in vogue within ICANN. This might lead to more trust in the feasability of an African gTLD registry (so yes, ICANN-contracted! and BTW, I believe the gTLD space is global both from provider and demand sides; it doesn't have to remain North American mainly) and to a more amenable set of criteria for ICANN's registry market entry. Meanwhile, that might also teach some good lessons to the ccTLD registrars/managers whose problems are not only due to their potential clients preferring to register .com or .org, etc., and as a result, the whole landscape might change for better. That's a more dynamic view I think. Mawaki --- Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:27:34PM +0200, > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote > a message of 58 lines which said: > > > You being too technical in your pronouncements. > > Rereading the whole thread, there was only *one* technical > issue, in a > post-scriptum. This issue is now obsolete (they fixed the name > servers). > > > I want to write an article for the local audience on this > > achievement by our friend in Senegal. > > He may not be in Senegal. The whois output for kheweul.com > shows an > address "1501 4th Avenue, Los Angeles, CA", a city far away > from > Senegal... Do not take everything written by ICANN at face > value. > > > What does the whole process entails, who is gaining what for > which > > outcome?. On a deeper note whic is the other African > country to > > have that process and why according to you is Africa > trailing > > behind? > > The important things to keep in mind, IMHO: > > * the whole thing is a non-event, mostly ICANN's public > relations > > * some african ccTLD have a registry/registrar system so > kheweul.com > is NOT the second registrar in Africa, there are many others. > It is > the second *ICANN* registrar (for gTLD) which is quite > different. You > can get, as examples, the list of Ivory Coast registrars at > http://www.nic.ci/ and the list of Kenya registrars at > http://www.kenic.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=48. > > * links of kheweul.com with Africa seems to be quite weak. On > their > home page (http://www.kheweul.com/), you can see they sell > ".com", > ".org", ".fr", ".be", even ".cn" but not one african TLD, not > even > ".sn". Besides, none of their nameservers is in Africa. > > * the interesting discussion is wether african providers > should > promote US-based gTLD or local ccTLD. This is a complex issue: > with > the US-based gTLD, a part of the money flows from Africa to > the USA, > which is not a good idea. On the other hand, some african > ccTLD are > badly managed, very policy-heavy (lots of bureaucracy to > register a > domain), very expensive and sometimes very poor technically. > (Others > are quite good like ".ke" already mentioned.) > > Currently, it is a chicken-and-egg problem: many africans do > not use > the african ccTLD because of the reasons above. So, there is > little > incentive to improve them and so users do not use them and so > on. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed May 16 11:31:56 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: <20070516150448.46116.qmail@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <771799.86441.qm@web58712.mail.re1.yahoo.com> [corrigendum] "...so you may say this (in addition to his hardwork) made it possible, but other than that, you may want [to contact him directly to inestigate this further.]" --- Mawaki Chango wrote: > Ok, now here is, not my side of the story, but my perspective. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 16 12:18:49 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:18:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal Message-ID: >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 05/15/07 5:11 PM >>> >It is questionable to use a gTLD, which mean most of the money will go >to the USA, instead of a local TLD. This is a questionable assertion. An ICANN-accredited registrar can register domains in any gTLD; hopefully there will be new ones, including IDNs. Afilias (.info, .mobi) is incorporated in Ireland but the backers are transnational. And a competent, up-to-speed registrar can also sell registrations in any other ccTLD and perhaps develop the competencies requyired to operate a TLD of their own. Depending on the retail price, registrars can be retaining more of the money than registries. Including from ancillary business like hosting. The idea, my friend, is not to "keep the money in Africa" (a vestige of the kind of economic nationalism that has stagnated so many African economies) but to offer African Internet users _value_, isn't it? The internet economy is based on a global division of labor and is not well-guided by autarchic concepts. (I know that many people in Africa choose a gTLD because several ccTLD in Africa are ultra-broken or so expensive than paying US $ to Verisign is better. But this may change.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Wed May 16 12:54:20 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:54:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Moderation, and other comments on the comments to the request for comments Message-ID: <464B373C.8070801@bertola.eu> All, I just got back from a couple of days travelling and offline, opened the list and... whoa! I must confess I've only had time to sample a bit of the discussion. I can only join David Goldstein's appeal about netiquette. If people want a more proactive moderation by coordinators, I'll be happy to oblige as much as possible. About the substance, if I may explain a bit, it is just normal that the Board of a 100-employee corporation likes to get external opinions of how well the corporation is performing, and whether it is reaching its stated objectives. This does not really lie in the hyperspace realm of international politics, but mostly in that of good management practices for a company. Think of this as "should we give prizes to those who work for ICANN, or should we fire as many as we can?" (well, some way in the middle). It is unfortunate that Kieren's message, which was clearly well intentioned, hit someone's nerves. I think that what he meant is just to give advice; anyone is entirely free not to take his advice and state points in a different way, though, as per the advice, this will not make any impact. Even free to dig it up after five years and say, "see? that did not make any impact!". Even if it, indirectly, did. [IMHO, Karl's doc had many good ideas, I wish there had been a way for it to be both written and received in a less confrontational manner.] It is also unfortunate that there is so much prejudice around, in all directions. If the caucus wants to prepare a response to the RFC, that'd be excellent. However, given my multiple involvements, I think I have to recuse myself from leading such an effort. I don't want a 50-message thread questioning whether the commas in my draft were added in good faith. I will perhaps rather submit a personal response to the RFC. Anyway, nothing justifies personal attacks, and protracted personal quarrels that should definitely go off list. Please let me know if you expect more proactive moderation, compatibly with offline times. Regards, P.S. In any case, if anyone had a grant to give, even 1/10th of Milton's one... :-D -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Wed May 16 13:36:56 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:36:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal In-Reply-To: <20070515211109.GA6190@nic.fr> References: <20070515202715.GA2043@nic.fr> <75502.33134.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20070515211109.GA6190@nic.fr> Message-ID: <464B4138.8070609@cavebear.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Sure, there are many ways to operate a TLD, especially when you do not > see it from Marina del Rey. Indeed. I tend to find much of the discussion of internet governance to contain assumptions that might deserve to be questioned. For instance, there is the ICANN model of registry/registrar operation and business methods. It is an assumption that is been locked into ICANN's notion of domain name governance. But there are different way of doing things - http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html Internet governance also tends to assume, or at least hopes, that the end-to-end principle will hold sway over the net. However the net today is one with NATs, firewalls, national filters, and application level gateways. And there is a subtle in user perception away from the net as a communications vehicle to an applications platform. This is an important shift - the expectation is that applications will work not that packets will be transparently conveyed end to end. As a result we may find that the internet of tomorrow to be less a unified mesh of IP packet connectivity and more a mesh of competing application-platform providers that happen to have negotiated application level gateways for those applications the providers want to allow to extend beyond their corporate borders. What does this mean for internet governance? How do we embed flexibility into bodies of internet governance? How do we prevent them from being defenders of the status quo? What principles and biases should we construct into bodies of internet governance - for example a preference for outcomes that adhere to the end-to-end principle over outcomes that segment the net? Should bodies of internet governance be constructed so that they cease and disappear after some period of time unless given a new, limited, lease on life through some concrete action of the community of internet users? Should the enactments of bodies of internet governance be of limited duration so that they need to be re-affirmed periodically? --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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed May 16 15:19:54 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Enactments of Limited Duration In-Reply-To: <464B4138.8070609@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <839158.9241.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Karl asks: "Should the enactments of bodies of internet governance be of limited duration so that they need to be re-affirmed periodically?" For what it's worth, this is a topic that I have raised as well directly with several ICANN Board directors specifically in response to the ongoing circumvention of the Expired Domain Deletion Consensus Policy (by that segment of the registrar community that has incorporated "direct transfer" policies into their Terms of Service Agreements -- these policies force you to transfer an expiring name to the registrar or their agent for auction purposes rather than allowing the domain to return to the pool of available names). If ICANN's consensus policies are not enforced and are routinely ignored by many major registrars, then either the policy itself or the approach to enforcement needs to be periodically revisited. Perhaps all of these consensus policies should have a sunset clause... ____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 17:21:07 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:21:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: Information about the 10th session of the CSTD Message-ID: <200705162120.l4GLKVfN018843@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached and below the latest information circulated by Mongi Hamdi from the CSTD Secretariat on the up coming session. Let me take this occasion to remind you that registration to the CSTD is a different process that registration to all the other meetings of the WSIS related cluster of meetings. The CSTD is a formal ECOSOC event, and participants would need a separate CSTD badge. To obtain this badge, you should mail or fax to the CSTD-Secretariat the registration form which is available for download on the page http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=4066 &lang=1 This is of course only valid for NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC or NGOs and civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS. We have in addition been informed by the CSTD Secretariat that the public gallery on room XIX will be open during the CSTD meeting. Therefore anyone with a "cluster of WSIS-related events 2007" badge may also observe the CSTD on the public gallery (without therefore the possibility to request the floor or interact with delegates being in the room). Note finally that UNOG Security has agreed to open the badging center at Pregny Gate also on Sunday 20 May from 14.00 to 18.00. Pre-registered participants who arrive at Geneva already on Sunday may take advantage of getting their badge on Sunday already, as we expect queues at Pregny Gate on Monday morning before the ministerial level opening ceremony. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org _____ De : Mongi Hamdi Envoyé : mercredi, 16. mai 2007 11:31 Bartolomeo.Daddario at unctad.org; Ma.Lourdes.Pasinos at unctad.org Objet : Information about the 10th session of the CSTD Dear colleagues, We would like to bring to your attention the forthcoming 10th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD ), scheduled to take place in Room XIX at the Palais des Nations in Geneva from 21 to 25 May 2007. The CSTD has been mandated by ECOSOC to serve as the focal point for the follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society. In line with efforts to meets the WSIS targets, the session will review progress in WSIS implementation and discuss digital opportunities, including the very latest analysis of the digital divide. The tenth session will also identify achievements, gaps and challenges, as well as future actions needed to improve implementation. According to the rules of procedures for the functional commissions of ECOSOC, the meeting is public, i.e. non-member States of the Commission can participate, as well as representatives from intergovernmental organizations and from NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC. On 26 April 2007, ECOSOC adopted two decisions allowing civil society and business entities that were accredited to WSIS to participate in the next two sessions of the CSTD. The first day of the session (21 May) will consist of an Opening Ceremony and a Ministerial Segment, and the second day will feature a joint event organized by the CSTD and the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID). More information about the session can be found at http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=4066&lang=1 Please find attached an information note for participants and an Aide mémoire for Missions that are represented at ministerial level. All diplomats from Missions in Geneva can participate with a valid UNOG badge. For government representatives from capital and for NGOs, civil society and business entities, a CSTD photo-badge will be required to attend the CSTD session. Special non-photo-badges are available on request for delegations at ministerial level and their entourage (see the Aide mémoire ). We would also like to inform all Missions that the badging unit at Pregny Gate, besides the normal opening hours (Monday to Friday 8.00 to 17.00 ) will exceptionally be open on Sunday 20 May from 14.00 to 18.00 to badge CSTD participants. For more information please refer to the undersigned. Sincerely yours Mongi Hamdi Chief, Science and Technology, DITE United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Secretary to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development Tel. 004122 917 5069 Fax. 004122 9170122 http://www.unctad.org/stdev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Information for participants final final.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 98816 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Aidemémoire 9May07.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed May 16 23:28:45 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Create an open, inclusive, development-oriented information society - Ban Ki-Moon Message-ID: <239919.46949.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> List members may have an interest in this story. Cheers David Create an open, inclusive, development-oriented information society - Ban Ki-Moon UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in his message on World Telecommunication and Information Society Day, May 17, 2007, called for creation of a truly open, inclusive and development-oriented information society. According to a press release issued by the UN Information Center (UNIC) here on Wednesday, the full text of his message reads: "Since the advent of the telegraph in the mid-19th century, the International Telecommunication Union has been among the key players in helping the world to communicate. Today, from traditional telecommunications to the latest advances in cyberspace, ITU continues to provide governments, the private sector and civil society with expert guidance and assistance in addressing issues related to information and communication technologies. And following the successful conclusion of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society, the entire UN system is committed to the plan of action strongly linking ICT with development. http://irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-237/0705168861113559.htm --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Thu May 17 09:47:57 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:47:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Informal consultation between ITU and civil society - 18 May Message-ID: <200705171347.l4HDlKpp000367@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to remind you that the informal consultation between ITU and civil society on the implementation of ITU Resolution 141 will take place tomorrow (10:00-13:00). Invitation letter attached and more information at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2007/civilsocietyconsultation/index.h tml http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/ As already discussed with some of you who are in Geneva, we secured having Room K1/K2 (ITU Montbrillant Building) available from 9:00 to 10:00 for an informal CS Plenary discussion on: - Preparation for the consultation on ITU and civil society - Statement on CSTD programme of work (if time allows). All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org _____ De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mercredi, 28. mars 2007 20:27 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : 'Renate Bloem'; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Up date on CS participation in ITU activities Dear all, This is to inform you that, in the follow up to the adoption by the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference of Resolution 141 - Study on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union related to the World Summit on the Information Society (also here attached), we have been approached by the ITU Secretariat to kick-start a process of consultation with civil society entities. This resolution, recognising the need to enhance the participation of WSIS stakeholders in the ITU, provided: - the conduct of a study on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the ITU related to WSIS - the creation of a Working Group of the ITU Council to perform this study and to propose some reform on the basis of that study. The terms of reference and the mandate of this working group are included in the annex to resolution 141. This Working Group will be composed of ITU member states – with mention that their delegations may include appropriate legal, technical and regulatory experts – and will conduct open consultations. This Working Group is expected to start meeting on 15 June 2007. In implementing ITU Resolution 141, the ITU Secretariat took up the following steps: • Establishing the webpage of the Working Group of the Council on Resolution 141: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/ • On line call for written contributions for all stakeholders, as indicated on the previous page: all contributions will be made public. There is no deadline for submission at the moment. Written contributions should be sent to: ITU-Stakeholders at itu.int. • Establishing a webpage on the ITU sources on civil society: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/resources.html • Organisation on 18 May 2007 (10:00-13:00) at the ITU, in the framework of the WSIS related cluster of events, of an Informal consultation between ITU and civil society in which the ITU SG Hamadoun Touré will participate, as well as probably delegations of the two countries in charge of facilitating the work of the Working Group. More information will be circulated soon on this meeting. All the best, Philippe Dam Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Invitation to May 18 CS consultation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 75081 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Thu May 17 14:01:57 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:01:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom Message-ID: <20070517180615.6092A2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> International Herald Tribune on ICANN and the NomCom: http://iht.com/articles/2007/05/16/technology/ptend17.php ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Thu May 17 14:22:32 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:22:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom In-Reply-To: <20070517180615.6092A2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <20070517180615.6092A2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: I hope the publicity leads to good candidates putting forward their names for consideration by Nomcom. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 17-May-07, at 2:01 PM, Veni Markovski wrote: > International Herald Tribune on ICANN and the NomCom: http:// > iht.com/articles/2007/05/16/technology/ptend17.php ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri May 18 09:09:21 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:09:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] The third ICANN meeting in 2007 - Los Angeles In-Reply-To: References: <20070517180615.6092A2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20070518131406.6BC11334D3A@mxr.isoc.bg> ICANN advises that the public meeting scheduled to be held from 29 October through 2 November 2007 will take place in Los Angeles, California, USA. More details at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17may07.htm best, Veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Fri May 18 09:32:27 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr.Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:32:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Diplomacy goes virtual: Inauguration of diplomacy island & virtual embassy in second life Message-ID: http://privaterra.org/node/99 Diplomacy goes virtual: Inauguration of diplomacy island & virtual embassy in second life Organised by DiploFoundation in Partnership with the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) • VENUE: Diplomacy Island in Second Life (SL latitude/longitude: 150,191,26) Date/Time: 16:30 (GMT) - 22 May 2007 Geneva (GMT+2) 18:30, New York (GMT-4) 12:30 London (GMT+1) 17:30, New Delhi (GMT+5:30) 22:00, Beijing (GMT+8) 00:30 next day. PROGRAMME • Dr. Srgjan Kerim, President Designate of the United Nations General Assembly: Address from the United Nations – New York • Hon. Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Maldives – Official Opening of the Virtual Embassy of Maldives • Ambassador Walter Fust, Director of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation – Importance of Virtual Diplomacy for Small and Developing Countries • Mr. Philip Rosedale, CEO of Linden Labs & Founder of Second Life (TBC) • Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, Director of DiploFoundation – Presentation of the Diplomacy Island WHAT IS DIPLOMACY ISLAND? Diplomacy Island In front of the Virtual Embassy of Maldives Diplomacy Island is the next step in over a decade of research and development in the field of Virtual Diplomacy. Through Second Life, Diplo will explore new possibilities for diplomatic representation and negotiation. Diplomacy Island will be another channel for Diplo’s main mission to assist small and developing countries to participate meaningfully in international relations. Diplomacy Island includes the following “neighbourhoods”: The Diplomatic Quarter will host Virtual Embassies. Along with the Virtual Embassy of Maldives, which will be inaugurated on 22 May, several other embassies are under construction including embassies of Malta, Philippines and Macedonia. The Virtual Diplomatic Academy will host sessions and panels related to modern diplomacy and themes such as environmental diplomacy, energy diplomacy and cyber-diplomacy. The Virtual Diplomatic Museum will be more than a typical museum. Its main function will be to highlight the relevance of diplomacy to modern society, as opposed to the use of force. The Museum will present historical examples of the success of diplomacy. Visitors will have a chance to communicate “across time” with famous diplomats from the past including Talleyrand and Metternich. The Internet Governance Village will host panels, round table discussions and conferences on two sets of issues. First, of direct interest for Second Life citizens, the IG village will host discussions on privacy, security, digital identity and taxation in cyber-space. Second, the IG Village will promote discussions on Internet issues and developing countries, mainly on how to bridge the digital divide. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri May 18 11:41:09 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:41:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Diplomacy goes virtual: Inauguration of diplomacy island & virtual embassy in second life In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <190B053C-031F-4163-AC6A-F29F19B0AF78@psg.com> unfortunately i would need a computer more powerful then mine to get a second life. (not that i am sure i have a life in the first place.) it is an interesting concept though and i will be curious to see how far it goes. a. On 18 maj 2007, at 15.32, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > http://privaterra.org/node/99 > > Diplomacy goes virtual: Inauguration of diplomacy island & virtual > embassy in second life > > > Organised by DiploFoundation in Partnership with the Geneva Centre > for Security Policy (GCSP) > > • VENUE: Diplomacy Island in Second Life (SL latitude/longitude: > 150,191,26) > > Date/Time: 16:30 (GMT) - 22 May 2007 > > Geneva (GMT+2) 18:30, New York (GMT-4) 12:30 London (GMT+1) > 17:30, New Delhi (GMT+5:30) 22:00, Beijing (GMT+8) 00:30 next day. > > PROGRAMME > > • Dr. Srgjan Kerim, President Designate of the United Nations > General Assembly: Address from the United Nations – New York > • Hon. Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Maldives – > Official Opening of the Virtual Embassy of Maldives > • Ambassador Walter Fust, Director of the Swiss Agency for > Development and Cooperation – Importance of Virtual Diplomacy for > Small and Developing Countries > • Mr. Philip Rosedale, CEO of Linden Labs & Founder of Second Life > (TBC) > • Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, Director of DiploFoundation – Presentation > of the Diplomacy Island > > > WHAT IS DIPLOMACY ISLAND? > > Diplomacy Island > In front of the Virtual Embassy of Maldives > > Diplomacy Island is the next step in over a decade of research and > development in the field of Virtual Diplomacy. Through Second Life, > Diplo will explore new possibilities for diplomatic representation > and negotiation. Diplomacy Island will be another channel for > Diplo’s main mission to assist small and developing countries to > participate meaningfully in international relations. Diplomacy > Island includes the following “neighbourhoods”: > > The Diplomatic Quarter will host Virtual Embassies. Along with the > Virtual Embassy of Maldives, which will be inaugurated on 22 May, > several other embassies are under construction including embassies > of Malta, Philippines and Macedonia. > > The Virtual Diplomatic Academy will host sessions and panels > related to modern diplomacy and themes such as environmental > diplomacy, energy diplomacy and cyber-diplomacy. > > The Virtual Diplomatic Museum will be more than a typical museum. > Its main function will be to highlight the relevance of diplomacy > to modern society, as opposed to the use of force. The Museum will > present historical examples of the success of diplomacy. Visitors > will have a chance to communicate “across time” with famous > diplomats from the past including Talleyrand and Metternich. > > The Internet Governance Village will host panels, round table > discussions and conferences on two sets of issues. First, of direct > interest for Second Life citizens, the IG village will host > discussions on privacy, security, digital identity and taxation in > cyber-space. Second, the IG Village will promote discussions on > Internet issues and developing countries, mainly on how to bridge > the digital divide. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri May 18 13:55:47 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 19:55:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS Plenary meetings - 21-25 May 2007 Message-ID: <200705181755.l4IHtAlS019466@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Two 'live' pieces of information again: . A meeting room at the United Nations for daily CS Plenary meetings has been secured. Daily CS Plenary meetings will therefore take place between 6:00 and 7:00 pm between 21 and 25 May in Room XXVII (Palais des Nations). . Statement on multi-year programme of work and working methods: given that several among you were willing to make additional comments on the proposed draft, we postponed its submission to the CSTD Secretariat to give us some more time for consideration. All the best, Ph Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From lists at privaterra.info Fri May 18 14:38:05 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:38:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Recommendation - Offset carbon footprint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5648CBA0-78DA-4CB9-9E11-57AC15E154F7@privaterra.info> McTim: I'd like to know more about the type of tools and technology that you use to be able to virtually attend the meetings you mention. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 15-May-07, at 11:44 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On 5/15/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > > > Those of from around WSIS/ Geneva will likely remember that the Swiss > govt had a direct link on WSIS page for one to purchase carbon offset > credits. Might I suggest the same thing be done by organizers of the > IGF and ICANN meetings. > > > > How about virtual attendance? That would be much more effective. > I attend about 3/4 of the RIR meetings this way. It is much more > efficient! > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From shailam at yahoo.com Fri May 18 15:34:50 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Diplomacy goes virtual: Inauguration of diplomacy island & virtual embassy in second life In-Reply-To: <190B053C-031F-4163-AC6A-F29F19B0AF78@psg.com> Message-ID: <902295.69197.qm@web54301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> " Second Life" is very popular amongst the teens, young adults and those who are young at heart.It substitutes a fantasy life of any kind in place of a real life... Second life was talked about at the UN CSW Mar 2007 in New York at a Cybercpace and Technology conference and debated for its merits.Pure escapism...may be seen as a form of subliminal development of life skills and perceptions. I haven't tried it out, but now am curious about diplomacy island . Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI California 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 19 00:35:25 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 07:35:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Recommendation - Offset carbon footprint In-Reply-To: <5648CBA0-78DA-4CB9-9E11-57AC15E154F7@privaterra.info> References: <5648CBA0-78DA-4CB9-9E11-57AC15E154F7@privaterra.info> Message-ID: On 5/18/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > > McTim: > I'd like to know more about the type of tools and technology that you use > to be able to virtually attend the meetings you mention. > I use media Player classic, and Psi. I suspect that what you wan tot know is what technologies the meetings use to web/pod/audiocastand archive. For that, you can email RIPE staff @ meeting at ripe.net or for ARIN questions at merit.edu . -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From pouzin at well.com Sat May 19 03:12:39 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:12:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Id=E9es?= pour Rio - pdf Message-ID: <200705190712.l4J7CdIH002471@muse.enst.fr> >Propositions-Rio-V10.3.F1.pdf< ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Propositions-Rio-V10.3.F1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 190490 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pouzin at well.com Sat May 19 03:12:25 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:12:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Id=E9es?= pour Rio - Thoughts for Rio Message-ID: <200705190712.l4J7CPiT002369@muse.enst.fr> Les deux msgs suivants contiennent un document résultant de réflexions parmi un groupe de membres de la société civile. Bonne lecture. The two following msgs contain a document resulting from reflections within a group of civil society members. Enjoy. L'un des textes est en français, l'autre en anglais. One text is in french, the other in english. Cheers ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat May 19 03:12:59 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:12:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Thoughts for Rio - pdf Message-ID: <200705190712.l4J7CxZ4002574@muse.enst.fr> >Propositions-Rio-V10.3.pdf< ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Propositions-Rio-V10.3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 185464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat May 19 04:10:39 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 16:10:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Id=E9es?= pour Rio - Thoughts for Rio In-Reply-To: <200705190712.l4J7CPiT002369@muse.enst.fr> References: <200705190712.l4J7CPiT002369@muse.enst.fr> Message-ID: <464EB0FF.4000402@Malcolm.id.au> Louis Pouzin wrote: > The two following msgs contain a document resulting from reflections within a group of civil society members. Enjoy. Does your reference to a group of civil society members mean others besides Eurolinc? If so, who, if I may ask? It is very well done and coincides closely with my own thinking. I wish you all the best with 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Sat May 19 04:27:29 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:27:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] May 22nd, Geneva: APC/ITEM Book Launch Message-ID: <20070519082733.8DF1E1AF961@mail.gn.apc.org> Dear all, The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Third World Institute (ITeM) are pleased to announce the launch of the first edition of "Global Information Society Watch", and for those of you in Geneva next week, please come along on May 22nd, 1315-1500, to the Palais des Nations, Room XXVII for the onsite launch. We will have an interactive panel discussion with several of the chapter authors who'll speak briefly about WSIS in reflection, participation in international policy making bodies, the state of ICT policy development and implementation at national level and how they impact on people's lives. The sub-theme of this year's publications is 'participation'. We want to allow plenty of time to get your comments and feedback about what next steps and direction (sub-themes for exampe) for the 2008 edition, and are also interested in exploring new forms of collaboration. So, please come along on Tuesday May 22nd, we'll be providing lunch for you, during the launch, to makes things a little easier. Hope to see some of you there - the press release in english, spanish and french, is below - the full publication is available online for download and in html here: http://www.globaliswatch.org/ karen ==== Français suit Español sigue ---------------------------------- ENGLISH - ANGLAIS - INGLES ---------------------------------- PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEW REPORT MONITORS POLITICAL WILL TO MAKE THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION REALITY FOR ALL MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY, Thursday May 17 -- A new watchdog report monitoring promises made by governments and the United Nations to ensure that information technology is used to benefit millions of people, will be launched in Geneva on May 22. The fruits of the information technology 'revolution' are unevenly distributed between countries and within societies. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo it is claimed that as little as 2.5% of the population owns a telephone, whereas neighbouring Nigeria has one of the fastest growing IT markets in Africa. In India, a burgeoning technology industry has failed to provide phones or internet to vast rural areas. The gap is not only “digital” The reasons for the inequalities are complex but, claim the editors of the report - the Association for Progressive Communications and the Third World Institute - “experience shows that the status quo prevails unless citizens actively demand change from their governments. A ‘Global Information Society Watch’ is needed to make governments and international organisations accountable.” Launch of first Global Information Society Watch report The Global Information Society Watch 2007 report - the first in a series of annual reports - looks at the state of the field of information and communication technology (ICT) policy at local and global levels and particularly how policy impacts on the lives of people living in developing countries. Studies of the ICT policy situation in twenty-two countries from four regions are featured: Africa (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda); Asia (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and the Philippines); Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru); and Eastern Europe (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania), with one report from a Western European country (Spain). The report concludes that when it comes to ICTs for development, there are some conspicuous similarities between countries. Excluding Spain, the other twenty-one countries each show obvious evidence of the “digital divide” which impacts on the majority of people negatively. According to Brazilian authors RITS, the absence of a people-orientated policy framework in Brazil runs the risk of condemning the vast majority of people to “eternal disconnection”. The report also includes provocative, analytical essays on five international institutions (including the ITU, ICANN and the World Intellectual Property Organisation) questioning the extent to which they allow all stakeholders to participate in their processes. There is a special section on how to measure progress. “This report is an important effort at a critical time,” says Markus Kummer, executive coordinator of the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). “It is of utmost importance to know the extent to which the people affected have a voice in the policy-making organisations. Participation of all stakeholders in policy processes is a key element of good global governance. In this sense, the report will also be good input to the IGF in its continuing work on a development agenda for internet governance and the special emphasis being placed on capacity building for all stakeholders. More so, while so much attention is being put on the effort to overcome the inequities in global information access it is important to make sure that the people who need this access are actually served by those efforts.” "There is a lack of ICT-oriented indexes which focus on inclusion and exclusion in ICT policy decisions. Global Information Society Watch is a serious attempt to bridge this gap," says Rikke Frank Jørgensen, senior adviser at the Danish Institute for Human Rights. Connecting the dots to form the big ICT policy picture Alice Wanjira Gitau is part of KICTANet, a citizen-coalition that has worked critically with the Kenyan government to ensure issues of universal access and consumer rights are being addressed in Kenya’s first national ICT policy. “Rather than just publishing statistics,” she comments, “this new report provides an opportunity to share examples of the road travelled in policy-making, which will hopefully reduce the risk of following inappropriate paths.” “While international organisations and research institutions regularly churn out reports packed with data about the diffusion of ICTs and offer mainstream assessments of policy trends, they generally devote little attention to what all this means for the global public interest. Global Information Society Watch [...] connects the dots between national and global-level trends and gives readers a ‘big picture’ understanding of where we are heading and the risks and opportunities that entails,” explains Dr William J. Drake, director of the “Information Revolution and Global Governance” project, Graduate Institute for International Studies (Switzerland). More citizen involvement in policy-making is key “Increase in access to ICTs will not reduce poverty,” state APC and ITeM in their introduction to the 2007 report. “But there is a real danger that lack of access to ICTs can deepen existing social exclusion and create new forms of exclusion. In this context we believe it is essential for civil society networks to participate in and watch over ICT policy processes at the global, regional and national levels.” OBTAIN THE REPORT Download or read online: http://www.GlobalISWatch.org ABOUT THE EDITORS In compiling this publication, the APC and ITeM are following up on their long-term interest in the impact of civil society on governance processes and their efforts to enhance public participation in national and international forums. The APC network has been involved in global, regional and national ICT policy processes since 2000, with a focus on human rights and social inclusion in the information society and on promoting “digital inclusion”. Association for Progressive Communications (APC): http://www.apc.org ITeM has been active in researching and promoting the use of ICTs to strengthen citizen involvement in decision-making processes. It hosts international civil society advocacy initiatives such as “Social Watch”, which monitors social development and gender policies, and “IFIwatchnet”, which monitors the activities of the international financial institutions. Third World Institute (known by its Spanish acronym, ITeM): http://www.item.org.uy FOR MORE INFORMATION Pablo Accuosto Third World Institute (ITEM) Paullier 977 Montevideo 11200 URUGUAY Tel: + 598 2 412 4224 ext. 110 Email: accuosto at item.org.uy Karen Banks Association for Progressive Communications c/o GreenNet, Development House 56-64 Leonard Street London EC2A 4JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7065 0935 Email: karenb at gn.apc.org ------------------------------------- FRANCAIS - FRANCES - FRENCH -------------------------------------- COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE POUR PUBLCATION IMMÉDIATE UN NOUVEAU RAPPORT FAIT LE POINT SUR LA VOLONTÉ POLITIQUE DE FAIRE DE LA RÉVOLUTION DE L’INFORMATION UNE RÉALITÉ POUR TOUS MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY, jeudi 17 mai­Un nouveau rapport de surveillance qui suit de près les promesses que font les gouvernements et les Nations Unies pour veiller à ce que la technologie de l’information soit utilisée au profit de millions de personnes sera lancé à Genève le 22 mai. Les fruits de la révolution de la technologie de l’information ne sont pas répartis également entre les pays et au sein des sociétés. En République démocratique du Congo, on estime que pas plus de 2,5 % de la population possède un téléphone, alors qu’au Nigeria voisin, le marché de la TI est un de ceux qui connaît la plus forte croissance en Afrique. En Inde, une industrie de la technologie florissante n’a pas réussi à amener le téléphone ou l’internet à de vastes régions rurales. Le fossé n’est pas seulement « numérique » Les causes de ces inégalités sont complexes, mais selon les rédacteurs du rapport ­ l’Association pour le progrès des communications et l’Institut du tiers monde ­ « l’expérience montre que rien ne bouge si la population ne demande pas activement des changements auprès des gouvernements. Il faut une surveillance de la société mondiale de l’information pour que les gouvernements et les organisations internationales soient tenues responsables ». Lancement du premier rapport de surveillance sur la société mondiale de l’information Le rapport Global Information Society Watch 2007 ­ le premier d’une série de rapports annuels ­ fait un état des lieux de la politique sur les technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC) aux niveaux local et mondial et examine en particulier la façon dont la politique influe sur la vie des gens dans les pays en développement. Le rapport présente des études sur la situation de la politique des TIC dans vingt deux pays de quatre régions : l’Afrique (République démocratique du Congo, Égypte, Éthiopie, Kenya, Nigeria, Afrique du Sud et Ouganda); l’Asie (Bangladesh, Inde, Pakistan et les Philippines); l’Amérique latine (Argentine, Brésil, Colombie, Équateur, Mexique et Pérou) et l’Europe de l’Est (Bosnie-Herzégovine, Bulgarie, Croatie et Roumanie), plus un rapport d’un pays de l’Europe de l’Ouest (Espagne). Le rapport conclut qu’en ce qui concerne les TIC pour le développement, on constate des similitudes marquées entre les pays. À l’exclusion de l’Espagne, les vingt-et-un autres pays affichent des signes évidents de « fracture numérique » avec les répercussions négatives que cela implique sur la majorité de la population. Selon les auteurs brésiliens de RITS, l’absence au Brésil d’un cadre d’action axé sur les gens risque de condamner la grande majorité de la population à une marginalisation éternelle. Le rapport contient également des essais analytiques provocateurs sur cinq institutions internationales (dont l’UIT, l’ICANN et l’Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle) qui mettent en doute le rôle qu’elles jouent pour permettre à toutes les parties prenantes de participer à leurs processus. Une section porte sur la façon de mesurer les progrès. « Ce rapport représente un effort important à un moment critique, » déclare Markus Kummer, coordonnateur exécutif du Secrétariat du Forum sur la gouvernance de l’Internet (FGI). « Il est primordial de savoir dans quelle mesure les personnes touchées peuvent s’exprimer dans les organes de décision. La participation de toutes les parties prenantes aux processus de formulation des politiques est un élément fondamental de la bonne gouvernance mondiale. En ce sens, le rapport contribuera utilement aux travaux du FGI sur un programme de développement pour la gouvernance de l’internet et à la nouvelle orientation axée sur le renforcement des capacités pour toutes les parties prenantes. De plus, alors que l’on accorde énormément d’attention aux moyens de surmonter les inégalités en matière d’accès à l’information, il est important de veiller à ce que les gens qui ont besoin de cet accès bénéficient réellement de ces efforts. » « On manque de données qui portent sur l’inclusion et l’exclusion dans les politiques de TIC. Le Global Information Society Watch représente une tentative sérieuse de combler cette lacune », dit Rikke Frank Jørgensen, première conseillère de l’Institut danois pour les droits humains. Relier les pointillés pour dresser le tableau des politiques de TIC Alice Wanjira Gitau fait partie de KICTANet, une coalition citoyenne qui travaille avec le gouvernement kenyan pour faire en sorte que la première politique nationale du Kenya sur les TIC prenne en compte les questions d’accès universel et des droits des consommateurs. Elle fait remarquer que plutôt que de publier des statistiques, ce nouveau rapport donne la possibilité de faire connaître des exemples de l’évolution des politiques, ce qui devrait réduire le risque de suivre les mauvaises avenues ». « Alors que les organisations internationales et les instituts de recherche sortent régulièrement des rapports remplis de données sur la diffusion des TIC et présentent des évaluations générales de tendances, ils ne consacrent généralement que peu d’attention à ce que cela signifie pour l’intérêt public mondial. Global Information Society Watch [...] fait le lien entre les tendances nationales et mondiales et donne au lecteur une vue d’ensemble qui permet de comprendre notre orientation et les risques et les possibilités que cela représente », explique William J. Drake, directeur du projet « Révolution de l’information et gouvernance mondiale », Institut universitaire de hautes études internationales (Suisse). Il est essential que les citoyens participent davantage au processus décisionnel « L’amélioration de l’accès aux TIC ne réduira pas la pauvreté », déclarent APC et ITeM dans l’introduction du rapport 2007. « Mais le manque d’accès aux TIC risque fort d’aggraver l’exclusion sociale et de créer de nouvelles formes d’exclusion. Dans ce contexte, nous croyons qu’il est essentiel que les réseaux de la société civile participent aux processus d’élaboration des politiques de TIC et restent vigilants aux niveaux mondial, régional et national ». OBTENIR LE RAPPORT Télécharger ou lire en ligne à: http://www.GlobalISWatch.org AU SUJET DES RÉDACTEURS Pour compiler cette publication, APC et ITeM ont mis à profit leur intérêt de longue date pour l’incidence de la société civile sur les processus de gouvernance et leurs efforts pour renforcer la participation du public aux forums nationaux et internationaux. Le réseau APC participe aux processus d’élaboration des politiques de TIC aux niveaux mondial, régional et national depuis 2000 en mettant l’accent sur les droits humains et l’inclusion sociale dans la société de l’information et sur la promotion de « l’inclusion numérique ». Association pour les progrès des communications (APC): http://www.apc.org ITeM est un organisme actif dans la recherche et la promotion de l’utilisation des TIC pour renforcer la participation des citoyens aux processus décisionnels. Il organise des initiatives internationales de plaidoyer de la société civile comme « Social Watch », qui surveille les politiques sur le développement social et le genre, et « IFIwatchnet », qui surveille les activités des institutions financières internationales. Third World Institute (connu sous son acronyme espagnol, ITeM): http://www.item.org.uy POUR PLUS D’INFORMATION Pablo Accuosto Institut du Tiers Monde (ITEM) Paullier 977 Montevideo 11200 URUGUAY Tel: + 598 2 412 4224 ext. 110 Email: accuosto at item.org.uy Karen Banks Association pour le progrès des communications (APC) c/o GreenNet, Development House 56-64 Leonard Street London EC2A 4JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7065 0935 Email: karenb at gn.apc.org -------------------------------------- ESPAÑOL - ESPAGNOL - SPANISH -------------------------------------- COMUNICADO DE PRENSA PUBLICAR DE INMEDIATO NUEVO INFORME CONTROLA VOLUNTAD POLÍTICA DE HACER DE LA REVOLUCIÓN INFORMÁTICA UNA REALIDAD PARA TODOS Y TODAS MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY, jueves 17 de mayo ­ Un nuevo informe que monitorea las promesas realizadas por los gobiernos y la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) de garantizar el uso de las tecnologías de la información en beneficio de millones de personas será lanzado en Ginebra el 22 de mayo. Los frutos de la “revolución” de las tecnologías de la información (TI) se distribuyen de manera muy desigual entre los países y dentro de cada sociedad. En la República Democrática de Congo sólo 2,5% de la población tiene un teléfono, mientras en la vecina Nigeria se registra uno de los índices de más rápido crecimiento del mercado de las TI de África. En India, la floreciente industria tecnológica no ha logrado ofrecer teléfonos e internet en vastas zonas rurales. La brecha no es solo “digital” Las razones de la desigualdad son complejas pero, según los editores del informe ­ la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC) y el Instituto del Tercer Mundo (ITeM) ­ “la experiencia muestra que prevalece el status quo, a menos que la ciudadanía le exija un cambio a sus gobiernos. Se necesita una iniciativa de seguimiento de la sociedad de la información (Global Information Society Watch -GISW) para que los gobiernos y las organizaciones internacionales se hagan responsables”. Lanzamiento del primer informe de Global Information Society Watch El informe 2007 de GISW ­primero de una serie de informes anuales- observa el estado de situación de las políticas de tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC) tanto en el ámbito local como mundial, y sobre todo analiza cómo impacta una política determinada en la vida de los/as habitantes del mundo en desarrollo. Los informes sobre la situación de las políticas TIC que se presentan en el estudio incluyen 22 países de cuatro regiones: África (Egipto, Etiopía, Kenya, Nigeria, República Democrática de Congo, Sudáfrica y Uganda); América Latina (Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, México y Perú); Asia (Bangladesh, Filipinas, India y Pakistán); y Europa oriental (Bosnia y Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croacia y Rumania); además de un país de Europa occidental (España). La conclusión del trabajo es que, cuando se trata de TIC para el desarrollo, existen notorias similitudes entre los países. Con excepción de España, los restantes 21 países muestran pruebas de una “brecha digital” que impacta negativamente en la mayoría de las personas. Según RITS, organización brasileña miembro de APC, la carencia de un marco político orientado hacia las personas hace que se corra el riesgo en Brasil de condenar a la amplia mayoría de la población a una “desconexión eterna”. El informe incluye también informes provocativos y analíticos sobre cinco instituciones internacionales (entre ellos la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones ­ UIT-, ICANN y la Organización Mundial sobre la Propiedad Intelectual ­OMPI) en los que cuestiona hasta dónde permiten la participación de los sectores en sus procesos. Asimismo hay una sección especial sobre cómo medir los avances. “Este informe es un esfuerzo importante en un momento crítico”, comenta Markus Kummer, coordinador ejecutivo de la Secretaría del Foro de Gobernanza Internacional (FGI). “Es de suma importancia saber si las personas afectadas se hacen oír en las organizaciones que elaboran políticas. La participación de todos los sectores en los procesos políticos es un elemento clave para la buena gobernanza mundial. En este sentido, el informe será también un buen insumo para el trabajo constante del FGI en la elaboración de una agenda del desarrollo para la gobernanza de internet, con un énfasis especial en el fortalecimiento de las capacidades de los diferentes sectores. Más allá de la atención que merecen los esfuerzos para superar las desigualdades en el acceso global a la información, es importante asegurar que sean las personas que necesitan ese acceso las que realmente se benefician”, agrega. "Hay una carencia de índices orientados hacia las TIC que se centren en la inclusión y exclusión en las decisiones sobre políticas de TIC. GISW constituye un serio intento de superar esa brecha”, sostiene Rikke Frank Jørgensen, consultora principal del Instituto de Derechos Humanos de Dinamarca. Conectar puntos para dibujar el mapa completo de las políticas de TIC Alice Wanjira Gitau integra KICTANet, una coalición ciudadana que ha trabajado con el gobierno de Kenya para lograr el acceso universal y los derechos de los/as consumidores/as estuvieran presentes en la primera política de TIC del país. “Más que limitarse a publicar estadísticas, este nuevo informe ofrece la oportunidad de compartir ejemplos sobre el camino recorrido a la hora de elaborar políticas y es esperable que ello reduzca el riesgo de internarse en caminos equivocados”, sostiene. “Las organizaciones internacionales y los institutos de investigación suelen producir grandes cantidades de informes llenos de datos sobre la difusión de las TIC y ofrecer evaluaciones oficiales sobre las tendencias políticas, pero le prestan poca atención a lo que significa todo eso para el interés público. GSIW [...] conecta los puntos entre las tendencias nacionales y las mundiales, y le ofrece a los/as lectores/as un mapa general de la dirección hacia la que vamos y los riesgos y oportunidades que eso implica”, explica el Dr William J. Drake, director del proyecto “Revolución de la información y gobernanza mundial”, del Instituto de graduación en estudios internacionales (Suiza). La clave está en una mayor participación ciudadana en la elaboración de políticas “Incrementar el acceso a las TIC no reducirá la pobreza”, afirman APC y el ITeM en su introducción al informe 2007. “Pero existe un verdadero peligro de que la falta de acceso a las TIC haga más grave la exclusión social y cree nuevas formas de exclusión. En este contexto, nos parece esencial que las redes de la sociedad civil participen en los procesos de políticas de TIC y realicen un seguimiento en todos los planos ­mundial, regional y nacional”, concluyen. PARA LEER EL INFORME Descargar o leer en línea: http://www.GlobalISWatch.org SOBRE LOS EDITORES Con esta publicación, APC y el ITeM no hacen sino continuar con su interés de larga data en el impacto de la sociedad civil en los procesos de gobernanza y sus esfuerzos por multiplicar la participación pública en los foros nacionales e internacionales. La red de APC participa en procesos de políticas de TIC mundiales, regionales y nacionales desde 2000, con el foco puesto en los derechos humanos y la inclusión social dentro de la sociedad de la información, además de promover la “inclusión digital”. Asociaición para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC): http://www.apc.org El ITeM ha estado activo en la investigación y promoción del uso de TIC para fortalecer la participación ciudadana en los procesos de toma de decisiones. Alberga iniciativas de cabildeo de la sociedad civil como “Social Watch”, que monitorea las políticas de género y desarrollo social, e “IFIwatchnet”, que realiza un seguimiento de las actividades de las instituciones financieras internacionales. Instituto del Tercer Mundo (ITeM): http://www.item.org.uy POR MÁS INFORMACIÓN Pablo Accuosto Instituto del Tercer Mundo Paullier 977 Montevideo 11200 URUGUAY Tel: + 598 2 412 4224 ext. 110 Email: accuosto at item.org.uy Karen Banks Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones c/o GreenNet, Development House 56-64 Leonard Street London EC2A 4JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7065 0935 Email: karenb at gn.apc.org - 30 - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 19 11:04:31 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 11:04:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Thoughts for Rio - pdf Message-ID: This is a very interesting and useful contribution. I am not in total agreement with some of the proposed recommendations, but I think the "Thoughts" focus on all the right problems with respect to the administration of the Forum. >>> pouzin at well.com 05/19/07 3:12 AM >>> >Propositions-Rio-V10.3.pdf< ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat May 19 12:08:24 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 01:08:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Thoughts for Rio - pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The proposal right on a number of important issues (it mirrors much of what was said in the caucus proposal in February), but is deeply flawed in suggesting that a bureau is in anyway an appropriate solution. All a bureau would do in this UN context would reassert control by governments. As we saw in WSIS the bureau structure was little more than governments giving civil society a pat on the head every so often, window dressing for multi-stakeholder participation. Governments decided what would happen and told civil society how they would be allowed in over a glass of wine. The bureau did virtually nothing to improve civil society's speaking rights, degree of participation or contribution to the agenda. (This is not to criticize the work of CONGO who were and still are magnificent in fighting civil society's position.) The bureau structure is that of intergovernmental negotiation where civil society is a minor/insignificant player. Every significant gain in how civil society has been able to participate in WSIS and after has been made through civil society organization from Internet policy traditions that simply got on and made themselves useful to the point of indispensable: true in WGIG and true in the IGF to date. Neither WGIG or IGF would have happened without us: Athens would have been nothing without civil society's contribution at all levels. (even with no funding support we were still the most numerous stakeholder ) Look at the degree of involvement we have in the IGF process compared to any other WSIS action line. The proposal makes some good points. But a bureau would be a naive and foolish step back to intergovernmental driven process. If we want the states to lead us by the nose, form a bureau. It's worth reading the transcript of the stocktaking session to understand some of the issues Thanks, Adam At 11:04 AM -0400 5/19/07, Milton Mueller wrote: >This is a very interesting and useful contribution. I am not in total >agreement with some of the proposed recommendations, but I think the >"Thoughts" focus on all the right problems with respect to the >administration of the Forum. > >>>> pouzin at well.com 05/19/07 3:12 AM >>> >>Propositions-Rio-V10.3.pdf< > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Sat May 19 17:25:49 2007 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 17:25:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] New IGP Paper on Securing the Root Message-ID: <28cfc1a40705191425q403254a7x68cbd0e1ac7df3c3@mail.gmail.com> FYI. Best, Brenden -------------------------------- IGP has published a proposal to decentralize authority over the Internet domain name system (DNS) as it transitions to a new, more secure technology known as DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).View the paper here At a symposium in Washington DC last Thursday (May 17), the Internet Governance Project (IGP) unveiled a plan to decentralize control over the process of digitally signing the root zone file using public key encryption. The need for the plan was made clear recently when news of a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report on DNSSEC implementation triggered international controversy by raising fears that the US government planned to control the "master keys" to the Internet. The IGP proposal would distribute control over the process of signing the root zone file to multiple organizations, all of them nongovernmental in nature, defusing fears that U.S. national security agencies will control the Internet's DNS root zone keys. The proposal increases the resilience of the system, eliminates the threat of political interference in Internet administration, and diffuses liability among the entities involved. The international meeting in Washington, "Internet Governance and Security: Exploring Global and National Solutions," was jointly hosted by Syracuse University's School of Information Studies, the George Mason University Law School's Critical Infrastructure Protection Program, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne's Executive Master's Program in e-Governance. The event brought together legal and policy experts in Internet governance, representatives of the IETF, ICANN, DHS, the U.S. Commerce Department, the Internet Systems Consortium, and students from the e-Governance program. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat May 19 21:34:35 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 09:34:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thoughts for Rio - pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464FA5AB.9090905@Malcolm.id.au> Adam Peake wrote: > The proposal right on a number of important issues (it mirrors much of > what was said in the caucus proposal in February), but is deeply flawed > in suggesting that a bureau is in anyway an appropriate solution. All a > bureau would do in this UN context would reassert control by governments. But inevitably, governments already have control. What is our ultimate objective here, as civil society and/or Internet technical people? It is to have a say in public policy development. When decisions are being made about (hard and soft) legal mechanisms for governing Internet-related public policy issues such as content regulation, spam, cybercrime, multilingualism, access to knowledge, etc, we want our voices to be heard in more than a token way. What we do not expect is that our contributions will have any binding authority; the Tunis Agenda makes that clear if it wasn't already. About as much as we can hope for is that if our involvement contributes to the IGF becoming broadly accepted as a legitimate transnational Internet governance institution, then its recommendations will come to have a normative force that may, in some issue areas, be sufficient to guide conduct. At the end of the day though, even if the IGF made a recommendation that was truly the product of considered multi-stakeholder consensus (assuming it had the capacity to do so, which it currently doesn't), governments would still have the capacity to legislate inconsistently with it at a national or international level. And WSIS provides no evidence that they wish to give this power up, at least until the Treaty of Westphalia is repealed, to use John Mathiason's metaphor. So, I think we have to take the fact that government already have control over this process as a given. To the extent that the multi-stakeholder trimmings obscure this and raise the illusion that governments have surrendered any of their power, they have become a tool of governmental hegemony (the window dressing you speak of). Rather, it could be argued that the structure of the IGF should overtly acknowledge the sovereign power of governments, better to allow for other stakeholder groups to be protected against its abuse. The idea of a four-fold bureau structure as suggested in the Eurolinc proposal would be one method of doing this. I see the formation of a governmental bureau within this structure as of little significance given the control that governments already wield, but the formation of three counterbalancing bureaux as much more significant because it institutionalises the power of the other stakeholder groups, in a manner that a single mixed bureau of delegates acting in personal capacity does not. Where the Eurolinc proposal diverges from my previous thinking on this issue is that it would not detract from the need for all stakeholder groups to reach consensus with each other. Since the IGF is inherently a consensual body, this is a given. Rather, the purpose of the bureau being subdivided in four would be so that: (a) the equality of the stakeholder groups is institutionalised: whilst governments could block a proposal of the other bureaux, reflecting their effective power to veto any recommendation of the broader IGF, so too the civil society or private sector bureaux could formally block a recommendation of governments; something they cannot do at the moment (since any such balancing of stakeholder interests within the Advisory Group takes place behind closed doors); and (b) the different distinctive working methods of each stakeholder group can be accommodated; for governments the diplomatic hand-shaking over a glass of wine in Geneva (to borrow your phraseology), alongside the online rough consensus building of the Internet technical community and much of civil society. At the end of the day, it would still be necessary for the combined bureau to be in agreement, but at present the clash of cultures between the diplomatic community and the Internet community (sorry Parminder) is hidden behind the walls of the Advisory Group's ivory tower, and it may be that the only way in which for civil society to effectively assert its legitimate claim to participate in policy-setting as an equal with governments is for this battle to be brought out into the open. I am no agonist, but the establishment of four distinct bureaux would be one way of achieving this. I realise this seems a radical departure, and that I've probably lost most people who previously agreed with what I've had to say, but there is theory and previous experience to support it, which I will be wheeling out if I have the opportunity to speak at Giganet this year. -- 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 karl at cavebear.com Sat May 19 22:37:42 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 19:37:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Thoughts for Rio - pdf In-Reply-To: <464FA5AB.9090905@Malcolm.id.au> References: <464FA5AB.9090905@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <464FB476.6080309@cavebear.com> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > What is our ultimate objective here, as civil society and/or Internet > technical people? My own concern is that the authority that is granted, no matter what is the nature and kind of that authority, is well defined, subject to constraints that make the abuse of that authority difficult, and ultimately subject to recall should that authority be abused to the degree that our collective sense of proper governance is offended. I take a different point of view regarding the authority of "governments" in this process. To my mind the existing things we call "national governments" are facing an historical erosion of the authority; that it is only because of this erosion that they participate in these matters at all. I would suggest that governments have much to lose if they try to act with excessive hubris. It is not that civil society or individual people like myself will cause this loss. Rather, I believe it will come due to the rise of structures, structures not unlike ICANN, that absent a decent and real role for people and absent real constraints on their authority, will become simply captive arms of industrial interests who will be able, within limits, to thumb their noses at governments. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 20 13:02:06 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 13:02:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Thoughts for Rio - pdf Message-ID: >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 05/19/07 12:08 PM >>> >flawed in suggesting that a bureau is in anyway an >appropriate solution. All a bureau would do in this >UN context would reassert control by governments. I was not happy with the "Bureau" proposal to begin with, but I am not sure why there is a logical linkage between creating a bureau and control by governments. Perhaps people with more experience with UN strucures than I have can weigh in. I guess I viewed the Bureau as simply a stronger, more representative and institutionalized IGF Secretariat. Correct me if I am wrong. >Every significant gain in how civil society has been able to >participate in WSIS and after has been made through civil society >organization from Internet policy traditions that simply got I agree with most of what you say but do not view civil society participation in UN processes as an end in itself. Rather, I prefer to pass and ratify the correct public policies. The "correct" public policies are, in my opinion, usually ones which formalize and strenthen the sphere of freedom and decentralization of power on the internet. E.g., privatization, liberalization and competition in the infrastructure, In my opinion govts must participate in, agree to, and be bound by commitments to protect, preserve and extend those freedoms. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 21 02:05:16 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 11:35:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations Message-ID: <20070521060523.4973E4056@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi Everyone I am in Geneva and will attend the IGF consultations.. Please let me who all would be there to develop and take forward our strategy for the consultations. Others are encouraged to keep providing us inputs online.. CONGO has a room for CS plenary every evening 6 - 7 PM in Room XXVII (Palais des Nations). We can meet today and discuss IGF things a bit, and devote tomorrow's CS plenary (22nd) mostly for IGF related discussions. We can try to stay back for half an hour after the plenary tomorrow (assuming that the UN staff lets us do that) for more focussed discussions. Other ideas for how to take this forward are welcome. I think it will be good if we can have photocopies of the IGC input to the IGF.. Many participants do not read stuff online, and putting a hard copy in their hands is a good way of getting through. ( I will try to get such copies made. anyone more resourced in Geneva/UN circumstance is requested to help.) Meanwhile I am enclosing an input IT for Change made for the consultations (it was written hurriedly on the night of the 17th to make it to the synthesis paper). 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC's contribution to Rio Agenda 170507.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36403 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 21 02:35:22 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:35:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations In-Reply-To: <20070521060523.4973E4056@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070521060523.4973E4056@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I had hoped (actually thought you had agreed to write something) the caucus would comment on modalities etc suggested in the draft program: If we have comments on "Basic Meeting Structure" (section 2 of the draft program, particularly suggestions about workshops, their number, whether linked to main themes and importance of keep a number [how many?] of open topic workshop slots, etc), "3 Meeting Types", best practise sessions etc. What do we think of the "Topical Issue" session. Photocopying: ask the secretariat, they are often able to help. And it's a good idea to check if documents can be distributed (I see absolutely no reason why not, but who knows what odd rule might have come back to haunt us.) If not the secretariat then CONGO are sure to know how to get copies made. Discussion: kill the bureau idea please. Very valid comments about process, but any arrangement and label "bureau" will kill us. Read transcripts of the stocktaking session February 2007, and also the first meeting on IGF February 2006. See you in a couple of days. Adam At 11:35 AM +0530 5/21/07, Parminder wrote: > >Hi Everyone > >I am in Geneva and will attend the IGF >consultationsŠ. Please let me who all would be >there to develop and take forward our strategy >for the consultations. Others are encouraged to >keep providing us inputs onlineŠ. > >CONGO has a room for CS plenary every evening 6 >­ 7 PM in Room XXVII (Palais des Nations). We >can meet today and discuss IGF things a bit, and >devote tomorrow¹s CS plenary (22nd) mostly for >IGF related discussions. We can try to stay back >for half an hour after the plenary tomorrow >(assuming that the UN staff lets us do that) for >more focussed discussions. > >Other ideas for how to take this forward are welcome. > >I think it will be good if we can have >photocopies of the IGC input to the IGFŠ. Many >participants do not read stuff online, and >putting a hard copy in their hands is a good way >of getting through. ( I will try to get such >copies madeŠ anyone more resourced in Geneva/UN >circumstance is requested to help.) > >Meanwhile I am enclosing an input IT for Change >made for the consultations (it was written >hurriedly on the night of the 17th to make it to >the synthesis paper). > >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 > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ITfC's >contribution #30AE35.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0030AE35) >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 21 04:04:06 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:04:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bureau Message-ID: Hi, I agree with Adam and Karen that a bureau is a risky idea that CS shouldn¹t embrace. But I don¹t think anyone¹s really addressed Milton¹s question about why there is a logical linkage between creating a bureau and control by governments. Leaving aside our bad experience with this structure during WSIS, which would seem to support the point, a few concerns might be: 1. It formalizes separated processes in which each of the four groupings has its own consultations, comes to consensus, and then enters into some sort of dialogue with counterparts. The positions that result from those inward focused processes could be more fixed and allow less room for post hoc persuasion or revision. Once governments work something out amongst themselves, they might be loathe to abandon or revise it; we could end up with hardened bargaining positions and WSIS-plenary style dynamics. In contrast, mixing people together in one group as equals can make things more fluid and flexible, particularly when the logic of statements must be explained to skeptics from other species. Compare the plenaries with the WGIG and you see how the flow is different. 2. In the UN, their meaning seems to carry the intersubjective understandings of diplomats and secretariats based on historical experience in other settings. They seem to understand bureaus as something done in processes that are in the first instance intergovernmental, with non-state actors as sort of invited guests that don¹t have the same standing when push comes to shove and decisions must be taken. It¹s perhaps telling who¹s advocated a bureau---e.g. China and other developing country governments that have consistently favored greater government control---and who has discouraged the idea, e.g. people like Nitin who are trying to preserve the multistakeholder orientation, and the notion that the Internet space is qualitatively different and requires non-standard models. 3. There¹s a UN process for constituting bureaus according to regions etc, but as Nitin has pointed out, there¹s no ³membership² in the IGF upon which to base such a structure. At a minimum, to constitute a ³representative² bureau we would be expected to formalize some sort of hierarchical peak association that has the support of the relevant polity. This didn¹t work in WSIS and probably wouldn¹t here, given the fluidity and diversity of CS opinion on IG. Meanwhile it presumably would institutionalize similar structures in other stakeholder groupings. Unless there were sufficient assurances on these and other conceivable points, it seems a risky road to go down. The governments know what this means to them, but we don¹t have the experience to interpret it or probably the organizational savvy and firepower to fight off bad designs. That said, I certainly agree with Karen that the existing mAG structure is far from ideal and needs reform. We agreed language on this drafted by Vittorio for the February statement (which, unless I¹m blind, is not on the IGF website www.intgovforum.org/contributions_Feb_2007_cons.htm) and think it still applies (was the below the final text?) About the Advisory Group, while supporting the concept, we note that its composition, including the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its appointment; nor there is any transparency or clear norm on its terms, mandate and working principles. We think that clear terms and rules should be established for the Advisory Group between now and Rio, through an open process involving all the participants in the IGF, as a shared foundation for our common work. We further consider that if these rules and the quotas for representation from each stakeholder group were openly established, it would be possible for the Secretary General to delegate the actual process of selection of Advisory Group members to the stakeholder groups themselves. Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- 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 Mon May 21 04:30:05 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:30:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations In-Reply-To: <20070521060523.4973E4056@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, Meetings: A number of caucus people are arriving at various points tonight/tomorrow, and there are other gatherings to head to, so 6-7pm meetings may not get all hands on deck. Instead/in addition, why don¹t we just meet before the consultation Wednesday morning in the lounge area outside Rm. B and also have a lunch between sessions, per usual? Modalities statement: It does seem that the ball got dropped on what Adam was asking for. I don¹t see how in the time that remains we could devise a statement and clear it through the list as an official consensus position. But the caucus members in attendance could speak to the issue either in their individual interventions, or collectively as Œthose members in attendance here.¹ In either event, it would make sense to coordinate on site and see if we can converge with respect to the main points Adam raises. Copies of the main sessions statement: In the spirit of multistakeholderism etc, the ITU secretariat (well, Tim) has kindly agreed to run 100 copies. I will pick them up Wednesday morning en route to the meeting room. Best, Bill On 5/21/07 8:05 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > > Hi Everyone > > I am in Geneva and will attend the IGF consultationsŠ. Please let me who all > would be there to develop and take forward our strategy for the consultations. > Others are encouraged to keep providing us inputs onlineŠ. > > CONGO has a room for CS plenary every evening 6 ­ 7 PM in Room XXVII (Palais > des Nations). We can meet today and discuss IGF things a bit, and devote > tomorrow¹s CS plenary (22nd) mostly for IGF related discussions. We can try to > stay back for half an hour after the plenary tomorrow (assuming that the UN > staff lets us do that) for more focussed discussions. > > Other ideas for how to take this forward are welcome. > > I think it will be good if we can have photocopies of the IGC input to the > IGFŠ. Many participants do not read stuff online, and putting a hard copy in > their hands is a good way of getting through. ( I will try to get such copies > madeŠ anyone more resourced in Geneva/UN circumstance is requested to help.) > > Meanwhile I am enclosing an input IT for Change made for the consultations (it > was written hurriedly on the night of the 17th to make it to the synthesis > paper). > > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon May 21 08:53:54 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 05:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Two articles of interest today Message-ID: Two articles of interest today: Governments are now using filters to censor internet content at an alarming rate Re: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7356 - '$100 laptop' sparks war of words Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6675833.stm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Governments are now using filters to censor internet content at an alarming rate Re: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7356 According to a recent report conducted by University of Toronto, Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, 26 of 40 countries surveyed utilize some degree of state-sponsored software filtering. China, Iran, Syria, Tunisia, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Morocco, and Singapore were mentioned as countries actively filtering its citizens. The study found that many of the Middle Eastern countries mainly filtered international news. Saudi Arabia focuses its censorship on political sites, pornography and gambling. Tunisia also focused their filter on pornography, but the country also filters sites which dealt with human rights and political opposition to the government. South Korea enabled filters to eliminate North Korean web sites. Thailand, while not in the report, recently filtered YouTube and other video-sharing websites that disseminated videos critical of the country's king. According to the University of Toronto report, Russia, Venezuela, Egypt, Hong Kong, Israel and Iraq were among the countries found that did not enable any sort state-sponsored of content filtering. SmartFilter, developed by Secure Computing in San Jose, California, is one of the more popular software filtering tools found used today. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Sudan and Tunisia are currently using this software. Other countries simply display a default page or a DNS error in an attempt to mask that any censorship is taking place. China, by far the worst offender according to the report, recently censored the entire LiveJournal network in an attempt to block individual blogs. A brief lax in the Great Firewall of China resulted in major headlines last year. For a six hour period, all users inside China were able to view and search for content typically deemed unviewable by the Chinese government. The Chinese government, Skype and Google have since declared it their right to continue to censor and promote censorship as a cost of doing business in such countries. Last year Yahoo! spoke openly against censorship in China, yet only a month later it was discovered Yahoo! is one of the most censored western portals inside China. "Once the tools are in place, authorities realize that the Internet can be controlled. There used to be a myth that the Internet was immune to regulation. Now governments are realizing it's actually the opposite," said associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto, Ron Deibert. The report did not include western countries, citing North American censorship typically takes place because of copyright infractions. None of the 40 countries observed during the analysis incorporated any filtering based on intellectual property concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7356 All 82 news articles � http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1116449007&hl=en ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - '$100 laptop' sparks war of words Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6675833.stm The $100 has already been tested in many countries Chip-maker Intel "should be ashamed of itself" for efforts to undermine the $100 laptop initiative, according to its founder Nicholas Negroponte. He accused Intel of selling its own cut-price laptop - the Classmate - below cost to drive him out of markets. Professor Negroponte, who aims to distribute millions of laptops to kids in developing countries, said Intel had hurt his mission "enormously". Speaking to US broadcaster CBS, Intel's chairman denied the claims. "We're not trying to drive him out of business," said Craig Barrett. "We're trying to bring capability to young people." Mr Barrett has previously dismissed the $100 laptop as a "gadget". Speaking to the BBC News website earlier this year Professor Negroponte said: "The concept has received a lot of criticism and yet after that criticism they are either copying it or doing things perfectly in line with the concept. "Yes people laugh at it, then they criticise it, then they copy it." Business practice Both Intel and Professor Negroponte's not for profit organisation, One Laptop per Child (OLPC), have developed a low cost, robust laptop aimed specifically at school children in the developing world. Intel's Classmate PC runs Microsoft Windows and Linux There are various differences in both the hardware and software, but Professor Negroponte believes the main problem is that his machine uses a processor designed by Intel's main competitor, AMD. "Intel and AMD fight viciously," he told CBS. "We're just sort of caught in the middle." Professor Negroponte says Intel has distributed marketing literature to governments with titles such as "the shortcomings of the One Laptop per Child approach", which outline the supposedly stronger points of the Classmate. Mr Barrett told CBS: "Someone at Intel was comparing the Classmate PC with another device being offered in the marketplace. That's the way our business works." He dismissed claims that Intel was trying to put OLPC out of business as "crazy". "There are lots of opportunities for us to work together," he said. Price drop Professor Negroponte's project is currently in a critical phase. Countries have until 31 May to place their orders for the first batch and will be able to purchase lots of 250,000. They will initially cost $176 (�90) but the eventual aim is to sell the machine to governments of developing countries for $100 (�50). Intel says it already has orders for "thousands" of Classmates, which currently cost over $200 (�100). Like the OLPC machine, Intel expects the price to eventually fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6675833.stm All 13 news articles � http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1116481668&hl=en ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon May 21 09:22:19 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:22:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9916D58E-C497-494F-A355-8ECE48FC9504@psg.com> On 21 maj 2007, at 10.30, William Drake wrote: > don’t see how in the time that remains we could devise a statement > and clear it through the list as an official consensus position. i think that is covered in the charter, and we have at least one chair on hand. so although we don't have the 48 hours required by the regular process, we do have the ability to the group that is here to work with Parminder (and Vittorio if he is around) as a reminder: > Decisions > > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. > When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be > jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the > purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an > overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position > with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and > respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious > attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the > consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least > fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the > role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to > the appeals team. > Statements and representation at meetings > > Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be > discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision > procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be > occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and > will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that > require a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still > required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and > its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied > when necessary: > > 1. > > The coordinators will act as the official representatives of > the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that > cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. > 2. > > In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also > coordinate with the members of the IGC who are present. Any > statement should reflect the assumed general thinking of the > caucus, rather than just that of those members who are physically > present at the meeting. > 3. > > If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present > in face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to > another participant of such events. This delegation should, if > possible, be made before the meeting and with the advice of the > caucus. > 4. > > Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be > prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as > appropriate. > 5. > > Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic > principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. > Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed > general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and > documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the > caucus in the past. > 6. > > Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, > preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then > as soon after their presentation as possible. > a. (btw, i should point out that last week and this week i am on contract to the IGF secretariat and do fill a liaison function from the secretariat to CS as part of that contract. this email had nothing to do with that function.)____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon May 21 09:32:47 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:32:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Today's CS Plenary Agenda Message-ID: <200705211331.l4LDVJpE022718@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to remind you that a Room has been made available for daily CS Plenary meetings between 6:00 pm and 7:00 pm. Today's CS plenary discussion will take place in Room XXVII (Palais des Nations, 1st Floor). Find below and attached a proposed agenda. All the best, Philippe Dam Civil Society Plenary meeting 21 May 2007 - 18:0-19:00 Room XXVII (Palais des Nations) Proposed agenda 1. Modalities for CS participation (10th session of CSTD) a. General arrangements for CS participation b. Coordination on CS speaking time (if needed) 2. Statement(s) on CSTD multi year programme of work and working methods 3. Action Line Facilitation process a. Report on past ALF meetings b. Preparation for Action Lines Facilitators meeting 4. CS involvement in GAID 5. CS self organising process 6. Announcements 7. Any other business -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Civil Society Plenary meeting - proposed agenda.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 21 09:38:03 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:38:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations In-Reply-To: <9916D58E-C497-494F-A355-8ECE48FC9504@psg.com> References: <9916D58E-C497-494F-A355-8ECE48FC9504@psg.com> Message-ID: <4651A0BB.4070208@hei.unige.ch> Avri, Thanks for jogging our memories. Well then, Parminder, any chance you could draft just a few lines addressing Adam's key concerns for approval at a meeting Wednesday morning? We could read it out and submit actual text post hoc. I think a key point, in light of Adam's prior message, would be reaffirm the practice established for Athens of the mAG approving all workshop proposals (or at least the 'open' ones, which any non-selected 'linked' ones could become). Bottom line, since the main sessions inevitably will not accomodate all preferences, there must be free speech and an open 'market of ideas' elsewhere or the IGF will have been not only downsized, but distorted. Bill Avri Doria wrote: > > On 21 maj 2007, at 10.30, William Drake wrote: > >> don’t see how in the time that remains we could devise a statement >> and clear it through the list as an official consensus position. > > > i think that is covered in the charter, and we have at least one chair > on hand. so although we don't have the 48 hours required by the > regular process, we do have the ability to the group that is here to > work with Parminder (and Vittorio if he is around) > > as a reminder: > >> Decisions >> >> The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. >> When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be >> jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the >> purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming >> majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any >> dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. >> Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been >> made to accommodate minority points of view. >> >> When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough >> consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the >> consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty >> eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of >> the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the >> appeals team. >> Statements and representation at meetings >> >> Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be >> discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision >> procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be >> occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and >> will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that >> require a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still >> required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its >> contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when >> necessary: >> >> 1. >> >> The coordinators will act as the official representatives of >> the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that >> cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. >> 2. >> >> In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate >> with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should >> reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just >> that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. >> 3. >> >> If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in >> face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another >> participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be >> made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. >> 4. >> >> Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be >> prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as >> appropriate. >> 5. >> >> Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic >> principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. >> Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed >> general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and >> documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the >> caucus in the past. >> 6. >> >> Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, >> preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as >> soon after their presentation as possible. >> > > > a. > > (btw, i should point out that last week and this week i am on contract > to the IGF secretariat and do fill a liaison function from the > secretariat to CS as part of that contract. this email had nothing to > do with that > function.)____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Mon May 21 09:52:40 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:52:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations In-Reply-To: <4651A0BB.4070208@hei.unige.ch> References: <9916D58E-C497-494F-A355-8ECE48FC9504@psg.com> <4651A0BB.4070208@hei.unige.ch> Message-ID: <4651A428.5030302@bertola.eu> DRAKE William ha scritto: > Avri, > > Thanks for jogging our memories. Well then, Parminder, any chance you > could draft just a few lines addressing Adam's key concerns for approval > at a meeting Wednesday morning? We could read it out and submit actual > text post hoc. I think a key point, in light of Adam's prior message, > would be reaffirm the practice established for Athens of the mAG > approving all workshop proposals (or at least the 'open' ones, which any > non-selected 'linked' ones could become). Bottom line, since the main > sessions inevitably will not accomodate all preferences, there must be > free speech and an open 'market of ideas' elsewhere or the IGF will have > been not only downsized, but distorted. If the caucus can't manage to approve something new on Wednesday, also reprinting our statement from February (which, I'm quite sure, was not circulated in writing) could help. It already had a number of points on workshops etc, though it did not address explicitly the "bureau" idea since it had not come up yet. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon May 21 10:21:37 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:21:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations In-Reply-To: <4651A428.5030302@bertola.eu> References: <9916D58E-C497-494F-A355-8ECE48FC9504@psg.com> <4651A0BB.4070208@hei.unige.ch> <4651A428.5030302@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <4651AAF1.5080302@hei.unige.ch> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > If the caucus can't manage to approve something new on Wednesday, also > reprinting our statement from February (which, I'm quite sure, was not > circulated in writing) could help. It already had a number of points on > workshops etc, though it did not address explicitly the "bureau" idea > since it had not come up yet. I recall the effort that went into agreeing it but not what happened afterwards. I had assumed our coordinators sent it to the secretariat and that it'd been circulated in print. What was the point of sweating it out, then? Should we extract and redate the parts on modalities and send it as a second statement this time? 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon May 21 12:04:48 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:04:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Privacy meeting on Tuesday In-Reply-To: <4650EAA3.6050307@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4650EAA3.6050307@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4651C320.3050804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy will meet in Geneva on Tuesday (tomorrow) to prepare for the IGF consultations on Wednesday. We meet at 15:00 at room V.49 in the ITU (in the corridor from Varembé to Montbrillant, next to the cafeteria and Montbrillant meeting rooms). The main purpose of the meeting is to refine the draft issue papers on the links between privacy and identity management, development, and freedom of expression. We will also discuss plans for the Rio meeting. Anyone interested is welcome. More information about the coalition is at . Whoever is interested and is available earlier, we can meet in the ITU cafeteria around 14:00 and have lunch together. This is how I look like: http://bendrath.blogspot.com/ Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 21 12:47:27 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 01:47:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations In-Reply-To: <4651AAF1.5080302@hei.unige.ch> References: <9916D58E-C497-494F-A355-8ECE48FC9504@psg.com> <4651A0BB.4070208@hei.unige.ch> <4651A428.5030302@bertola.eu> <4651AAF1.5080302@hei.unige.ch> Message-ID: The February statement was read out, it's in the transcript. I don't know if it was sent in time before the meeting to become part of the official record and be considered in the secretariat's summary of submitted comments. It's not on the February meeting contributions page The recent document is listed on the May 23rd meeting page Adam >Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >>If the caucus can't manage to approve something new on Wednesday, >>also reprinting our statement from February (which, I'm quite sure, >>was not circulated in writing) could help. It already had a number >>of points on workshops etc, though it did not address explicitly >>the "bureau" idea since it had not come up yet. > >I recall the effort that went into agreeing it but not what happened >afterwards. I had assumed our coordinators sent it to the >secretariat and that it'd been circulated in print. What was the >point of sweating it out, then? > >Should we extract and redate the parts on modalities and send it as >a second statement this time? > >BD >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon May 21 13:10:30 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 19:10:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC statement to CSTD Opening Session In-Reply-To: <200705211331.l4LDVJpE022718@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> References: <200705211331.l4LDVJpE022718@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070521171030.021581A1372@mail.gn.apc.org> hi folks A copy of the statement anriette made to the CSTD opening session this morning.. karen The Association for Progressive Communication's input at the opening of the Tenth Session of the Commission for Science and Technology for Development 21 May 2007 Presented by Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director The Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) has an important role in system-wide follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). We support the concept of a multi-year programme that is implemented with the inclusion of multiple-stakeholders. Coordination of WSIS follow which includes an enormous range of social and economic issues is not a trivial task and we want to urge the CSTD to consider the following suggestions: On stakeholder participation: We realise we are stating the obvious, but we want to remind those gathered here that meaningful inclusion of voices of the people most impacted by the digital divide requires more than multi-stakeholder panels in Geneva or New York. ECOSOC's Resolution 2006/46 provides a basis for the development of a multi-stakeholder approach to WSIS follow-up. But, to build on this effectively, the CSTD needs to: - establish mechanisms for the inclusion of the perspectives of business and civil society in determining its programme of work, its deliberations and in the drafting of the recommendations that it submits to ECOSOC; - undertake efforts to ensure that multi-stakeholder participation is integrated in WSIS follow up and implementation at the level of coordination of action lines, at the level of regional UN commissions and implementing of regional action plans, and at national level. How can this be done? APC proposes that at the very least a multi-stakeholder advisory group is established to assist the CSTD chair and secretariat in designing its work programme, CSTD, and to help prepare for the annual and inter-sessional meetings on information society issues. The CSTD already benefits from inputs from thematic boards such as the Gender Advisory Board. The multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) that assisted the Internet Governance Forum secretariat in preparing for its first meeting in Athens in 2006 also serves as a useful precedent. Other useful means of enhancing participation are devices such as online consultations (such as the one convened by the GAID in preparation for this week's meetings), round tables, the IGF's use of online tools to facilitate remote participation in face to face meetings, or one day thematic forums such as those being proposed by BASIS. We also want to emphasise that civil society and business are diverse, and this diversity needs to be considered by mechanisms for participation. On the CSTD's programme of work: APC supports the 5 proposed thematic areas to frame the CSTS's programme of work. APC submits the following comments for consideration: Prioritisation: The WSIS covered a very wide range of issues relevant to building a people-centred information society. APC is concerned that if a long list of activities, issues, and recommendations are presented to ECOSOC it is less likely that governments will pick up on them. APC proposes that in addition the CSTD undertakes to work with UN agencies and other stakeholders involved in WSIS implementation to identify three to five priority areas. Measuring progress: We propose that the CSTD agrees on a few simple indicators that can be used to measure progress in addressing the priorities areas it identifies. For APC, physical infrastructure is one such key priority. On obstacles to implementation: Understanding obstacles to implementation of WSIS goals is essential if these obstacles are to be overcome. As the CSTD has an overarching role it is best placed to do this, and to alert ECOSOC to these obstacles. Identifying these obstacles, and developing ways of overcoming them, should be done collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders. The CSTD can also recommend related agenda items to bodies such as the IGF, GAID, and the UN implementing agencies. On reporting submitted to the CSTD by institutions tasked with follow-up and implementation: It would be useful for at least one section of each of those reports to follow a common reporting format. This can be used to make it easier to monitor implementation and lessons learned on specific issues, e.g. application of the WSIS principles on stakeholder participation. National implementation: We believe that mechanisms for measuring national implementation need to be strengthened. What are countries doing? How do national entities interact with action line implementation? Is there a national overview reporting frame work and cycle? We recommend that such a reporting framework be developed and that governments are asked to submit reports every year. These reports can become focal points for stakeholder participation. Business and civil society entities can participate in compilation of national reports, and present comment and critique on governments' assessment of progress. In closing our input we quote from an APC and IteM (Third World Institute) publication, Global Information Society Watch report, to be launched here tomorrow: "Different degrees of access to technology and connectivity mirror the social and economic divides within and between countries. Increase in access to ICTs will not, by itself, reduce poverty or secure freedoms on a sustainable basis. But there is a real danger that lack of access to ICTs, and to the spaces where decisions are made about information and communications infrastructure, content and services, can deepen existing social exclusion, and create new forms of exclusion." There is no time to waste. It is a characteristic of the digital divide that it increases at a rate that is similar to the rapid rate of change in ICTs themselves. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon May 21 13:44:04 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 19:44:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] CHANGE: Dynamic Coalition on Privacy meeting on Tuesday In-Reply-To: <4651C320.3050804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4650EAA3.6050307@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4651C320.3050804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20070521174405.4667B1AD4C1@mail.gn.apc.org> hi everyone To make things easier for everyone - we've arranged to meet in Room XXVII in the Palais Des nations at 1500 - and not at the ITU. This is the same room where the GISWatch publication launch will be from 1315-1454 (and we hope to see you there also.. lunch provided) karen At 18:04 21/05/2007, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy will meet >in Geneva on Tuesday (tomorrow) to prepare for >the IGF consultations on Wednesday. > >We meet at 15:00 at room V.49 in the ITU (in the corridor from Varembé to >Montbrillant, next to the cafeteria and >Montbrillant meeting rooms). The main purpose of >the meeting is to refine the draft issue papers >on the links between privacy and identity >management, development, and freedom of >expression. We will also discuss plans for the Rio meeting. > >Anyone interested is welcome. More information >about the coalition is at . > >Whoever is interested and is available earlier, >we can meet in the ITU cafeteria around 14:00 >and have lunch together. This is how I look like: http://bendrath.blogspot.com/ > >Best, Ralf > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon May 21 14:37:45 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:37:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] GigaNet 07: Call for Papers Message-ID: Please distribute as appropriate Call for Proposals Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) Second Annual Symposium Hotel Windsor Barra, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 11 November 2007 The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is a recently-formed scholarly community that promotes the development of Internet governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study and facilitates informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society. (See www.igloo.org/giganet for more information.) Each year, GigaNet organizes a research symposium. The first was held October 2006 in Athens, Greece, a day prior to the inaugural meeting of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The second GigaNet symposium also will be held on site prior to the 2nd IGF meeting, on November 11, 2007 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Attendance at the symposium will be open to all and free of charge. Registration with the UN as an IGF participant may be necessary to gain entry to the building. This is a call for proposals from scholars interested in presenting an original research paper on one of the panels to be held at the conference. The panel themes are described below. The Program Committee will select several speakers for each panel, drawing on the following materials to be provided by applicants: 1) a one page maximum description of the proposed paper that includes the main research questions, its methods, and its relevance and value-added to the thematic area; and 2) a one page summary curriculum vitae listing in particular the applicant's current institutional affiliation(s), advanced degrees, scholarly publications relevant to Internet governance, and web sites, if available. If the proposed paper has already been drafted, applicants are welcome to include the paper in their submission in addition to the one-page summary. These materials should be emailed directly to the chairperson of the 2007 Program Committee, Dr. Milton Mueller, at info [at] internetgovernance.org by no later than August 1, 2007, midnight GMT. The Program Committee will notify applicants of its decisions via email by August 24. A full paper upon which the presentation will be based must be delivered to the same address by October 1, midnight GMT in order for the author(s) to be included in the relevant panel. The selected speakers will give ten-minute presentations, after which there will be open discussion with audience members. While GigaNet asserts no copyright to authors' work, it is expected that the version of the paper presented will be made available for posting on the GigaNet website. ---------- Preliminary Theme Descriptions 1. The Changing Institutionalization of Internet Governance The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) raised the profile and changed the global policy discourse of Internet governance. The creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was the most visible result, but other major signs should be noted, such as the willingness of more governments to participate in ICANN, the increased diversity of players entering Internet governance processes as stakeholders, and wider discussion of as yet inchoate changes to Internet governance mechanisms and decision making. We invite paper submissions that explore the dynamics of the changing institutionalization process. Papers can examine institutionalization theoretically, by placing it in the context of theories of international relations, international regimes, and global governance; or empirically, through critical assessment of its outcomes so far. Submissions addressing the mechanisms of a given collaborative, deliberative process, and particularly how the different players behave, are especially welcome. We seek papers analyzing collaborative policy-making in Internet governance institutions; the mobilization of new actors, their roles and the power relationships between them; the role of the private sector in governance; the transformation (if any) of the role of governments and their means of intervention in relation to existing intergovernmental processes; and the interactions between Internet governance-related institutions such as IGF, IETF, the Regional Address Registries, ICANN, ITU, WIPO, or WTO. Case studies based on critical examination of the IGF, the multistakeholder partnership process and changes, if any, in ICANN dynamics after WSIS would bring particular highlights to the panel discussion. 2. Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance 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 proponent s 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. Accordingly, we invite research papers that analyze the positive and negative linkages between existing global Internet governance mechanisms and development; the possible need for new mechanisms; and the potential foundations of a holistic development agenda. The panel will not explore the Internet's role in development per se, or more general ICT4D themes; the focus will be on the mechanisms of Internet governance as defined by the WSIS. We welcome submission of theoretically informed, empirically rich papers addressing the following and related questions: a) General Dynamics: The design and politics of development agendas. What are the potential risks and rewards of assessing individual Internet governance mechanisms in the context of a ho listic development agenda? What applicable lessons, if any, can be learned from experiences with development agendas in other international arenas, e.g. trade, the environment, debt, and intellectual property? What political and institutional challenges wo uld have to be overcome in order to establish a development agenda for Internet governance? b) Case Studies of Problems and Reforms. Do current Internet governance mechanisms pose any substantive and procedural impediments to development? What reforms or even new mechanisms might be needed to promote development? 3. Critical Policy Issues in Internet Governance The prior two sections deal with broad, cross-cutting themes in Internet governance. The Program Committee also encourages submission of research papers on how public policy or governance arrangements are being defined for specific, narrower Internet policy issues. Examples of such policy issues would include network neutrality, digital identity, privacy/security, content regulation, intellectua l property rights/DRM, or others. Each of these issue-domains involves its own distinctive set of policy conflicts, stakeholders, technologies and institutional arrangements, and thus can profitably be examined independently. Papers about specific issues should, however, be written from a global perspective and/or utilize cross-national comparative research methods, and should be founded on a clear understanding of how the issue constitutes a form of Internet governance. Although submissions in any of the enumerated issue-areas are welcome, the Committee would be particularly interested in forming a panel devoted to research on either network neutrality or digital identity. Papers on net neutrality might address, among other things, its relevance as a global norm for Internet governance; how technological, legal and business trends support or undermine neutrality in the delivery of Internet services; or the relationship between competing broadband networks and nondiscriminatory access to Internet content. Similarly, papers on digital identity might address the current status of standardization in digital identifiers and authentication, how privacy concerns are or are not addressed by proposals; interaction of international regimes with digital identity issues, international initiatives on data retention and data interception, or other related aspects of Internet governance and privacy. To summarize: * Symposium date and place: November 11, 2007, Hotel Windsor Barra, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil * Deadline for submissions: August 1, 2007 * Submit to: GigaNet Program Committee, using the email address info (at) internetgovernance.org * Notification of status: August 24, 2007 * Papers due: October 1, 2007 GigaNet Program Committee: - Seiiti Arata Jr., University of Sao Paulo, Brazil - Ralf Bendrath, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany - William Drake, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland - Michael Gurstein, Executive Director of the Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training, Vancouver BC, Canada - Nanette Levinson, American University School of International Service, Washington DC, USA - Meryem Marzouki, LIP6/PolyTIC-CNRS Laboratory, Paris, France - Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Info rmation Studies, Syracuse NY, USA - Sergio Ramos, ETSI Telecomunicación-UPM, Madrid, Spain ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Mon May 21 18:05:10 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 00:05:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Final version A Legal Analysis of the Internet Governance Forum process Message-ID: <46521796.7080107@mdpi.net> Dear members of the list Please find attached our contribution to the IGF consultation meeting entitled : A Legal Analysis of the Internet Governance Forum process. from ENSTA - EUROLINC - WTIS see also : http://wsis-si.org/igf.html#23may07 with various formats more or less politcally correct. and some excerpts in the IGF discussion space According to this analysis, the Internet Community well represented on this list, as well as the "traditional" Civil Society do not have to bend to intergovernmental rules, but instead participate in the creation of a new space of International Public Law : UN fully multi-stakeholder process. We believe that all stakeholders may benefit from this new legal space. For the internet community, and for example ICANN that seeks an "Internation Organization" legal status, the formation of the Bureau where the Internet Community is a recognized component could be a first step. There is a saying "natura abhorat vacuum", Nature hates vacuum, and we are in a legal vacuum that cannot not be filled with an advisory group that is anyway expired. It is better that Civil Society and the Internet Community be in a position to offer a solution, before some other stakeholders impose disadvantegeous ones. Best regards Francis Muguet Disclaimer : If I may choose now to be part of discussions on the IGC list, it does mean that I want to be part of the IGC caucus recommendation & position taking and drafting process, because many IGC members are precisely members of the Internet Community that has claimed rightly to be recognized as a distinct kind of constituency to which, as an academic and scientist, I do not belong. However, interestingly, the IGC list provides a space of interaction between those two communities. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Francis F. Muguet Ph.D MDPI Open Access Journals - Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net Knowledge Networks & Information Society Lab. (KNIS) http://www.knis.org http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet E.N.S.T.A 32 Boulevard Victor muguet at ensta.fr 75739 PARIS CEDEX FRANCE (33) 01.45.52.60.19 -- Fax: (33) 01.45.52.52.82 WSIS World Summit on the Information Society Chair Scientific Information WG http://www.wsis-si.org Co-chair Patents & Copyrights WG htt://www.wsis-pct.org Multi-Stakeholders UN agency proposal http://www.unmsp.org WTIS World Tour of the Information Society http://www.wtis.org muguet at wtis;org ----------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: legal-igf.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1062555 bytes Desc: not available URL: From muguet at mdpi.net Mon May 21 18:07:31 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 00:07:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Final version A Legal Analysis of the Internet Governance Forum process Message-ID: <46521823.5070502@mdpi.net> Dear members of the list Please find attached our contribution to the IGF consultation meeting entitled : A Legal Analysis of the Internet Governance Forum process. from ENSTA - EUROLINC - WTIS see also : http://wsis-si.org/igf.html#23may07 with various formats more or less politcally correct. and some excerpts in the IGF discussion space According to this analysis, the Internet Community well represented on this list, as well as the "traditional" Civil Society do not have to bend to intergovernmental rules, but instead participate in the creation of a new space of International Public Law : UN fully multi-stakeholder process. We believe that all stakeholders may benefit from this new legal space. For the internet community, and for example ICANN that seeks an "Internation Organization" legal status, the formation of the Bureau where the Internet Community is a recognized component could be a first step. There is a saying "natura abhorat vacuum", Nature hates vacuum, and we are in a legal vacuum that cannot not be filled with an advisory group that is anyway expired. It is better that Civil Society and the Internet Community be in a position to offer a solution, before some other stakeholders impose disadvantegeous ones. Best regards Francis Muguet Disclaimer : If I may choose now to be part of discussions on the IGC list, it does mean that I want to be part of the IGC caucus recommendation & position taking and drafting process, because many IGC members are precisely members of the Internet Community that has claimed rightly to be recognized as a distinct kind of constituency to which, as an academic and scientist, I do not belong. However, interestingly, the IGC list provides a space of interaction between those two communities. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Francis F. Muguet Ph.D MDPI Open Access Journals - Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net Knowledge Networks & Information Society Lab. (KNIS) http://www.knis.org http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet E.N.S.T.A 32 Boulevard Victor muguet at ensta.fr 75739 PARIS CEDEX FRANCE (33) 01.45.52.60.19 -- Fax: (33) 01.45.52.52.82 WSIS World Summit on the Information Society Chair Scientific Information WG http://www.wsis-si.org Co-chair Patents & Copyrights WG htt://www.wsis-pct.org Multi-Stakeholders UN agency proposal http://www.unmsp.org WTIS World Tour of the Information Society http://www.wtis.org muguet at wtis;org ----------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: legal-igf.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1062555 bytes Desc: not available URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue May 22 00:54:04 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Phone Companies Message-ID: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Phone Companies Re: http://www.physorg.com/news98989653.html (AP) -- The nation's largest local phone companies won a Supreme Court victory Monday in a lawsuit by consumers alleging anticompetitive business practices. The court ruled 7-2 that the suit lacked any factual support for its accusations that the companies secretly agreed to stay out of each other's territories for local telephone and high-speed Internet service. It is not enough to make a bare assertion of conspiracy, Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. Souter said the complaint alleging restraint of trade "comes up short." The consumers "have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible," Souter wrote. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens objected to a federal judge's dismissal of the case. Stevens said federal rules, previous rulings and "sound practice mandate that the district court at least require some sort of response" before throwing out the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Stevens in dissenting. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with the consumers, concluding those filing the lawsuit had stated "a plausible claim of conspiracy." The case underscores the Supreme Court's recent emphasis on antitrust law, and the justices still have two major antitrust cases before them this term. One is an investors' suit against Wall Street investment banks, the other a 96-year-old Supreme Court ruling that bans agreements between manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products. The Supreme Court seems intent on "making over the antitrust landscape by cleaning up areas they think need to be cleaned up," said attorney Joseph Simons, a former chief antitrust enforcer at the Federal Trade Commission. The Chamber of Commerce and eight other business groups and companies filed papers supporting the phone companies. The decision is "a triumph of the voices for America's wealthiest corporations," said attorney J. Douglas Richards, who argued the case for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court. Richards called it "disturbing" that the court isn't permitting such cases to continue long enough to force disclosure of any of the basic evidence that only the companies possess. Richards declined to discuss whether the plaintiffs would refile the lawsuit with additional information. The case arose from changes to the telecommunications law in 1996 in which the local phone companies were to open their monopoly markets to competition. In return, they were given the opportunity to enter the long-distance business. At the time, the four companies controlled more than 90 percent of the market for local phone service. The defendants were Bell Atlantic Corp., BellSouth Corp., Qwest Communications International Inc., and SBC Communications Inc. Bell Atlantic is now Verizon Communications Inc. and SBC bought AT&T Inc. and the renamed company, AT&T, merged with BellSouth. Consumers represented by a prominent firm of plaintiffs' attorneys sued when the companies kept to their own territories rather than competing. A natural explanation is that "the former government-sanctioned monopolists were sitting tight, expecting their neighbors to do the same thing," Souter wrote. The consumers also alleged the local phone companies conspired to keep smaller companies from competing successfully in the larger companies' markets. Nothing in the complaint suggests that the companies' resistance to the upstart competitors was anything more than natural reaction by each acting alone, wrote Souter. In their arguments, the companies said it is understandable each company would decide individually against devoting scarce resources to the risky enterprise of entering new markets. The court's decision "should discourage plaintiffs from filing antitrust conspiracy claims based upon nothing more than evidence of parallel conduct and a hope that more will turn up in discovery," said attorney Edward Schwartz. The Bush administration supported the phone companies, saying the lawsuit "fails to provide concrete notice of the alleged wrongdoing." Those filing such lawsuits, said the Justice Department's solicitor general, need to be able to point to allegations of particular jointly attended meetings or to involvement of alleged conspirators in joint activities. The case is Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 05-1126. � 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This news is brought to you by PhysOrg.com Re: http://www.physorg.com/news98989653.html http://www.physorg.com/pdf98989653.pdf http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=98989653 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue May 22 04:09:57 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 10:09:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Happy birthday wolfgang! In-Reply-To: <20070521174405.4667B1AD4C1@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <4650EAA3.6050307@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4651C320.3050804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20070521174405.4667B1AD4C1@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> dear wolfgang the happiest of birthdays to you this fine day in geneva..! i wish all good things for you and look forward to toasts real and virtual to your good health and happiness with friends here and remote.. 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Tue May 22 05:45:31 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:45:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Happy birthday wolfgang! In-Reply-To: <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <4650EAA3.6050307@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4651C320.3050804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20070521174405.4667B1AD4C1@mail.gn.apc.org> <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <4652BBBB.6090107@wzb.eu> happy birthday from me as well. I am looking forward to seeing you tonight. Big kiss & big hug. jeanette karen banks wrote: > dear wolfgang > > the happiest of birthdays to you this fine day in geneva..! > > i wish all good things for you and look forward to toasts real and > virtual to your good health and happiness with friends here and remote.. > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue May 22 05:45:04 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 06:45:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] Happy birthday wolfgang! In-Reply-To: <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <4650EAA3.6050307@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4651C320.3050804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20070521174405.4667B1AD4C1@mail.gn.apc.org> <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <4652BBA0.7090501@rits.org.br> Turning 60 and as young as ever! Um grande abraço, companheiro Wolf! --c.a. karen banks wrote: > dear wolfgang > > the happiest of birthdays to you this fine day in geneva..! > > i wish all good things for you and look forward to toasts real and > virtual to your good health and happiness with friends here and remote.. > > 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 > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue May 22 06:14:41 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:14:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Happy birthday wolfgang! In-Reply-To: <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <4650EAA3.6050307@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4651C320.3050804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20070521174405.4667B1AD4C1@mail.gn.apc.org> <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Clocking a year further in life is a wonderful achivment worth celeberating with all. I wish Wolfgang, the happiest birth day. If he is some where now with people, lt them stand up and spontaneously wish him a happy birth day. Aaron On 5/22/07, karen banks wrote: > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! > _______________________________________ > > dear wolfgang > > the happiest of birthdays to you this fine day in geneva..! > > i wish all good things for you and look forward to toasts real and > virtual to your good health and happiness with friends here and remote.. > > karen > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 22 06:34:47 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:04:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf Message-ID: <20070522103451.8B4E45C58@smtp2.electricembers.net> We will discuss the CS strategy for tomorrow's consultations at the CS plenary today in Room XXVII (Palais des Nations, 1st Floor) between 6 and 7 PM. We have also made request for a room at ITU to discuss the strategy further from 9 to 10 AM just before the consultations start. Everyone is requested to attend. (the room no will be confirmed later). 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 22 06:43:19 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:13:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] igc at igf consultations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070522104325.ED202E16F6@smtp3.electricembers.net> >> I had hoped (actually thought you had agreed to > write something) I did say we should separate process related inputs from the substantive ones and develop a separate document for them. I did not go ahead to do it, because our substantive inputs for agenda for the main sessions was agreed on the basis that we say nothing about whether the present 4 themes - access, openness etc - should stay or be replaced... Now, any process related input does bring this issue to the fore, and this is the reason I was not sure how to go about it... However, I develop some points related to process which in my understanding seem to have wide acceptance in the caucus... these points will be presented to the tomorrow morning meeting of the IGC and other civil society members (see my other email) and if there is a general agreement on these, these will be inputted as a spoken statement to the IGF consultations... We will also have a discussion on what these points could be at the evening CS plenary... Sorry, but I am a bit busy with CSTD and some other activities during the day to pull the points together 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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:05 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] igc at igf consultations > > I had hoped (actually thought you had agreed to > write something) the caucus would comment on > modalities etc suggested in the draft program: > If we have comments on "Basic Meeting Structure" > (section 2 of the draft program, particularly > suggestions about workshops, their number, > whether linked to main themes and importance of > keep a number [how many?] of open topic workshop > slots, etc), "3 Meeting Types", best practise > sessions etc. What do we think of the "Topical > Issue" session. > > Photocopying: ask the secretariat, they are often > able to help. And it's a good idea to check if > documents can be distributed (I see absolutely no > reason why not, but who knows what odd rule might > have come back to haunt us.) > > If not the secretariat then CONGO are sure to know how to get copies made. > > Discussion: kill the bureau idea please. Very > valid comments about process, but any arrangement > and label "bureau" will kill us. Read > transcripts of the stocktaking session February > 2007, and also the first meeting on IGF February > 2006. > > See you in a couple of days. > > Adam > > > > At 11:35 AM +0530 5/21/07, Parminder wrote: > > > >Hi Everyone > > > >I am in Geneva and will attend the IGF > >consultationsŠ. Please let me who all would be > >there to develop and take forward our strategy > >for the consultations. Others are encouraged to > >keep providing us inputs onlineŠ. > > > >CONGO has a room for CS plenary every evening 6 > >­ 7 PM in Room XXVII (Palais des Nations). We > >can meet today and discuss IGF things a bit, and > >devote tomorrow¹s CS plenary (22nd) mostly for > >IGF related discussions. We can try to stay back > >for half an hour after the plenary tomorrow > >(assuming that the UN staff lets us do that) for > >more focussed discussions. > > > >Other ideas for how to take this forward are welcome. > > > >I think it will be good if we can have > >photocopies of the IGC input to the IGFŠ. Many > >participants do not read stuff online, and > >putting a hard copy in their hands is a good way > >of getting through. ( I will try to get such > >copies madeŠ anyone more resourced in Geneva/UN > >circumstance is requested to help.) > > > >Meanwhile I am enclosing an input IT for Change > >made for the consultations (it was written > >hurriedly on the night of the 17th to make it to > >the synthesis paper). > > > >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 > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ITfC's > >contribution #30AE35.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0030AE35) > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue May 22 06:52:08 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:52:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] bureau Message-ID: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> Arguments against or in favour of a bureau may be debated endlessly. This is not the real point. In the TA, a MS bureau is an explicit component of the IGF process, but its structure is yet to be determined. Not surprisingly some people or organizations would prefer to rewrite the TA in their own liking. This would be a good recipe for rekindling a power struggle among many constituencies. E.g. some govts, which have accepted the US diktat to keep ICANN's status quo, might decide that after all they don't want ICANN any longer. The TA is a compromise, everyone knows that. Playing real politik with it is certainly feasible, when one wields power, or else it's just futile. Further, in a situation of conflicting interests, the CS has more to lose in fiddling with WSIS agreed texts, because its own power is in providing farsighted and valid analyses and proposals. Equal footing with govts requires to be recognized as an honest and trustable partner. Cheers ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 22 06:51:35 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:21:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: <20070522103451.8B4E45C58@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070522105140.C49D7E16F6@smtp3.electricembers.net> It is room K in ITU building for the mentioned civil society meeting, the same where IGF consultations well take place. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:05 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] igc@ igf We will discuss the CS strategy for tomorrow's consultations at the CS plenary today in Room XXVII (Palais des Nations, 1st Floor) between 6 and 7 PM. We have also made request for a room at ITU to discuss the strategy further from 9 to 10 AM just before the consultations start. Everyone is requested to attend. (the room no will be confirmed later). 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue May 22 07:21:35 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:21:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Today's CS Plenary meeting agenda Message-ID: <200705221120.l4MBK6gj026792@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the summary of yesterday's CS Plenary meeting, to which more than 20 CS reps participated. I also paste below the agenda of today's CS Plenary meeting, taking place between 6:00 and 7:00 in Room XXVII. Due to tomorrow's programme of work, it will primarily focus in the IGF consultation. Best, Philippe Civil Society Plenary meeting 22 May 2007 - 18:00-19:00 Room XXVII (Palais des Nations) * * * Proposed agenda 1. Preparations for the IGF consultation 2. Modalities for CS participation (10th session of CSTD) 3. CSTD multi year programme of work and working methods 4. Announcements 5. Any other business Philippe Dam 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Civil Society Plenary meeting 1 - Summary.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36352 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From lists at privaterra.info Tue May 22 08:26:33 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 08:26:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> Message-ID: <4A0BD1D9-431F-49BC-8DBE-269595F5747B@privaterra.info> Having been on the previous WSIS CS bureau as focal point for North America and Europe, let me concur with Bill Drake and others who state quite clearly and quite articulately that a "Bureau for CS" is an inappropriate construct for the IGF process. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 22-May-07, at 6:52 AM, Louis Pouzin wrote: > Arguments against or in favour of a bureau may be debated > endlessly. This is not the real point. In the TA, a MS bureau is an > explicit component of the IGF process, but its structure is yet to > be determined. Not surprisingly some people or organizations would > prefer to rewrite the TA in their own liking. This would be a good > recipe for rekindling a power struggle among many constituencies. > E.g. some govts, which have accepted the US diktat to keep ICANN's > status quo, might decide that after all they don't want ICANN any > longer. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 22 08:42:27 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 08:42:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: <4A0BD1D9-431F-49BC-8DBE-269595F5747B@privaterra.info> References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4A0BD1D9-431F-49BC-8DBE-269595F5747B@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <20070522124232.2869C334BC2@mxr.isoc.bg> Having been on the previous WSIS CS bureau, and having seen all the political gaming behind it, I strongly agree with Robert. Whenever there's something that resembles, even very vague, power, this ruins good cooperative working. veni At 08:26 5/22/2007 -0400, you wrote: >Having been on the previous WSIS CS bureau as focal point for North >America and Europe, let me concur with Bill Drake and others who >state quite clearly and quite articulately that a "Bureau for CS" is >an inappropriate construct for the IGF process. > > >regards, > >Robert >--- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Tue May 22 09:42:56 2007 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:42:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF synthesis paper Message-ID: <113B449E-3582-4C39-A45E-EB05955E407E@acm.org> hi, i wnted to let people know that IGF synthesis paper is now available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/SynthesisPaper.23.May.rtf but of course a synthesis paper only summarizes, and juxtaposes the various views of the contributors and thus only gives a fragmentary view of the richness included in the papers themselves. so i recommend that people also check out the contributions themselves at: http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_May_2007_cons.htm a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue May 22 10:33:38 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:33:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: <20070522124232.2869C334BC2@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4A0BD1D9-431F-49BC-8DBE-269595F5747B@privaterra.info> <20070522124232.2869C334BC2@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <954259bd0705220733n546eed62o652e28a2bf0c111b@mail.gmail.com> Dear Veni, does the remark below ("Whenever there's something that resembles, even very vague, power, this ruins good cooperative working") also apply in your mind to some internet governance institutions boards we sometimes discuss ? No pun intended. More seriously, the multi-stakeholder approach in my mind means that small group that are often created (steering groups, advisory groups, facilitation teams, etc...) feels it is at the service of the broader commmunity to support its efforts in reaching consensus, rather than acting as a body of representatives taking decisions on behalf of this larger community, like traditional bureaus or councils do in the traditional representative democracy approach. Maybe we could keep that in mind while discussing theses issues. Smaller groups should not exercise power but facilitation. Best Bertrand On 5/22/07, Veni Markovski wrote: > > Having been on the previous WSIS CS bureau, and having seen all the > political gaming behind it, I strongly agree with Robert. > Whenever there's something that resembles, even very vague, power, > this ruins good cooperative working. > > veni > > At 08:26 5/22/2007 -0400, you wrote: > >Having been on the previous WSIS CS bureau as focal point for North > >America and Europe, let me concur with Bill Drake and others who > >state quite clearly and quite articulately that a "Bureau for CS" is > >an inappropriate construct for the IGF process. > > > > > >regards, > > > >Robert > >--- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue May 22 10:51:40 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:51:40 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] bureau References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4A0BD1D9-431F-49BC-8DBE-269595F5747B@privaterra.info> <20070522124232.2869C334BC2@mxr.isoc.bg> <954259bd0705220733n546eed62o652e28a2bf0c111b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D453@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Good point, Bertrand this is exactly the difference between top down (where you first create a box and fill later this box with content, the classical mission creep) and bottom up, where you start with an issue and create an appropriate organisational mechanism around the issue (which makes it much easer to end the mechanism if the issue has lost its relevance). wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 22.05.2007 16:33 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Veni Markovski Cc: Mr. Robert Guerra Betreff: Re: [governance] bureau Dear Veni, does the remark below ("Whenever there's something that resembles, even very vague, power, this ruins good cooperative working") also apply in your mind to some internet governance institutions boards we sometimes discuss ? No pun intended. More seriously, the multi-stakeholder approach in my mind means that small group that are often created (steering groups, advisory groups, facilitation teams, etc...) feels it is at the service of the broader commmunity to support its efforts in reaching consensus, rather than acting as a body of representatives taking decisions on behalf of this larger community, like traditional bureaus or councils do in the traditional representative democracy approach. Maybe we could keep that in mind while discussing theses issues. Smaller groups should not exercise power but facilitation. Best Bertrand On 5/22/07, Veni Markovski wrote: Having been on the previous WSIS CS bureau, and having seen all the political gaming behind it, I strongly agree with Robert. Whenever there's something that resembles, even very vague, power, this ruins good cooperative working. veni At 08:26 5/22/2007 -0400, you wrote: >Having been on the previous WSIS CS bureau as focal point for North >America and Europe, let me concur with Bill Drake and others who >state quite clearly and quite articulately that a "Bureau for CS" is >an inappropriate construct for the IGF process. > > >regards, > >Robert >--- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ____________________ 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 veni at veni.com Tue May 22 11:48:37 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:48:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705220733n546eed62o652e28a2bf0c111b@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4A0BD1D9-431F-49BC-8DBE-269595F5747B@privaterra.info> <20070522124232.2869C334BC2@mxr.isoc.bg> <954259bd0705220733n546eed62o652e28a2bf0c111b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070522155207.E8558334EC6@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:33 5/22/2007 +0200, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >Maybe we could keep that in mind while discussing theses issues. >Smaller groups should not exercise power but facilitation. Practice around the WSIS CS shows that there were certain powers, given to the bureau, which created some tensions. If you want this to repeat itself, then fine. I am just sending a friendly signal here, not entering into an argument. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Tue May 22 11:50:50 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:50:50 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] bureau References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4A0BD1D9-431F-49BC-8DBE-269595F5747B@privaterra.info> <20070522124232.2869C334BC2@mxr.isoc.bg> <954259bd0705220733n546eed62o652e28a2bf0c111b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070522155209.1C0643350CF@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:51 5/22/2007 +0200, KleinwДchter, Wolfgang wrote: >Good point, Bertrand > >this is exactly the difference between top down >(where you first create a box and fill later >this box with content, the classical mission >creep) and bottom up, where you start with an >issue and create an appropriate organisational >mechanism around the issue (which makes it much >easer to end the mechanism if the issue has lost its relevance). Hm. That may be used to discuss the creation of the WSIS, the WGIG, the IGF, and a number of other entities, which were created in the bottom-up mechanism, exactly the way you described it. Without going too much into details, and because I've witnessed the history of the creation of the CS Bureau, I'd like to point out that there are certainly better models than this one. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Tue May 22 11:55:49 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:55:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] New Bulgarian IT-related law published today Message-ID: <20070522155708.0FA4E335025@mxr.isoc.bg> I am happy to inform you that today in the State Gazette of the Parliament of Bulgaria, the new Law for electronic communications was published. As in the previous Telecommunications Law, the current one has solved the issues with the Internet Governance in the narrower meaning - that is, IP addresses and Domain Names are outside of the control of the National Regulatory Authority. Thus, Bulgaria and its government shows determination in ensuring development of Information Society without restrictions and regulations. Hope this will bring some freshness in the discussions around 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 remmyn at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 22 14:12:31 2007 From: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk (Remmy Nweke) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:12:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Happy birthday wolfgang! In-Reply-To: <4652BBBB.6090107@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <202537.98436.qm@web23313.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Wolfgang The blessings that come with rebirth shall continue to come your way, especially as you mark your birth day and reletentless add voice to the growth of Internet. More better days ahead Remmy Jeanette Hofmann wrote: happy birthday from me as well. I am looking forward to seeing you tonight. Big kiss & big hug. jeanette karen banks wrote: > dear wolfgang > > the happiest of birthdays to you this fine day in geneva..! > > i wish all good things for you and look forward to toasts real and > virtual to your good health and happiness with friends here and remote.. > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Tryit now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue May 22 20:12:21 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Follow Up - U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Phone Companies In-Reply-To: sympa.1179809581.1259.330@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: This is a follow-up post regarding; U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Phone Companies http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-05/msg00318.html For those of you who have some time this evening the following links too a documentary regarding the state-of-the U.S. telecom industrial-political scene. So what! You say � well what happens here will most likely happen where you are. [Note: mms:// feeds are for windows media player / load the full address in your browser to launch or use wmp] -- Moyers on America _ The Net @ Risk PBS MOYERS ON AMERICA [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html ] Full Video Clips: - The Net at Risk Introduction [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html ] Introduction (3:12) (The Net at Risk) mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/NAR_Final_pt1-hi.wmv Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/infographics/images/pop_media1.jpg ] - Chapter 1 (14:05) (THE NEW DIGITAL DIVIDE) mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/NAR_Final_pt2-hi.wmv - Chapter 2 (09:51) (NET NEUTRALITY) mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/NAR_Final_pt3-hi.wmv Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/images/highway.jpg ] - Chapter 3 (23:06) (COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS) mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/NAR_Final_pt4-hi.wmv Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/infographics/images/pop_fiber.jpg ] - Chapter 4 (13:49) (BIG AND BIGGER MEDIA) mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/NAR_Final_pt5-hi.wmv - Chapter 5 (22:40) mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/NAR_Final_pt6-hi.wmv -- -- -- -- Same as above but / Short Webpage Clips: Moyers on America - The Net @ Risk PBS MOYERS ON AMERICA [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html ] -- The Net at Risk Introduction [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html ] mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/NAR_Final_pt1-hi.wmv Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/infographics/images/pop_media1.jpg ] -- The New Digital Divide [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/usworld.html ] mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/netatrisk_world-hi.wmv Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/infographics/images/pop_broadband.jpg ] -- Net Neutrality [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/neutrality.html ] mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/nar_general-hi.wmv Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/images/highway.jpg ] DEBATE POINTS: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/documents.html#debate -- Community Connections [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/community.html ] mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/netatrisk_lafyette-hi.wmv Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/infographics/images/pop_fiber.jpg ] - Big, Bigger, Biggest Media [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/bigger.html ] mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/wnet/moyers/moy ersonamerica/diller-hi.wmv Button Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/images/who_owns.jpg ] Picture: [ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/infographics/images/pop_media1.jpg ] -- -- -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 23 02:05:26 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:35:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: <20070522105140.C49D7E16F6@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070523060528.D07044AC9@smtp1.electricembers.net> The enclosed draft which draws a lot from the Feb statement of the IGC to the IGF consultations, with some additional points, for instance as suggested by Robin Gross at the yesterdays' CS plenary to add human rights as a cross cutting theme along with development, will be discussed among the IGC members present in Geneva in a meeting at ITU exactly in an hour from now, prior to the official consultations. If 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, it will form a spoken input into the consultation on the behalf of the IG caucus. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft input 2 into IGF consultations may 07.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 23 02:09:46 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:39:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: <20070523060528.D07044AC9@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070523060947.94F15E04E6@smtp3.electricembers.net> Putting it in the body of the email as well. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 23th May, 2007 Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input into the open round of consultations on 23 May 2007 to discuss program and agenda for the second meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro. In addition to its earlier contribution/ statement on substantive agenda issues for the second IGF meeting in Rio, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus will like to make the following inputs which are mostly in regard to the 'process' issues for the next IGF meeting. However, this contribution/ statement also contain some additional suggestions regarding the substantive agenda for the Rio meeting. At the outset, the Caucus wishes to express its satisfaction with, and great appreciation for, the widespread and genuine adoption of the multistakeholder principle for all activities of the IGF. We hope that this practice is kept up and strongly institutionalized in the IGF as its key constitutive principle. If we are able to do so, along with delivering real outputs from the process, IGF will become a path-breaking innovation in global governance in an increasingly connected global information society. We are also, in general, satisfied with the openness of the IGF process, with its processes of regular consultations, taking in of online inputs and their compilation for its various meetings. As for the main sessions and workshop structures, we are for a greater connection between the various workshops and the main sessions, and find the proposal of having official reporting back sessions, as per the 'draft programme outlines' very useful. We also find the proposal of open sessions for all major organizations dealing with Internet governance related issues to discuss their activities very promising. In regard to the Tunis mandate of the IGF (72 b and 72 c) of facilitating discourse between these bodies, and interfacing with them, it will be in order if the IGF specifically requests and encourages some of these bodies, which have important IG implications, to hold such open forums. We will like all the sessions and workshops to be more interactive, rather than be a series of panel presentations. We also will like to see further development of online processes for remote participation, for participants to keep track of parallel events, and for greater inter-sessional activity of the IGF with full participation of all groups and stakeholders. In this regard we will like to see the IGF develop into a continuing process, using its various online and offline components, rather than just a single annual event. In the above regard, we will also like to see more focus on the activity and outcomes of the 'dynamic coalitions' and their closer integration with IGF processes. A transparent, multi-stakeholder and democratic process should be commenced to develop criteria for the recognition of "dynamic coalitions" by the IGF, whereby the output of coalitions that satisfied those criteria could be formally received for discussion at a plenary session of the following IGF meeting. The IGF was created to help solving global problems that could not be addressed anywhere else; simple discussion is not enough, and would betray what was agreed in Tunis and is clearly stated in the mandate of the IGF itself. We stand ready to provide more detailed procedural suggestions on how this could work in practice, or to participate in any multi-stakeholder working process to define it. We are happy to see that the 'draft program outline' document mentions that the preparatory process for the Rio de Janeiro meeting will be as open and inclusive as possible. In this regard we have some comments to make on the composition and the role of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. We note that the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its appointment; nor there is any transparency or clear norm on its terms, mandate and working principles. We think that clear terms and rules should be established for the Advisory Group between now and Rio, through an open process involving all the participants in the IGF, as a shared foundation for our common work. We further consider that if these rules and the quotas for representation from each stakeholder group were openly established, it would be possible for the Secretary General to do the actual process of selection of Advisory Group members in close, direct, open and transparent consultation with the stakeholder groups themselves. Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the very limited representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory Group, which amounted to about five members over about forty. We think that the significant participation of civil society and individual users, as proved by the WGIG, is key to making Internet governance events a success both in practical and in political terms; thus we would like to see such participation expanded to at least one fourth of the group, if not one third, and to the same levels of the private sector and of the Internet technical community. We confirm our support to the civil society members of the incumbent group, and stand ready to provide suggestions for additional members with direct experience from diverse civil society groups. The IGF submission to the CSTD notes that: "The main task of the Advisory Group was to prepare the substantive agenda and programme for the first meeting of the IGF. It was made clear that any decision on how to prepare subsequent meetings and on any future structure and future working methods of the IGF would be taken in light of the experiences made during the preparatory process for the Athens meeting." We are not clear what is being done in this regard. We think that this and future consultations before Rio should examine in detail the various parts of the IGF mandate as defined in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, and specifically how to deal with those that were not addressed in Athens. For example, parts (f) and (i) of the quoted paragraph require the IGF to discuss the good principles of Internet governance, as agreed in Tunis, and how to fully implement them inside all existing governance processes, including how to facilitate participation by disadvantaged stakeholders such as developing countries, civil society, and individual users. The IGF submission also notes that the "geographical balance of participants was tilted somewhat in favor of developed countries". This is a matter of serious concern since IGF was seen by many as the vehicle for ensuring wider participation of such sections in the IG processes who may find themselves currently excluded. We request the IGF to urgently take up the matter of funding participation of more representatives of the civil society, especially from developing countries, to give greater legitimacy to the IGF. This matter should be given urgent attention in the present consultations itself. On the issues of logistics of the IGF meeting in Rio, we hope that the host country and the program committee will ensure that all participants, specifically those from the civil society, and other under-resourced groups, face no difficulties. Speaking from the experience of Athens, we specifically request that adequate inexpensive arrangements for lunch be available at the venue. Similarly, inexpensive accommodation close to the venue, with adequate transport facilities, must also be ensured. We request that adequate wireless connectivity, and enough number of computer terminals, are available for the participants at the venue. While the Civil Society IG Caucus have given a separate input towards the substantive agenda for the Rio meeting, there are two more specific points which we want to add here. One, is to express deep dissatisfaction for the lack of transparency and inclusion in the so-called "enhanced cooperation" process, which, as agreed in Tunis, should discuss these matters in a multi-stakeholder fashion. We ask that prompt communication is given to all stakeholders about the status and nature of this process, and that steps are taken to ensure the full inclusion of all stakeholders in this process. Two, we will like to see 'human rights', as a set fundamental rights that are a pre-requisite for development of individuals, groups as well as nations, be included as a cross-cutting theme along with the 'development' theme for the Rio meeting. We end with a note of thanks for Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer and all the members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, as well as of the IGF secretariat, for their hard, and often thankless work, in developing the IGF processes thus far in such a successful manner. We greatly look forward to the Rio meeting of the IGF to take these processes further to enable the IGF to meet its full mandate. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:35 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] igc@ igf The enclosed draft which draws a lot from the Feb statement of the IGC to the IGF consultations, with some additional points, for instance as suggested by Robin Gross at the yesterdays' CS plenary to add human rights as a cross cutting theme along with development, will be discussed among the IGC members present in Geneva in a meeting at ITU exactly in an hour from now, prior to the official consultations. If 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, it will form a spoken input into the consultation on the behalf of the IG caucus. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 23 02:30:32 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:30:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> Message-ID: Louis, Para 78, tunis agenda: this was discussed at the first consultation on the IGF in February 2006. Transcripts still on line. It was agreed (as much as these things can be agreed when a multi-stakeholder consultation) that a multi-stakeholder advisory group would be best suited to providing the role required of the Tunis Agenda. That it had been discussed, agreed, supported at the first consultation, was why Nitin and many others were surprised when you brought up the issue again in Feb 2007. Thanks, Adam >Arguments against or in favour of a bureau may be debated endlessly. >This is not the real point. In the TA, a MS bureau is an explicit >component of the IGF process, but its structure is yet to be >determined. Not surprisingly some people or organizations would >prefer to rewrite the TA in their own liking. This would be a good >recipe for rekindling a power struggle among many constituencies. >E.g. some govts, which have accepted the US diktat to keep ICANN's >status quo, might decide that after all they don't want ICANN any >longer. > >The TA is a compromise, everyone knows that. Playing real politik >with it is certainly feasible, when one wields power, or else it's >just futile. Further, in a situation of conflicting interests, the >CS has more to lose in fiddling with WSIS agreed texts, because its >own power is in providing farsighted and valid analyses and >proposals. Equal footing with govts requires to be recognized as an >honest and trustable partner. > >Cheers >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 03:12:27 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:12:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> Message-ID: <4653E95B.9010801@Malcolm.id.au> Adam Peake wrote: > That it had been discussed, agreed, supported at the first consultation, > was why Nitin and many others were surprised when you brought up the > issue again in Feb 2007. With respect Adam, I'm not sure that that's fair. The consultations have not been dialogues, they have in general been a succession of monologues, in which participants read out (for the most part) pre-prepared statements, without the opportunity for open discussion, and in response to which the Secretariat and Advisory Group pick out the parts that they agree with and discard the rest without explanation. Although there were a number of statements that expressed disagreement with the notion of a bureau, it is a stretch to say that a decision was made, still less a binding one that would preclude Louis from raising the issue again now. Nitin or others may indeed be surprised by it, but by the same token there are more than one or two decisions that he and the Advisory Group made that came as a surprise to many. -- 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Wed May 23 04:31:00 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:31:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting this morning Message-ID: <200705230829.l4N8TUcR026445@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Just before the CSTD morning meeting starts (quite delayed), I inform you that there will be open speaking time for CS entities to address the CSTD this morning, once the list of Member States speakers is exhausted. Around two thirds of the CSTD members are in the room at this time. Once this morning's list of speakers (members + observers) is exhausted, the meeting might be adjourned, before being resumed this afternoon at 3:00. Observers will also be given the floor this afternoon. For those among you who want to speak at 3:00 on wards, you are advised to register on the speakers' list at the beginning of the meeting. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Wed May 23 05:00:44 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:00:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: <20070523060528.D07044AC9@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 5/23/07 8:05 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > The enclosed draft which draws a lot from the Feb statement of the IGC to the > IGF consultations, with some additional points, for instance as suggested by > Robin Gross at the yesterdays¹ CS plenary to add human rights as a cross > cutting theme along with development, will be discussed among the IGC members > present in Geneva in a meeting at ITU exactly in an hour from now, prior to > the official consultations. > > If 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, it will form a spoken input into > the consultation on the behalf of the IG caucus. > Parminder ------------- Just to clarify, the text was approved for a read out by the 17 people attending the caucus meeting this morning, in accordance with the Charter procedures Avri reminded us of the other day, below. Bill >> Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be >> discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision >> procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be >> occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and >> will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that >> require a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still >> required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its >> contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when >> necessary: >> >> 1. >> >> The coordinators will act as the official representatives of >> the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that >> cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. >> 2. >> >> In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate >> with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should >> reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just >> that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. >> 3. >> >> If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in >> face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another >> participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be >> made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. >> 4. >> >> Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be >> prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as >> appropriate. >> 5. >> >> Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic >> principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. >> Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed >> general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and >> documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the >> caucus in the past. >> 6. >> >> Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, >> preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as >> soon after their presentation as possible. >> > -------------- 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 Wed May 23 05:25:02 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:25:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: <4653E95B.9010801@Malcolm.id.au> References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4653E95B.9010801@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4654086E.8090801@wzb.eu> Jeremy, I don't want to appear nit-picky but I'd like to point out that the advisory group doesn't take decisions, and I don't recall the advisory group to ever have decided anything. The way it works is much like the open consultations. We debate issues, Markus and Nitin write a report that summarizes the various issues discussed and opinions expressed for the SG to consider. jeanette > Although there were a number of statements that expressed disagreement > with the notion of a bureau, it is a stretch to say that a decision was > made, still less a binding one that would preclude Louis from raising > the issue again now. Nitin or others may indeed be surprised by it, but > by the same token there are more than one or two decisions that he and > the Advisory Group made that came as a surprise to many. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 23 05:40:20 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:40:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: <4653E95B.9010801@Malcolm.id.au> References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4653E95B.9010801@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: >Adam Peake wrote: >>That it had been discussed, agreed, supported at the first >>consultation, was why Nitin and many others were surprised when you >>brought up the issue again in Feb 2007. > >With respect Adam, I'm not sure that that's fair. The consultations >have not been dialogues, they have in general been a succession of >monologues, in which participants read out (for the most part) >pre-prepared statements, without the opportunity for open >discussion, and in response to which the Secretariat and Advisory >Group there was no advisory group at that time. Chicken egg etc. So don't blame MAG for something it could not have been involved with. A consultation was held on modalities. People contributed and there was discussion. Someone had to decided what the consensus of that meeting was so things could move forward. Or we would still be discussion modalities now and there would not have been a meeting in Athens... This isn't a Ph.D. that might get finished one day. It's arranging an very large semi-governmental, international conference. Would be nice if you could pop into the real world occasionally. Adam >pick out the parts that they agree with and discard the rest without >explanation. > >Although there were a number of statements that expressed >disagreement with the notion of a bureau, it is a stretch to say >that a decision was made, still less a binding one that would >preclude Louis from raising the issue again now. Nitin or others >may indeed be surprised by it, but by the same token there are more >than one or two decisions that he and the Advisory Group made that >came as a surprise to many. > >-- >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 acm.org Wed May 23 06:05:55 2007 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:05:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Issues with IGF VLC broadcast Message-ID: <3AE9D423-8F21-4F13-97F3-ED016B12BF72@acm.org> Hi, Unfortunately we are having a bandwidth problem with the VLC broadcast and are hoping to have it taken care of. In the meantime, the ITU's realplayer broadcast in multiple languages seems to be working well. I will let the list know when the VLC become available. As it is is the open sw solution we will not give up on it. Thanks for your patience. Fortunately a redundant system was possible. 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 Wed May 23 06:28:01 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:28:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] bureau In-Reply-To: References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4653E95B.9010801@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <46541731.4080805@Malcolm.id.au> Adam Peake wrote: >> With respect Adam, I'm not sure that that's fair. The consultations >> have not been dialogues, they have in general been a succession of >> monologues, in which participants read out (for the most part) >> pre-prepared statements, without the opportunity for open discussion, >> and in response to which the Secretariat and Advisory Group > > there was no advisory group at that time. Chicken egg etc. So don't > blame MAG for something it could not have been involved with. I referred above to consultations, which includes the subsequent ones for which the Advisory Group was around. > A consultation was held on modalities. People contributed and there was > discussion. Someone had to decided what the consensus of that meeting > was so things could move forward. Or we would still be discussion > modalities now and there would not have been a meeting in Athens... > This isn't a Ph.D. that might get finished one day. Yeah thanks, ouch. > It's arranging an > very large semi-governmental, international conference. Oh, is that what the IGF is? Silly me for going by what the Tunis Agenda said that it was; a multi-stakeholder forum with a specific set of objectives in its mandate, of which "discussion" is only one (well, two). > Would be nice if you could pop into the real world occasionally. There is no need to be patronising. The fact is that the Advisory Group model is a failure, as a number of submissions (including ours) have said, and is probably being discussed in the room you sit right now (I can't tell; neither the ITU RealPlayer Webcast nor the VLC one are working for me as you know). As Jeanette has just acknowledged in her response to me that the Advisory Group doesn't even attempt to make decisions on a multi-stakeholder basis, but simply engages in irresolute discussion and cedes the power of decision making to Nitin Desai and Marcus Kummer (er, I mean, the Secretary-General), is the need for reform not obvious? So whether the details of his proposal are wise or not, explain to me again why it is so silly for Louis to revisit other alternatives to this failed institution now? I'd have thought now, before the old Advisory Group has been reconvened, is the perfect opportunity. -- 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Wed May 23 06:57:46 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:57:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: Invitation to the Meeting of High-Level Experts on Competitive Platforms for the Delivery of Digital Content, to be held on 21-22 June 2007, at EBU Headquarters , Geneva, Switzerland Message-ID: <200705231056.l4NAuGYn030284@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Not sure who might have receieved this ITU annoucement. Sorry for cross posting. Best, Ph _____ De : DigitalContent at itu.int [mailto:DigitalContent at itu.int] Envoyé : mercredi 23 mai 2007 10:25 À : DigitalContent at itu.int Objet : Invitation to the Meeting of High-Level Experts on Competitive Platforms for the Delivery of Digital Content, to be held on 21-22 June 2007, at EBU Headquarters , Geneva, Switzerland Dear Madam/Sir, Under the aegis of the Shaping Tomorrow ’s Networks Initiative, we are pleased to invite you to a Meeting of High-Level Experts entitled “Competitive Platforms for the Delivery of Digital Content”, to be held in Geneva (Switzerland) on 21-22 June 2007. The digital landscape has been transformed over the past decade. New communication technologies, modern media, the Internet and devices with new functionalities are expected to meet consumers’ demand for seamless, converged and user-friendly digital tools providing access to a broad range of services and content. In order to respond to the challenges of convergence, media players and standardization bodies need to understand better trends in the creation and delivery of content. Soon, there will be a wide range of alternatives for delivering content, which are rapidly converging and it is not yet clear which systems and services will succeed. In line with the stated objectives of the WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles (December 2003), which affirms “ the common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life ” the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) will jointly organize a Meeting of High-Level Experts to identify global trends and to address the new technological and policy challenges in the digital content delivery environment. Thematic papers will be commissioned in advance of the meeting, as the basis for discussion. Written contributions are welcome and may be sent to digitalcontent at itu.int The draft agenda, the meeting concept document as well as regularly updated information concerning the meeting may be found on the ITU website at http://www.itu.int/digitalcontent. You are invited to register at http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/stn/digitalcontent/registration_form.html or by fax (No. +41 22 7474 736). The registration form is enclosed (one form to be completed for each participant) and should be sent as soon as possible but not later than 15 June 2007. We hope you are able to accept our invitation to participate in this meeting and can join us in June. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact Ms Cristina Bueti (ITU) or Ms Lina Vanberghem (EBU) at digitalcontent at itu.int We look forward to welcoming you at this important event. Yours faithfully, (signed) (signed) Hamadoun I. Touré Secretary-General Jean Réveillon Secretary-General -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Registration_Form.doc Type: application/msword Size: 62464 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Programe- Competitive Platforms for the Delivery of Digital Content.doc Type: application/msword Size: 163328 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 23 07:05:36 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:05:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF consultation on lunch break In-Reply-To: <46541731.4080805@Malcolm.id.au> References: <200705221052.l4MAq8mQ021258@muse.enst.fr> <4653E95B.9010801@Malcolm.id.au> <46541731.4080805@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: We're off for food. I think back at 3PM (Geneva) 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Wed May 23 08:59:44 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:59:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD meeting this morning In-Reply-To: <200705230829.l4N8TUcR026445@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200705231258.l4NCwEsp010008@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> OK, too many speakers at this morning’s session. We had the presentation by the UN Regional Commissions and by some other UN entities. Private sector and CS statement will start at this afternoon’s session (3 PM). Ph _____ De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mercredi 23 mai 2007 10:31 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD meeting this morning Dear all, Just before the CSTD morning meeting starts (quite delayed), I inform you that there will be open speaking time for CS entities to address the CSTD this morning, once the list of Member States speakers is exhausted. Around two thirds of the CSTD members are in the room at this time. Once this morning’s list of speakers (members + observers) is exhausted, the meeting might be adjourned, before being resumed this afternoon at 3:00. Observers will also be given the floor this afternoon. For those among you who want to speak at 3:00 on wards, you are advised to register on the speakers’ list at the beginning of the meeting. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 23 09:18:24 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:18:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting again Message-ID: just about to start for the afternoon session. 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Wed May 23 10:00:54 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:00:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Today's CS Plenary meeting agenda - Venue: CONGO Office meeting room Message-ID: <200705231359.l4NDxN2U021526@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Due to the holding of the IGF and ALF Meetings in the ITU and of the CSTD session at the UN, we propose to offer the use of the CONGO office meeting room for today's CS Plenary meeting, between 18:15 and 7:15 pm. Please circulate this information to those who can not check their e-mail. Please find the proposed agenda below. Ph Philippe Dam Conference of NGOs (CONGO) Program Officer - WSIS and Human Rights 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 The CONGO office is located just in front of the UN entrance Place des Nations (in the old house cose to the tram station). Civil Society Plenary meeting 23 May 2007 - 18:00-19:00 * * * Proposed agenda 1. Modalities for CS participation (10th session of CSTD) 2. Up date on CSTD decision making process 3. Report on Action Line Facilitation process 4. Report on IGF informal consultation 5. Announcements 6. Any other business Philippe Dam 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Wed May 23 10:10:27 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:10:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: References: 20070515015333.166DE2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg Message-ID: This just happened in the IGF consultation here in Geneva: Parminder stated that the CS caucus has no position regarding the formation of a bureau, as this needs more debate within the caucus for a consensus (or at least rought consensus) to be made -- this is the view we got from our caucus morning meeting today. On the other hand, Adam, who was not at the morning meeting, said that the caucus has absolutely rejected any bureau proposal, which in my view is not true. What is this? We need, at a minimum, a bit more coordination... --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed May 23 10:24:39 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:24:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] New Bulgarian IT-related law published today In-Reply-To: <20070522155708.0FA4E335025@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <20070522155708.0FA4E335025@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: So the private company Register.bg Ltd, which is the only seller of the .bg commodity (I wonder who owns it?), ought to be very happy! The decision by the government of Bulgaria is a good one, but comes quite late. Many countries did this a long time ago. Brazil did this in 1995, and proposed the creation of, not a private for-profit monopoly to sell domain commodities, but a multistakeholder organization to take care of a community resource (the .br domain). So why this "will bring some freshness in the discussions around the IGF" truly escapes my old-timer mind... --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Veni Markovski To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:55:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] New Bulgarian IT-related law published today > I am happy to inform you that today in the State Gazette of the > Parliament of Bulgaria, the new Law for electronic communications was > published. > As in the previous Telecommunications Law, the current one has solved > the issues with the Internet Governance in the narrower meaning - > that is, IP addresses and Domain Names are outside of the control of > the National Regulatory Authority. > Thus, Bulgaria and its government shows determination in ensuring > development of Information Society without restrictions and > regulations. > > Hope this will bring some freshness in the discussions around 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed May 23 10:29:25 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:29:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Carlos, More coordination, sure. Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" on the renewed bureau suggestions. However, it is also true that the caucus has previously affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no mistake, they are understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). I think Adam was reacting to Parminder's particular framing that the caucus has no position "because we've not talked about it" (forget his precise words, but not true) and was restating the prior position which, absent any revision since, does stand now. Best, Bill On 5/23/07 4:10 PM, "carlos a. afonso" wrote: > This just happened in the IGF consultation here in Geneva: > > Parminder stated that the CS caucus has no position regarding the > formation of a bureau, as this needs more debate within the caucus for a > consensus (or at least rought consensus) to be made -- this is the view > we got from our caucus morning meeting today. On the other hand, Adam, > who was not at the morning meeting, said that the caucus has absolutely > rejected any bureau proposal, which in my view is not true. > > What is this? We need, at a minimum, a bit more coordination... > > --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 23 10:34:20 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:34:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: References: 20070515015333.166DE2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg Message-ID: >This just happened in the IGF consultation here in Geneva: > >Parminder stated that the CS caucus has no position regarding the >formation of a bureau, as this needs more debate within the caucus for a >consensus (or at least rought consensus) to be made -- this is the view >we got from our caucus morning meeting today. On the other hand, Adam, >who was not at the morning meeting, said that the caucus has absolutely >rejected any bureau proposal, which in my view is not true. (background -- a number of people mentioned they thought the caucus supported the call for a Bureau. A few governments suggested this.) I'll have to see the transcript but the note I wrote for myself before speaking was: as a member of the civil society IG caucus my view is the caucus does not support the concept of a Bureau. we are concerned about this misunderstanding. I hope I included "my view", who knows what might have come out of my mouth once the mic was on! I think saying we have no opinion is dodging the issue. We either speak at this meeting or not at all. My view is we have seen no support for a Bureau from caucus members. There is great concern (I share it) about the operation of the advisory group, but no support for a Bureau. >What is this? We need, at a minimum, a bit more coordination... No. If you support something, speak up. Perhaps respond to this email Thanks, Adam >--c.a. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 23 11:13:57 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:13:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: References: <20070523060528.D07044AC9@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Bill, On 5/23/07, William Drake wrote: > > > > >> Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be > >> discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision > >> procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be > >> occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and > >> will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that > >> require a very quick response. I don't think this qualifies as an "opportunity to make statements that require a very quick response." I think that it should have been discussed and agreed beforehand. I think it was a short-circuit of our agreed process, and object strongly to it's inclusion. It says to the caucus that if you attend a meeting, you can insert language that you want included, as long as it fits under #5 below. I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it did, we would have explicitly mentioned/included it in our statement. /McTim In these cases, while it is still > >> required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its > >> contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when > >> necessary: > >> > >> 1. > >> > >> The coordinators will act as the official representatives of > >> the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that > >> cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. > >> 2. > >> > >> In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate > >> with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should > >> reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just > >> that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. > >> 3. > >> > >> If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in > >> face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another > >> participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be > >> made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. > >> 4. > >> > >> Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be > >> prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as > >> appropriate. > >> 5. > >> > >> Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic > >> principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. > >> Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed > >> general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and > >> documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the > >> caucus in the past. > >> 6. > >> > >> Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, > >> preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as > >> soon after their presentation as possible. > >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 11:15:58 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:15:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Today's CS Plenary meeting agenda - Venue: CONGO Office meeting room In-Reply-To: <200705231359.l4NDxN2U021526@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200705231514.l4NFERLY017812@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> A helpful map for those who have not yet visited the CONGO Office, so that you find it for the CS Plenary. All the best, Ph _____ De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mercredi 23 mai 2007 16:01 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : rbloem at ngocongo.org Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Today's CS Plenary meeting agenda - Venue: CONGO Office meeting room Importance : Haute Dear all, Due to the holding of the IGF and ALF Meetings in the ITU and of the CSTD session at the UN, we propose to offer the use of the CONGO office meeting room for today’s CS Plenary meeting, between 18:15 and 7:15 pm. Please circulate this information to those who can not check their e-mail Please find the proposed agenda below. Ph Philippe Dam Conference of NGOs (CONGO) Program Officer - WSIS and Human Rights 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 The CONGO office is located just in front of the UN entrance Place des Nations (in the old house cose to the tram station). Civil Society Plenary meeting 23 May 2007 – 18:00-19:00 * * * Proposed agenda 1. Modalities for CS participation (10th session of CSTD) 2. Up date on CSTD decision making process 3. Report on Action Line Facilitation process 4. Report on IGF informal consultation 5. Announcements 6. Any other business Philippe Dam 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: map - CONGO Office (3).doc Type: application/msword Size: 60928 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed May 23 11:20:03 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:20:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] privacy coalition statement at IGF consultations Message-ID: <46545BA3.3090801@zedat.fu-berlin.de> I just read a statement at the IGF consultations based on the meeting we had yesterday. It is available at and copied below. Best, Ralf -------------------------- Dynamic Coalition on Privacy statement at IGF consultations, 23rd May 2007 (made by Ralf Bendrath, University of Bremen, coalition co-facilitator) This is to provide you with a brief update on our work and with some proposals on the IGF meeting in Rio. The Dynamic Coalition on Privacy has met continuous interest and now gathers participants from more than sixty entities, including governments, civil society, business and international organizations. The coalition now has participants from all world regions. The full list and more information about the coalition, including an updated progress report, are available at http://igf2006.info/wiki/Privacy. Participants in the Coalition have met in Geneva in February 2007, in Montreal in May 2007, and again in Geneva yesterday. The major part of the work is being conducted through a mailing list. The Coalition work is currently structured around the following three main themes: • Privacy and Identity, • Privacy and Development, • Privacy and Freedom of Expression. Short synthetic issue papers have been drafted to help structure the debate and highlight the different dimensions on each of the issues mentioned above. The drafts are available at the coalition wiki site I just mentioned. They will be refined and adopted until the summer and submitted to the IGF as contributions from the Privacy Coalition. At our meeting yesterday, we also discussed the draft programme outline for the Rio meeting. We have some concerns and some proposals. On the themes - We noticed that Privacy is not mentioned at all, and civil liberties and human rights in general are pushed to the side. We therefore strongly support the idea to add civil liberties and human rights as another cross-cutting issue. This would mean including it in the criteria for the workshops and addressing it in the main sessions. - The “security” theme as it is described now and if it is to stay can certainly be improved. First of all, it should address which is the object to be secured – the citizen, the consumer, private property, national security, human rights, or what else? Of course, there are many more aspects to think about in this context, and we are more than willing to help here with ideas and expertise. On the format - We think that to have a main session on “emerging issues in Internet Governance” is a good idea, but we suggest having it at the beginning of the meeting. This would be different from “issues that emerged at the IGF” – which of course should be addressed at the end. - Our members will propose several workshops on privacy-related aspects of internet governance. These and other workshops then should feed into the coalition meetings in Rio, which in turn should feed into the respective main session. This is where timing will be relevant, and we ask the secretariat to keep this in mind. On the role and mandate of the IGF - We agree that the IGF must move beyond a pure discussion event and see if and how it can agree on recommendations or other output. We again refer to paragraph 72g of the Tunis Agenda which mentions as part of the IGF mandate to “make recommendations”. - We therefore suggest to have the final IGF plenary consider any recommendations that may arise from the ongoing work of the coalitions or from the workshops and discussions in Rio. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed May 23 11:26:14 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:26:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi McTim, You are referring to the procedural modalities statement that Parminder made, which was approved by the 17 people here. This did in fact "require a very quick response" if the caucus was going to have anything to say on the topic in time for it to matter, since it was one of the main things being discussed in the room. But more importantly, the statement almost entirely comprised positions lifted directly from the document drafted by Vittorio and adopted by the caucus on the list prior to the February consultation. The latter was never delivered to the secretariat and hence not posted on the IGF site, but Vittorio read it out at the time, and essentially what P did was to read the relevant bits again, wrapped in more verbiage. I don't really understand how his stating positions that were adopted by the full caucus online in February and never challenged since and that were then adopted by the 17 people at the meeting here could be inappropriate. What bits do you find objectionable, BTW? Best, BD On 5/23/07 5:13 PM, "McTim" wrote: > Hi Bill, > > On 5/23/07, William Drake wrote: >> >> > > >> >>>> Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be >>>> discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision >>>> procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be >>>> occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and >>>> will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that >>>> require a very quick response. > > I don't think this qualifies as an "opportunity to make statements > that require a very quick response." > > I think that it should have been discussed and agreed beforehand. > > I think it was a short-circuit of our agreed process, and object > strongly to it's inclusion. > > It says to the caucus that if you attend a meeting, you can insert > language that you want included, as long as it fits under #5 below. > > I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it did, we would have > explicitly mentioned/included it in our statement. > > /McTim > > In these cases, while it is still >>>> required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its >>>> contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when >>>> necessary: >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> The coordinators will act as the official representatives of >>>> the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that >>>> cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate >>>> with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should >>>> reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just >>>> that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. >>>> 3. >>>> >>>> If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in >>>> face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another >>>> participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be >>>> made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. >>>> 4. >>>> >>>> Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be >>>> prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as >>>> appropriate. >>>> 5. >>>> >>>> Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic >>>> principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. >>>> Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed >>>> general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and >>>> documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the >>>> caucus in the past. >>>> 6. >>>> >>>> Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, >>>> preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as >>>> soon after their presentation as possible. >>>> *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Wed May 23 12:02:12 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:02:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61A8D376-3816-4016-81B2-3420A23C80A0@privaterra.info> As McTim mentions, the IGC isn't just the fortunate few who can travel to and made all the numerous meetings. There are many of us who can't make it meeting, but are involved and would like to be consulted. Consultations can be done online and quickly with virtual members of the caucus. If anything, an attempt should be made. For example, an email could have been sent to the list that a certain issue came up and requires an urgent action and/or a decision. Likely a few of us were online, as such could have responded and/or commented. Saying that "well you weren't here", for me - doesn't cut it. If anything, as the caucus does call for greater transparency and openness - then we should practice what we preach to ICANN and others.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 23-May-07, at 11:26 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi McTim, > > You are referring to the procedural modalities statement that > Parminder > made, which was approved by the 17 people here. This did in fact > "require a > very quick response" if the caucus was going to have anything to > say on the > topic in time for it to matter, since it was one of the main things > being > discussed in the room. But more importantly, the statement almost > entirely > comprised positions lifted directly from the document drafted by > Vittorio > and adopted by the caucus on the list prior to the February > consultation. > The latter was never delivered to the secretariat and hence not > posted on > the IGF site, but Vittorio read it out at the time, and essentially > what P > did was to read the relevant bits again, wrapped in more verbiage. > I don't > really understand how his stating positions that were adopted by > the full > caucus online in February and never challenged since and that were > then > adopted by the 17 people at the meeting here could be inappropriate. > > What bits do you find objectionable, BTW? > > Best, > > BD > > > On 5/23/07 5:13 PM, "McTim" wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> On 5/23/07, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be >>>>> discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision >>>>> procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be >>>>> occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings >>>>> and >>>>> will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that >>>>> require a very quick response. >> >> I don't think this qualifies as an "opportunity to make statements >> that require a very quick response." >> >> I think that it should have been discussed and agreed beforehand. >> >> I think it was a short-circuit of our agreed process, and object >> strongly to it's inclusion. >> >> It says to the caucus that if you attend a meeting, you can insert >> language that you want included, as long as it fits under #5 below. >> >> I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it did, we would have >> explicitly mentioned/included it in our statement. >> >> /McTim >> >> In these cases, while it is still >>>>> required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement >>>>> and its >>>>> contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied >>>>> when >>>>> necessary: >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> The coordinators will act as the official representatives of >>>>> the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement >>>>> that >>>>> cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. >>>>> 2. >>>>> >>>>> In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also >>>>> coordinate >>>>> with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should >>>>> reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather >>>>> than just >>>>> that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. >>>>> 3. >>>>> >>>>> If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically >>>>> present in >>>>> face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another >>>>> participant of such events. This delegation should, if >>>>> possible, be >>>>> made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. >>>>> 4. >>>>> >>>>> Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be >>>>> prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as >>>>> appropriate. >>>>> 5. >>>>> >>>>> Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and >>>>> basic >>>>> principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. >>>>> Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed >>>>> general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and >>>>> documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the >>>>> caucus in the past. >>>>> 6. >>>>> >>>>> Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, >>>>> preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, >>>>> then as >>>>> soon after their presentation as possible. >>>>> > > *********************************************************** > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 23 11:57:16 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:57:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/23/07, William Drake wrote: > > What bits do you find objectionable, BTW? > The bit that adds a second cross cutting theme. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed May 23 13:58:20 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070523175821.84629.qmail@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Bill, I fail to understand this. Are we not in a new/different situation now from the time of our "previously affirmed support" to the mAG? And aren't the participants or stakeholders called to make inputs, again, for this second round of IGF? And when one of the current coordinators make an honest statement based on the *current* situation, does any one of us need to spend energy and mic time to contradict him, and this on the basis of a *previous* state of affair? Don't we have better things to strive and advocate for during that limited time at the mic? Mawaki --- William Drake wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > More coordination, sure. > > Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the > morning meeting, we > said "the caucus has no position" on the renewed bureau > suggestions. > However, it is also true that the caucus has previously > affirmed support for > the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no mistake, > they are > understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also > criticized the > way the mAG concept has been implemented). I think Adam was > reacting to > Parminder's particular framing that the caucus has no position > "because > we've not talked about it" (forget his precise words, but not > true) and was > restating the prior position which, absent any revision since, > does stand > now. > > Best, > > Bill > > > On 5/23/07 4:10 PM, "carlos a. afonso" wrote: > > > This just happened in the IGF consultation here in Geneva: > > > > Parminder stated that the CS caucus has no position > regarding the > > formation of a bureau, as this needs more debate within the > caucus for a > > consensus (or at least rought consensus) to be made -- this > is the view > > we got from our caucus morning meeting today. On the other > hand, Adam, > > who was not at the morning meeting, said that the caucus has > absolutely > > rejected any bureau proposal, which in my view is not true. > > > > What is this? We need, at a minimum, a bit more > coordination... > > > > --c.a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed May 23 15:34:27 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:34:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? Message-ID: --- William Drake wrote: > Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the > morning meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" > on the renewed bureau suggestions. > However, it is also true that the caucus has previously > affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed to > a bureau---and make no mistake, they are > understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also > criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it may however be possible for a bureau to not do that.) I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have mechanisms to hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude. A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing anything. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Wed May 23 16:04:44 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:04:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070523170146.04ea9648@lacnic.net> At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >--- William Drake wrote: > > Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the > > morning meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" > > on the renewed bureau suggestions. > > However, it is also true that the caucus has previously > > affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed to > > a bureau---and make no mistake, they are > > understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also > > criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). > >I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear that >if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, business and >civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in which the >govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then the Bureau >proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it may however >be possible for a bureau to not do that.) I agree with Milton Good point. But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some governments to have more participation. They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the origin of the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for civil society. If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG or the structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. Raúl >I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et al, >we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our caucus >co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. Otherwise the >caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have mechanisms to >hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude. > >A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my >opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >anything. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - >Release Date: 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed May 23 17:25:22 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] email problem Message-ID: <326382.47401.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Before I miss (if not already done) any interjection directed to me, or anything I need to take note of that might be posted, by any one of the following fellows, please be aware that I don't seem at all to receive postings to this list originating from: - Adam Peake - Veni Markovski Over the last few months, I've only see their postings when other replies. This unfortunately seems to date back to about one year. And more recently, I've also found that I missed at least one email sent by - Karl Auerbach The original messages never made it through. I suspect there might be others. If anyone understands what the problem is, I'd be happy to hear that. I was thinking maybe I should start relying less on yahoo for my list subscriptions at least? Meanwhile, if any one of you guys is replying to my posting or something I'm involved in, you may want to cc me directly (it increases the chances that I recieve the message, though not to 100%) Thanks Mawaki ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 23 17:47:52 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 00:47:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/23/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > > --- William Drake wrote: > > Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the > > morning meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" > > on the renewed bureau suggestions. > > However, it is also true that the caucus has previously > > affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed to > > a bureau---and make no mistake, they are > > understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also > > criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). > > I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear that > if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, business and > civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in which the > govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then the Bureau > proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it may however > be possible for a bureau to not do that.) Agreed. > > I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et al, > we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our caucus > co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. Otherwise the > caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have mechanisms to > hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude. > > A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my > opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing > anything. perhaps you meant "doing anything that wasn't agreed beforehand " Surely, you can't possibly think that there are people who spend hours everyday to stop this group from doing something? In the real IG world, where policies are agreed/consensus is found on mailing lists, last minute text isn't added in a f2f mtg, and presented to the world as agreed by the group. It's just not on. -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed May 23 18:08:50 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:08:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070523170146.04ea9648@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070523170146.04ea9648@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <4654BB72.3070301@rits.org.br> I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which could have a different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do. Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need for a bureau (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any government proposal. Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian representative today at the consultation (which is in the transcripts available at the IGF's site): "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and is aimed at the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it is understood that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or refinement of its agenda, of its format, of its structure and process. So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next meeting in Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the chairman of the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the meeting. And that's perfect. But who, then, will help the chairman in conducting the meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental role in preparing for Athens, and its work is commendable for the success of the Athens meeting. But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens meeting. So one possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the possibility of having some sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which is, of course, understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF itself. As in many other international fora, there is always the possibility of, for instance, a chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting committee? I think that there are many options. What we believe is that we need to have this kind of support. Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be able to deliver to the expectations that are already created by the international community. So we would encourage very much that in this preparatory process, we further discuss this necessity, which we believe is vital to the proper conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings." In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing reports, recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends BTW), some form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of the MAG. --c.a. Raul Echeberria wrote: > At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: > >> --- William Drake wrote: >> > Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the >> > morning meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" >> > on the renewed bureau suggestions. >> > However, it is also true that the caucus has previously >> > affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed to >> > a bureau---and make no mistake, they are >> > understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also >> > criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). >> >> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear that >> if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, business and >> civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in which the >> govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then the Bureau >> proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it may however >> be possible for a bureau to not do that.) > > I agree with Milton > Good point. > > But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. > I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some governments to > have more participation. > They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. > > While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the origin of > the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for civil > society. > > If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG or the > structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. > > Raúl > > > >> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et al, >> we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our caucus >> co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. Otherwise the >> caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have mechanisms to >> hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude. >> >> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my >> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >> anything. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: >> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 anriette at apc.org Wed May 23 19:02:41 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:02:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] email problem In-Reply-To: <326382.47401.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <326382.47401.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46549DE1.29229.1B5187@anriette.apc.org> Dear Mawaki I have just sent you an invite to be a gmail user. Yahoo mail is really not worth bothering with. >From Geneva where we are missing your presence. Anriette > Before I miss (if not already done) any interjection directed to > me, or anything I need to take note of that might be posted, by > any one of the following fellows, please be aware that I don't > seem at all to receive postings to this list originating from: > > - Adam Peake > - Veni Markovski > Over the last few months, I've only see their postings when > other replies. This unfortunately seems to date back to about > one year. And more recently, I've also found that I missed at > least one email sent by > - Karl Auerbach > The original messages never made it through. I suspect there > might be others. > > If anyone understands what the problem is, I'd be happy to hear > that. I was thinking maybe I should start relying less on yahoo > for my list subscriptions at least? > > Meanwhile, if any one of you guys is replying to my posting or > something I'm involved in, you may want to cc me directly (it > increases the chances that I recieve the message, though not to > 100%) > > Thanks > > Mawaki > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: > 5/22/2007 3:49 PM > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed May 23 20:29:21 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:29:21 +0800 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <4654BB72.3070301@rits.org.br> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070523170146.04ea9648@lacnic.net> <4654BB72.3070301@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4654DC61.30401@Malcolm.id.au> Carlos Afonso wrote: > I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which could > have a different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do. > > Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need for a > bureau (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any > government proposal. ... > In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing reports, > recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends BTW), > some form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of the > MAG. I agree with Milton and Carlos et al (and am currently writing an elaboration on that to submit for Giganet), so I don't think an unqualified "no" to the bureau (or quasi-bureau) would have been an appropriate statement from the IGC in Geneva. -- 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed May 23 21:11:22 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] email problem In-Reply-To: <46549DE1.29229.1B5187@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <900954.69703.qm@web58711.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Dear Anriette, thanks for the invite and piece of advice; that's nice. I do have a gmail and for some reasons I've kept my IG business separated until recently. So you do confirm my temptation to move everything up there. I wanted folks to know if I have ever failed to reply to their message while I was supposed to, this might have been the reason. Have a productive stay in Geneva, and talk to you later. Mawaki --- Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Mawaki > > I have just sent you an invite to be a gmail > user. > > Yahoo mail is really not worth bothering with. > > From Geneva where we are missing your > presence. > > Anriette > > > > Before I miss (if not already done) any interjection > directed to > > me, or anything I need to take note of that might be posted, > by > > any one of the following fellows, please be aware that I > don't > > seem at all to receive postings to this list originating > from: > > > > - Adam Peake > > - Veni Markovski > > Over the last few months, I've only see their postings when > > other replies. This unfortunately seems to date back to > about > > one year. And more recently, I've also found that I missed > at > > least one email sent by > > - Karl Auerbach > > The original messages never made it through. I suspect there > > might be others. > > > > If anyone understands what the problem is, I'd be happy to > hear > > that. I was thinking maybe I should start relying less on > yahoo > > for my list subscriptions at least? > > > > Meanwhile, if any one of you guys is replying to my posting > or > > something I'm involved in, you may want to cc me directly > (it > > increases the chances that I recieve the message, though not > to > > 100%) > > > > Thanks > > > > Mawaki > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release > Date: > > 5/22/2007 3:49 PM > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed May 23 21:24:45 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 21:24:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] email problem In-Reply-To: <46549DE1.29229.1B5187@anriette.apc.org> References: <326382.47401.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <46549DE1.29229.1B5187@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410705231824x47ad6767me4309eacac1d58fc@mail.gmail.com> (just a quick tech side note): The interface between yahoo groups and gmail still as reported and experienced here seems pretty problematic. Plenty of reports of gmail users not getting yahoo group email. So much for "perfection." (still, I am another using gmail). Best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* On 5/23/07, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear Mawaki > > I have just sent you an invite to be a gmail > user. > > Yahoo mail is really not worth bothering with. > > From Geneva where we are missing your > presence. > > Anriette > > > > Before I miss (if not already done) any interjection directed to > > me, or anything I need to take note of that might be posted, by > > any one of the following fellows, please be aware that I don't > > seem at all to receive postings to this list originating from: > > > > - Adam Peake > > - Veni Markovski > > Over the last few months, I've only see their postings when > > other replies. This unfortunately seems to date back to about > > one year. And more recently, I've also found that I missed at > > least one email sent by > > - Karl Auerbach > > The original messages never made it through. I suspect there > > might be others. > > > > If anyone understands what the problem is, I'd be happy to hear > > that. I was thinking maybe I should start relying less on yahoo > > for my list subscriptions at least? > > > > Meanwhile, if any one of you guys is replying to my posting or > > something I'm involved in, you may want to cc me directly (it > > increases the chances that I recieve the message, though not to > > 100%) > > > > Thanks > > > > Mawaki > > ____________________________________________________________ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From guru at itforchange.net Wed May 23 23:20:59 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:50:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: <4654BB72.3070301@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20070524032059.7331CE0660@smtp3.electricembers.net> I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no' formulation. Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying- "But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting committee?" Would there be greater support for the idea explained above? Could we say that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group' to support the IGF processes / mandate With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it, should not lead to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out viz- A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments, business and civil society retreat' and B. a WSIS-like arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such a group, which would need to be worked out - our context does present us a wonderful new opportunity to bring out some innovations in global governance, through creative and meaningful combinations of 'representative' as well as 'multistakeholder' legitimacies. Guru _____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net Visit ‘Information Society Watch’ (www.IS-Watch.net) - a resource portal providing a Southern perspective on information society (IS) issues -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which could have a different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do. Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need for a bureau (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any government proposal. Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian representative today at the consultation (which is in the transcripts available at the IGF's site): "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and is aimed at the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it is understood that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or refinement of its agenda, of its format, of its structure and process. So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next meeting in Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the chairman of the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the meeting. And that's perfect. But who, then, will help the chairman in conducting the meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental role in preparing for Athens, and its work is commendable for the success of the Athens meeting. But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens meeting. So one possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the possibility of having some sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which is, of course, understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF itself. As in many other international fora, there is always the possibility of, for instance, a chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting committee? I think that there are many options. What we believe is that we need to have this kind of support. Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be able to deliver to the expectations that are already created by the international community. So we would encourage very much that in this preparatory process, we further discuss this necessity, which we believe is vital to the proper conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings." In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing reports, recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends BTW), some form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of the MAG. --c.a. Raul Echeberria wrote: > At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: > >> --- William Drake wrote: >> > Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning >> > meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" >> > on the renewed bureau suggestions. >> > However, it is also true that the caucus has previously affirmed >> > support for the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no >> > mistake, they are understood by all as opposites (but of course we >> > have also criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). >> >> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear >> that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, >> business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in >> which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then >> the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it >> may however be possible for a bureau to not do that.) > > I agree with Milton > Good point. > > But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. > I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some governments > to have more participation. > They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. > > While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the origin of > the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for > civil society. > > If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG or the > structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. > > Raúl > > > >> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et >> al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our >> caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. >> Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have >> mechanisms to hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude. >> >> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my >> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >> anything. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: >> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 avri at psg.com Thu May 24 01:56:46 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:56:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: <20070524032059.7331CE0660@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070524032059.7331CE0660@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2248634C-797B-44D9-B451-0C203841E81B@psg.com> Hi, i think this approach may make sense. with one other caveat, one cannot call it a Bureau as that word has too much baggage and a particular meaning especially to the governments in the process. just as the IGF could not call dynamic coalitions working groups or task forces or work parties ... if the IGC were to formulate a coherent suggestion for some sort of multistakeholder reference committee (for want of a better term - i don't think this one means anything to anyone in the UN context - but whatever we call it) it might be able to garner support. but i do think we would need to think it through for a bit first. it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was true that that the IGC has not really considered a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had spoken about it pro and con, but in no sense that i can identify had we really worked on or 'considered' it. a. On 24 maj 2007, at 05.20, Guru at ITfC wrote: > I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no' > formulation. > > Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying- > "But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to > prepare > such a report without the help of a representative, > multistakeholder, and > regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group? Friends > of the > chair? Bureau? Supporting committee?" > > Would there be greater support for the idea explained above? Could > we say > that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, multistakeholder, and > regionally > balanced group' to support the IGF processes / mandate > > With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it, should > not lead > to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out viz- > A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments, > business and > civil society retreat' and > B. a WSIS-like arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more > equal" > than the others > > These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such a > group, > which would need to be worked out - our context does present us a > wonderful > new opportunity to bring out some innovations in global governance, > through > creative and meaningful combinations of 'representative' as well as > 'multistakeholder' legitimacies. > > Guru > _____________ > Gurumurthy K > IT for Change, Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net > Visit ‘Information Society Watch’ (www.IS-Watch.net) - a resource > portal > providing a Southern perspective on information society (IS) issues > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria > Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? > > I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which > could have a > different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do. > > Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need for > a bureau > (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any government > proposal. > > Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian > representative today at the consultation (which is in the transcripts > available at the IGF's site): > > "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and is > aimed at > the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it is > understood > that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or refinement of its > agenda, of its format, of its structure and process. > So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next > meeting in > Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the > chairman of > the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory > Group is > to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the > meeting. And > that's perfect. But who, then, will help the chairman in conducting > the > meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental role in preparing for > Athens, and its work is commendable for the success of the Athens > meeting. > But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens > meeting. So one > possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the > possibility > of having some sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which > is, of > course, understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF > itself. As > in many other international fora, there is always the possibility > of, for > instance, a chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not > have the > required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a > representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So > how do > we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting > committee? I > think that there are many options. What we believe is that we need > to have > this kind of support. Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be > able to > deliver to the expectations that are already created by the > international > community. So we would encourage very much that in this preparatory > process, > we further discuss this necessity, which we believe is vital to the > proper > conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings." > > In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing reports, > recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends > BTW), some > form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of the > MAG. > > --c.a. > > Raul Echeberria wrote: >> At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >>> --- William Drake wrote: >>>> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning >>>> meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" >>>> on the renewed bureau suggestions. >>>> However, it is also true that the caucus has previously affirmed >>>> support for the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no >>>> mistake, they are understood by all as opposites (but of course we >>>> have also criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). >>> >>> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear >>> that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, >>> business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in >>> which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then >>> the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. >>> (it >>> may however be possible for a bureau to not do that.) >> >> I agree with Milton >> Good point. >> >> But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. >> I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some governments >> to have more participation. >> They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. >> >> While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the >> origin of >> the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for >> civil society. >> >> If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG or >> the >> structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. >> >> Raúl >> >> >> >>> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et >>> al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our >>> caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. >>> Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have >>> mechanisms to hold our officers accountable if they abuse the >>> latitude. >>> >>> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my >>> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >>> anything. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: >>> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> > > -- > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Thu May 24 02:30:09 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:30:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: McT, On 5/23/07 5:57 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On 5/23/07, William Drake wrote: > >> >> What bits do you find objectionable, BTW? >> > > The bit that adds a second cross cutting theme. You're opposed to saying that human rights should be an overarching concern of the IGF? Huh. I think Parminder said the suggestion came from Robin, and the 17 assembled agreed to it easily, probably not imaging it'd be a bone of contention. It is consistent with stances taken since the caucus was formed in early 2003 and participated in the broader CS coalition that pushed HR as an overarching concern in all GIS issues in the Geneva Declaration and thereafter. As such, I'd argue it does meet the Charter requirement that >>>> Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic >>>> principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. >>>> Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed >>>> general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and >>>> documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the >>>> caucus in the past. Anyway, I doubt that anyone in the room really fixed on this one sentence at the end of a long statement all that much, that it have an impact on the agenda, or that anyone will think that you are tarred by listserv association with it. 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 Thu May 24 02:36:30 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:36:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: McT, On 5/23/07 11:47 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On 5/23/07, Milton Mueller wrote: >> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my >> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >> anything. > > perhaps you meant "doing anything that wasn't agreed > beforehand " > > Surely, you can't possibly think that there are people who spend hours > everyday to stop this group from doing something? Nope, we recognize you are more efficient than that. "I object" only takes about 1.5 seconds to type. 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Thu May 24 03:09:15 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:09:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <20070523175821.84629.qmail@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mawaki, We did affirm just three months ago support for the mAG model while criticizing sharply its ultimate formulation and implementation. Since a few governments have been pushing from the start for a bureau, and the mAG was quite clearly designed as an alternative, I'd have thought that everyone understood our support for the mAG as a model (not its implementation) as not supporting its opposite. My message yesterday guessed that that's what Adam was thinking when he made his statement, but he can speak for himself. To amplify Adam's explanatory message: at the beginning of the afternoon session, Karen came over to tell me that some EU governments were shocked that I'd said the caucus supports a bureau. In fact, I had not even uttered the word, bureau, in my intervention, which was about our four suggested themes for the main session. Turned out later when I talked to them that they'd conflated in their ears Francis Muget's statement and mine, which I think is indicative or the fact that maybe we shouldn't assume they're listening all that carefully to our precise formulations, or particularly attentive to differences within CS. We were surprised that they thought that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to disabuse them of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some. All that said, if people now want to spend the cycles debating language reversing our previous stance and supporting the replacement of the mAG with a bureau, or some other nomenclature per Guru's message, go for it. As the caucus is clearly divided I suspect we'd end up having to vote etc. And with all the industrialized countries, business, ISOC, and the IGF's leadership opposed and a few developing countries in favor, it's reasonable to forecast that no consensus to do so will be forthcoming there, either. Best, Bill On 5/23/07 7:58 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > Bill, > > I fail to understand this. Are we not in a new/different > situation now from the time of our "previously affirmed support" > to the mAG? And aren't the participants or stakeholders called > to make inputs, again, for this second round of IGF? And when > one of the current coordinators make an honest statement based > on the *current* situation, does any one of us need to spend > energy and mic time to contradict him, and this on the basis of > a *previous* state of affair? Don't we have better things to > strive and advocate for during that limited time at the mic? > > Mawaki > > > --- William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Carlos, >> >> More coordination, sure. >> >> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the >> morning meeting, we >> said "the caucus has no position" on the renewed bureau >> suggestions. >> However, it is also true that the caucus has previously >> affirmed support for >> the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no mistake, >> they are >> understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also >> criticized the >> way the mAG concept has been implemented). I think Adam was >> reacting to >> Parminder's particular framing that the caucus has no position >> "because >> we've not talked about it" (forget his precise words, but not >> true) and was >> restating the prior position which, absent any revision since, >> does stand >> now. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On 5/23/07 4:10 PM, "carlos a. afonso" wrote: >> >>> This just happened in the IGF consultation here in Geneva: >>> >>> Parminder stated that the CS caucus has no position >> regarding the >>> formation of a bureau, as this needs more debate within the >> caucus for a >>> consensus (or at least rought consensus) to be made -- this >> is the view >>> we got from our caucus morning meeting today. On the other >> hand, Adam, >>> who was not at the morning meeting, said that the caucus has >> absolutely >>> rejected any bureau proposal, which in my view is not true. >>> >>> What is this? We need, at a minimum, a bit more >> coordination... >>> >>> --c.a. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 24 03:43:15 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:43:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/24/07, William Drake wrote: > > McT, > > On 5/23/07 5:57 PM, "McTim" wrote: > > > On 5/23/07, William Drake wrote: > > > >> > >> What bits do you find objectionable, BTW? > >> > > > > The bit that adds a second cross cutting theme. > > You're opposed to saying that human rights should be an overarching > concern > of the IGF? I'm opposed to last minute additions to our agreed text. Huh. Don't read anything more into my objections (altho I thought that response would comme from Milton, not from you ;-) > > Anyway, I doubt that anyone in the room really fixed on this one sentence > at > the end of a long statement all that much, that it have an impact on the > agenda, or that anyone will think that you are tarred by listserv > association with it. I don't care about that, the idea (and correct me if I am wrong) is to build IG processes that are transparent, bottom up, blah, blah, blah. My point is that this example was a short-circuit of our agreed process. In the IG world that I participate in, this change in language couldn't be made without consensus from the list. It's also a slippery slope IMO. Next it'l be person x wanting to insert a caluse about their pet gripe, then person y will jump in and want their issue mentioned, etc. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 24 04:11:03 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:41:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070524081120.C25BD5C65@smtp2.electricembers.net> This statement was read and distributed in print on IGC's behalf... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:48 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting again > > just about to start for the afternoon session. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft input 2 into IGF consultations may 07.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft input 2 into IGF consultations may 07.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 19676 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Thu May 24 04:30:32 2007 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:30:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] today' meeting in rm 22 - new building Message-ID: fyi is open - up to the constraints of room size. 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Thu May 24 04:45:31 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:45:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting Message-ID: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Quick report after the CST Bureau meeting in which observer stakeholder participated. The direction which is now planning to be taken is not having negotiated decisions/resolutions as the outcome of the session, but a series of "agreed conclusions" by the CSTD, annexed to the CSTD report. This morning's session is anticipated to be a series of 2 multi-stakeholder interactive dialogues (the first one being on the CSTD traditional mandate, the second on the WSIS follow-up mandate). CS observers could make oral contributions on issues to be included in the agreed conclusions, and could also send written inputs to be included in the agreed conclusions. It is still probably that a Decision should be adopted on the CSTD multi-year programme of work, probably based on the CSTD draft concept note, circulated on Monday. The morning CSTD meeting has not started yet. I'll let you know asap when the WSIS follow-up mandate will be addressed and how CS would participate. Best, Ph Philippe Dam Conference of NGOs (CONGO) Program Officer - WSIS and Human Rights 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 24 04:49:56 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:49:56 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Philippe the IGF-AG meeting is now open for everybody and it has started with a great confusion about the status of the group and the next steps and who is responsible for what and can report to whom. It is mainly China and Russia government which obviously want to formnlize the whole process in the traditional way, underminding the successful informal character of the IGF so far. And the issue of the Bureau is one vehicle to do that. IGC would make a big mistake to ush for a bureau because at the end of the day CS would be a looser. w ________________________________ Von: CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Gesendet: Do 24.05.2007 10:45 An: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org Betreff: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting Dear all, Quick report after the CST Bureau meeting in which observer stakeholder participated. The direction which is now planning to be taken is not having negotiated decisions/resolutions as the outcome of the session, but a series of "agreed conclusions" by the CSTD, annexed to the CSTD report. This morning's session is anticipated to be a series of 2 multi-stakeholder interactive dialogues (the first one being on the CSTD traditional mandate, the second on the WSIS follow-up mandate). CS observers could make oral contributions on issues to be included in the agreed conclusions, and could also send written inputs to be included in the agreed conclusions. It is still probably that a Decision should be adopted on the CSTD multi-year programme of work, probably based on the CSTD draft concept note, circulated on Monday. The morning CSTD meeting has not started yet. I'll let you know asap when the WSIS follow-up mandate will be addressed and how CS would participate. Best, Ph Philippe Dam Conference of NGOs (CONGO) Program Officer - WSIS and Human Rights 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu May 24 06:07:31 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:07:31 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> Yes, it was already visible yesterday that both China's and Russia's interest in the IGF has significantly increased. China again made very detailed suggestions this morning regarding both the program and the further procedure. Russia focused on Nitin's report to the SG. The Russian delegate asked if we could see the report of this meeting Nitin Desai prepares for the SG. He insisted that the wording of the report is very important that the draft should therefore be open to everybody. Nitin conceded that he also includes his on opinion on matters in the report and that this is his right to do so. The Russian delegate insisted to a point where Nitin offered him to chair the session if he doesn't trust him. China took up Russia's discomfort regarding the status of the advisory group and the selection procedure of its members. China wants a transparent selection procedure with a result more balanced both regionally and politically. The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of the advisory group, the more contested its informal status will become. jeanette Kleinwächter wrote: > Thanks Philippe > > the IGF-AG meeting is now open for everybody and it has started with a great confusion about the status of the group and the next steps and who is responsible for what and can report to whom. > > It is mainly China and Russia government which obviously want to formnlize the whole process in the traditional way, underminding the successful informal character of the IGF so far. And the issue of the Bureau is one vehicle to do that. IGC would make a big mistake to ush for a bureau because at the end of the day CS would be a looser. > > w > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] > Gesendet: Do 24.05.2007 10:45 > An: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org > Betreff: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting > > > > Dear all, > > > > Quick report after the CST Bureau meeting in which observer stakeholder participated. The direction which is now planning to be taken is not having negotiated decisions/resolutions as the outcome of the session, but a series of "agreed conclusions" by the CSTD, annexed to the CSTD report. > > > > This morning's session is anticipated to be a series of 2 multi-stakeholder interactive dialogues (the first one being on the CSTD traditional mandate, the second on the WSIS follow-up mandate). CS observers could make oral contributions on issues to be included in the agreed conclusions, and could also send written inputs to be included in the agreed conclusions. > > > > It is still probably that a Decision should be adopted on the CSTD multi-year programme of work, probably based on the CSTD draft concept note, circulated on Monday. > > > > The morning CSTD meeting has not started yet. I'll let you know asap when the WSIS follow-up mandate will be addressed and how CS would participate. > > > > Best, > > > > Ph > > > > Philippe Dam > Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > Program Officer - WSIS and Human Rights > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org > Website: www.ngocongo.org > > > > The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 06:18:31 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:18:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: <2248634C-797B-44D9-B451-0C203841E81B@psg.com> References: <20070524032059.7331CE0660@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2248634C-797B-44D9-B451-0C203841E81B@psg.com> Message-ID: >Hi, > >i think this approach may make sense. with one >other caveat, one cannot call it a Bureau as >that word has too much baggage and a particular >meaning especially to the governments in the >process.   >just as the IGF could not call dynamic >coalitions working groups or task forces or work >parties ... > >if the IGC were to formulate a coherent >suggestion for some sort of multistakeholder >reference committee (for want of a better term - >i don't think this one means anything to anyone >in the UN context - but whatever we call it) it >might be able to garner support. but i do think >we would need to think it through for a bit >first. Interesting that we would think of backing away from "multi-stakeholder advisory group" just as the concept of multi-stakeholder advisory groups are being discussed/entertained in meetings about other processes ongoing in Geneva this week. I can only imagine how other stakeholders would respond if we suggested a renaming now (incredulous, shock, amusement...) I see nothing wrong with the name. I think it describes what we want the group to do. We just need to improve how it operates (which we've done in various contributions and should continue.) Adam >it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was >true that that the IGC has not really considered >a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had spoken about >it pro and con, but in no sense that i can >identify had we really worked on or 'considered' >it. > >a. > >On 24 maj 2007, at 05.20, Guru at ITfC wrote: > >>I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no' formulation. >> >>Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying- >>"But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to prepare >>such a report without the help of a representative, multistakeholder, and >>regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group? Friends of the >>chair? Bureau? Supporting committee?" >> >>Would there be greater support for the idea explained above? Could we say >>that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, multistakeholder, and regionally >>balanced group' to support the IGF processes / mandate >> >>With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it, should not lead >>to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out viz- >>A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments, business and >>civil society retreat' and >>B. a WSIS-like arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more equal" >>than the others >> >>These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such a group, >>which would need to be worked out - our context does present us a wonderful >>new opportunity to bring out some innovations in global governance, through >>creative and meaningful combinations of 'representative' as well as >>'multistakeholder' legitimacies. >> >>Guru >>_____________ >>Gurumurthy K >>IT for Change, Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net >>Visit ŒInformation Society Watch¹ (www.IS-Watch.net) - a resource portal >>providing a Southern perspective on information society (IS) issues >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria >>Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? >> >>I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which could have a >>different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do. >> >>Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need for a bureau >>(latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any government >>proposal. >> >>Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian >>representative today at the consultation (which is in the transcripts >>available at the IGF's site): >> >>"Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and is aimed at >>the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it is understood >>that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or refinement of its >>agenda, of its format, of its structure and process. >>So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next meeting in >>Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the chairman of >>the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory Group is >>to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the meeting. And >>that's perfect. But who, then, will help the chairman in conducting the >>meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental role in preparing for >>Athens, and its work is commendable for the success of the Athens meeting. >>But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens meeting. So one >>possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the possibility >>of having some sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which is, of >>course, understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF itself. As >>in many other international fora, there is always the possibility of, for >>instance, a chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not have the >>required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a >>representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So how do >>we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting committee? I >>think that there are many options. What we believe is that we need to have >>this kind of support. Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be able to >>deliver to the expectations that are already created by the international >>community. So we would encourage very much that in this preparatory process, >>we further discuss this necessity, which we believe is vital to the proper >>conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings." >> >>In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing reports, >>recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends BTW), some >>form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of the MAG. >> >>--c.a. >> >>Raul Echeberria wrote: >>>At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >>> >>>>--- William Drake wrote: >>>>>Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning >>>>>meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" >>>>>on the renewed bureau suggestions. >>>>>However, it is also true that the caucus has previously affirmed >>>>>support for the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no >>>>>mistake, they are understood by all as opposites (but of course we >>>>>have also criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). >>>> >>>>I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear >>>>that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, >>>>business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in >>>>which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then >>>>the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it >>>>may however be possible for a bureau to not do that.) >>> >>>I agree with Milton >>>Good point. >>> >>>But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. >>>I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some governments >>>to have more participation. >>>They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. >>> >>>While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the origin of >>>the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for >>>civil society. >>> >>>If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG or the >>>structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. >>> >>>Raúl >>> >>> >>>>I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et >>>>al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our >>>>caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. >>>>Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have >>>>mechanisms to hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude. >>>> >>>>A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my >>>>opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >>>>anything. >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: >>>>22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> >>-- >> >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu May 24 06:49:05 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:49:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] today' meeting in rm 22 - new building In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46556DA1.9090509@wzb.eu> Nitin summarizes the discussion this morning and yesterday. His sense is that we will have a main theme in Rio that will address what he now calls the "Internet Governance framework" and the management of core infrastructure resources. Interconnection costs could also fall into this main theme but might also be discussed under "access". jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > fyi > > is open - up to the constraints of room size. > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 24 06:52:29 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:52:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Mawaki, > >We did affirm just three months ago support for the mAG model while >criticizing sharply its ultimate formulation and implementation. Since a >few governments have been pushing from the start for a bureau, and the mAG >was quite clearly designed as an alternative, I'd have thought that everyone >understood our support for the mAG as a model (not its implementation) as >not supporting its opposite. My message yesterday guessed that that's what >Adam was thinking when he made his statement, but he can speak for himself. > >To amplify Adam's explanatory message: at the beginning of the afternoon >session, Karen came over to tell me that some EU governments were shocked >that I'd said the caucus supports a bureau. In fact, I had not even uttered >the word, bureau, in my intervention, which was about our four suggested >themes for the main session. Turned out later when I talked to them that >they'd conflated in their ears Francis Muget's statement and mine, which I >think is indicative or the fact that maybe we shouldn't assume they're >listening all that carefully to our precise formulations, or particularly >attentive to differences within CS. We were surprised that they thought >that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to disabuse them >of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some. This is what I said according to the transcript: "I am a member of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, and in my view, the caucus does not in any way support the concept of a bureau, and it is somewhat distressing that there is this misunderstanding that we might do. My personal thoughts on this is that a bureau is the exact structure that would take us away from this concept of multistakeholder dialogue that is essential to the IGF and I think we have all supported. A bureau would be a mistake. Following on, and I mean bureau with a big "B" in that sense." I feel very strongly about this (obviously...) We have worked hard to achieve the level of participation we have today. We are beginning to see acceptance of multi-stakeholder dialogues and processes in other fora. The big "B" is the key. Bill's earlier email explains Mawaki -- please read the transcript to see how we used our time at the mic (which was an open mic so don't worry about limited mic time). After talking about the Bureau I went on to mention support for linkage between some workshops and the main sessions while ensuring we would still have an open call for workshops on any other themes; that I was concerned about what we would discuss under the the "diversity" theme (IG and policy aspects of diversity); that there should be a session on critical resources. Thanks, Adam >All that said, if people now want to spend the cycles debating language >reversing our previous stance and supporting the replacement of the mAG with >a bureau, or some other nomenclature per Guru's message, go for it. As the >caucus is clearly divided I suspect we'd end up having to vote etc. And >with all the industrialized countries, business, ISOC, and the IGF's >leadership opposed and a few developing countries in favor, it's reasonable >to forecast that no consensus to do so will be forthcoming there, either. > >Best, > >Bill > >On 5/23/07 7:58 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> I fail to understand this. Are we not in a new/different >> situation now from the time of our "previously affirmed support" >> to the mAG? And aren't the participants or stakeholders called >> to make inputs, again, for this second round of IGF? And when >> one of the current coordinators make an honest statement based >> on the *current* situation, does any one of us need to spend >> energy and mic time to contradict him, and this on the basis of >> a *previous* state of affair? Don't we have better things to >> strive and advocate for during that limited time at the mic? >> >> Mawaki > > >> >> --- William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi Carlos, >>> >>> More coordination, sure. >>> >>> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the >>> morning meeting, we >>> said "the caucus has no position" on the renewed bureau >>> suggestions. >>> However, it is also true that the caucus has previously >>> affirmed support for >>> the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no mistake, >>> they are >>> understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also >>> criticized the >>> way the mAG concept has been implemented). I think Adam was > >> reacting to >>> Parminder's particular framing that the caucus has no position >>> "because >>> we've not talked about it" (forget his precise words, but not >>> true) and was >>> restating the prior position which, absent any revision since, >>> does stand >>> now. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On 5/23/07 4:10 PM, "carlos a. afonso" wrote: >>> >>>> This just happened in the IGF consultation here in Geneva: >>>> >>>> Parminder stated that the CS caucus has no position >>> regarding the >>>> formation of a bureau, as this needs more debate within the >>> caucus for a >>>> consensus (or at least rought consensus) to be made -- this >>> is the view >>>> we got from our caucus morning meeting today. On the other >>> hand, Adam, >>>> who was not at the morning meeting, said that the caucus has >>> absolutely >>>> rejected any bureau proposal, which in my view is not true. >>>> >>>> What is this? We need, at a minimum, a bit more >>> coordination... >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >*********************************************************** >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 Thu May 24 06:56:09 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:56:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] today' meeting in rm 22 - new building In-Reply-To: <46556DA1.9090509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 5/24/07 12:49 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > Nitin summarizes the discussion this morning and yesterday. His sense is > that we will have a main theme in Rio that will address what he now > calls the "Internet Governance framework" and the management of core Based on the Chinese suggestion, to me problematic in multiple ways. > infrastructure resources. Interconnection costs could also fall into > this main theme but might also be discussed under "access". > > 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Thu May 24 06:57:38 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:57:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] today' meeting in rm 22 - new building In-Reply-To: <46556DA1.9090509@wzb.eu> References: <46556DA1.9090509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <62220.193.239.220.249.1180004258.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> In addition he also said that if stakeholders have alternative titles for that session they may propose them since nothing is already decided firmly. A country like China has strongly raised the point that core resources should be discussed. KL > Nitin summarizes the discussion this morning and yesterday. His sense is > that we will have a main theme in Rio that will address what he now > calls the "Internet Governance framework" and the management of core > infrastructure resources. Interconnection costs could also fall into > this main theme but might also be discussed under "access". > > jeanette > > Avri Doria wrote: >> fyi >> >> is open - up to the constraints of room size. >> >> a. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Thu May 24 08:28:36 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:28:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Up date - 3 Message-ID: <200705241227.l4OCR5Ii003125@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This morning session ended without any strong substantial discussion. Two draft resolutions were officially circulated to the CTSD participants. The first one emanating from the CSTD Bureau (on multi-year program of work and working methods) and a second one by El Salvador on behalf on GRULAC, entitle "flow of information for the follow-up to WSIS", which includes a paragraph in reference to enhanced cooperation. Most of the morning discussion actually focused on the format of the CSTD outcome (be it through a resolution or through a more informal set of "agreed conclusions" which might prevent from any in depth negotiation process). As regards the process from now, the Chairman of this morning's CSTD has proposed to have a drafting group with the view to try to merge the two tabled resolutions. Other delegations stressed the need for an open ended discussion on what the CSTD wants to decide, before going on into any kind of drafting process. A CSTD Bureau meeting will be held during lunch break in order to decide the way ahead, but one possible outcome would be to still have multi-stakeholder interactive discussions on the content of the decisions to be taken. Quite interestingly, 2 NGOs could speak during this morning's segment, just by raising their NGO tag, and provided comments on the working methods and the WSIS follow-up by CSTD. At the request for clarification in this regard from China, the UN Legal Officer stressed the multi-stakeholder approach encouraged by ECOSOC for the work of the CTSTD plenary meetings. The afternoon CSTD meeting will resume at 3.30 pm. We will keep you updated. Best, Ph -------------- 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 Thu May 24 09:00:25 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:00:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Up date - 3 - Commission on Science & Tech. For Development Message-ID: <8cbfe7410705240600p6e62b6a7gae9e251adc897f42@mail.gmail.com> Dear Philippe and Other attending CTSD Participants, and also International Disability Caucus Taskforce on Information and Communication Technologies (and mind-set...): Thank you for sending these observations, which bring us all into the forum best as can be short of being there and demonstrating ICT connectivity hereby as well. Wondering if at the Rio Meetings there will be summings up of multi-stakeholder (or other phrase) past, present, and future roles . Can some of us out here help? Very best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. Funner, alternate email: : linda at 2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawomanwithdisabilities.com On 5/24/07, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > This morning session ended without any strong substantial discussion. Two > draft resolutions were officially circulated to the CTSD participants. The > > first one emanating from the CSTD Bureau (on multi-year program of work > and > working methods) and a second one by El Salvador on behalf on GRULAC, > entitle "flow of information for the follow-up to WSIS", which includes a > paragraph in reference to enhanced cooperation. > > > > Most of the morning discussion actually focused on the format of the CSTD > outcome (be it through a resolution or through a more informal set of > "agreed conclusions" which might prevent from any in depth negotiation > process). As regards the process from now, the Chairman of this morning's > CSTD has proposed to have a drafting group with the view to try to merge > the > two tabled resolutions. Other delegations stressed the need for an open > ended discussion on what the CSTD wants to decide, before going on into > any > kind of drafting process. > > > > A CSTD Bureau meeting will be held during lunch break in order to decide > the > way ahead, but one possible outcome would be to still have > multi-stakeholder > interactive discussions on the content of the decisions to be taken. > > > > Quite interestingly, 2 NGOs could speak during this morning's segment, > just > by raising their NGO tag, and provided comments on the working methods and > > the WSIS follow-up by CSTD. At the request for clarification in this > regard > from China, the UN Legal Officer stressed the multi-stakeholder approach > encouraged by ECOSOC for the work of the CTSTD plenary meetings. > > > > The afternoon CSTD meeting will resume at 3.30 pm. We will keep you > updated. > > Best, > > > > Ph > > > ____________________________________________________________ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From raul at lacnic.net Thu May 24 09:02:15 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:02:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <4654BB72.3070301@rits.org.br> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070523170146.04ea9648@lacnic.net> <4654BB72.3070301@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070524095342.04e97a20@lacnic.net> Dear Carlos: The Advisory Group has a very important role during the Athens meeting. It seems that we have not advertised it very well. So, it is not correct to say that "...But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens meeting." I think that the reasons thar are stated in the Brazilian position are not sufficient for changing the current structure. As I said before, if the problem is the composition of the AG, let's focus on that. If the AG should do something different, let's focus on that, but we have to be very careful with introducing big changes in this structures that have demosntratated to be very successful and very innovative. WRT the reports, it had been discussed already at the February consultation meeting. It seemed to me that some governments would like to produce the kind of reports that they use to produce in the intergovernmental meetings. I am strongly against it. I think that reports like the one that the IGF Chair produced last year is ok. I still have not seen exactly what are the problems that we (or somebody else) are trying to solve. Fraterno Raúl At 07:08 p.m. 23/05/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: >I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something >similar (which could have a different name) may >not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do. > >Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing >the possible need for a bureau (latu sensu, >please) some time ago, independently of any government proposal. > >Finally, I would like to quote from the >statement of the Brazilian representative today >at the consultation (which is in the transcripts available at the IGF's site): > >"Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and >is aimed at the last meeting four years from >now, and we -- I think it is understood that it >requires each time a certain fine-tuning or >refinement of its agenda, of its format, of its >structure and process. So one of the refinements >that perhaps is needed for this next meeting in >Rio is the establishment of a structure that >would support the chairman of the IGF in >conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the >Advisory Group is to provide advice to the >Secretary-General in organizing the >meeting. And that's perfect. But who, then, >will help the chairman in conducting the >meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental >role in preparing for Athens, and its work is >commendable for the success of the Athens >meeting. But it had at the same time no role at >all during the Athens meeting. So one >possibility that we perceive as becoming a >strong demand is the possibility of having some >sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, >which is, of course, understood to be nonbinding >because of the nature of IGF itself. As in many >other international fora, there is always the >possibility of, for instance, a chairman's >report. But the chairman alone would not have >the required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a >representative, multistakeholder, and regionally >balanced group. So how do we call such >group? Friends of the >chair? Bureau? Supporting committee? I think >that there are many options. What we believe is >that we need to have this kind of >support. Otherwise, the chairman alone will not >be able to deliver to the expectations that are >already created by the international community. >So we would encourage very much that in this >preparatory process, we further discuss this >necessity, which we believe is vital to the >proper conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings." > >In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF >not producing reports, recommendations etc >(contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends >BTW), some form of hands-on support is needed, >and this is not the role of the MAG. > >--c.a. > >Raul Echeberria wrote: >>At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >>>--- William Drake wrote: >>> > Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the >>> > morning meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" >>> > on the renewed bureau suggestions. >>> > However, it is also true that the caucus has previously >>> > affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed to >>> > a bureau---and make no mistake, they are >>> > understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also >>> > criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). >>> >>>I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear that >>>if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, business and >>>civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in which the >>>govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then the Bureau >>>proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it may however >>>be possible for a bureau to not do that.) >>I agree with Milton >>Good point. >>But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. >>I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain >>from some governments to have more participation. >>They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. >>While I am open to consider new things, like >>the bureau, the origin of the proposal makes me >>think that it will not be something good for civil society. >>If the problem is the representation of civil >>society in the AG or the structure of that >>group, we should focus in this issue. >>Raúl >> >> >>>I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et al, >>>we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our caucus >>>co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. Otherwise the >>>caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have mechanisms to >>>hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude. >>> >>>A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my >>>opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >>>anything. >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 >>>- Release Date: 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >-- > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Carlos A. Afonso >diretor de planejamento >Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits >http://www.rits.org.br >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / >Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 23/05/2007 03:59 p.m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu May 24 09:17:45 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:17:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070524095342.04e97a20@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070523170146.04ea9648@lacnic.net> <4654BB72.3070301@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070524095342.04e97a20@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <46559079.20408@rits.org.br> Caro Raul, we do not even know if the advisory group still exists as such as the things stand now. :) There is, on the other hand, no proposal at all to change structure. It's just to make sure, as stated, that there are resources (human, above all, and not just staff) to contribute to reporting and preparation of the recommendations as they emerge from the main meetings and workshops. It is actually a small change, not structural at all, not worth losing too much time on it, since in one way or another something in this direction will be done anyway. A big change might be, finally, the introduction of "management of critical resources" as one of the main topics, besides the very idea of the IGF producing some set of recommendations integrating possible results from forums and workshops, whatever the format they might assume. --c.a. Raul Echeberria wrote: > > > Dear Carlos: > > The Advisory Group has a very important role during the Athens meeting. > It seems that we have not advertised it very well. > So, it is not correct to say that "...But it had at the same time no > role at all during the Athens meeting." > > I think that the reasons thar are stated in the Brazilian position are > not sufficient for changing the current structure. As I said before, if > the problem is the composition of the AG, let's focus on that. If the AG > should do something different, let's focus on that, but we have to be > very careful with introducing big changes in this structures that have > demosntratated to be very successful and very innovative. > > WRT the reports, it had been discussed already at the February > consultation meeting. > It seemed to me that some governments would like to produce the kind of > reports that they use to produce in the intergovernmental meetings. I am > strongly against it. I think that reports like the one that the IGF > Chair produced last year is ok. > > I still have not seen exactly what are the problems that we (or somebody > else) are trying to solve. > > Fraterno > > Raúl > > > > > > > > At 07:08 p.m. 23/05/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which could >> have a different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) >> do. >> >> Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need for a >> bureau (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any >> government proposal. >> >> Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian >> representative today at the consultation (which is in the transcripts >> available at the IGF's site): >> >> "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and >> is aimed at the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it >> is understood that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or >> refinement of its agenda, of its format, of its structure and process. >> So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next meeting >> in Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the >> chairman of the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the >> Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Secretary-General in >> organizing the meeting. And that's perfect. But who, then, will help >> the chairman in conducting the meeting? So the Advisory Group had a >> fundamental role in preparing for Athens, and its work is commendable >> for the success of the Athens meeting. But it had at the same time no >> role at all during the Athens meeting. So one possibility that we >> perceive as becoming a strong demand is the possibility of having some >> sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which is, of course, >> understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF itself. As >> in many other international fora, there is always the possibility of, >> for instance, a chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not >> have the required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help >> of a >> representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So >> how do we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting >> committee? I think that there are many options. What we believe is >> that we need to have this kind of support. Otherwise, the chairman >> alone will not be able to deliver to the expectations that are already >> created by the international community. So we would encourage very >> much that in this preparatory process, we further discuss this >> necessity, which we believe is vital to the proper conduct of business >> in Rio and in subsequent meetings." >> >> In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing reports, >> recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends >> BTW), some form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the >> role of the MAG. >> >> --c.a. >> >> Raul Echeberria wrote: >>> At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> --- William Drake wrote: >>>> > Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the >>>> > morning meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" >>>> > on the renewed bureau suggestions. >>>> > However, it is also true that the caucus has previously >>>> > affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed to >>>> > a bureau---and make no mistake, they are >>>> > understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also >>>> > criticized the way the mAG concept has been implemented). >>>> >>>> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear that >>>> if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, business and >>>> civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in which the >>>> govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then the Bureau >>>> proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it may however >>>> be possible for a bureau to not do that.) >>> I agree with Milton >>> Good point. >>> But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. >>> I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some governments >>> to have more participation. >>> They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. >>> While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the origin >>> of the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for >>> civil society. >>> If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG or >>> the structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. >>> Raúl >>> >>> >>>> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et al, >>>> we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our caucus >>>> co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. Otherwise the >>>> caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have mechanisms to >>>> hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude. >>>> >>>> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my >>>> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >>>> anything. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: >>>> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> -- >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Carlos A. Afonso >> diretor de planejamento >> Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits >> http://www.rits.org.br >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: >> 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 23/05/2007 03:59 p.m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 fsylla at gmail.com Thu May 24 10:23:59 2007 From: fsylla at gmail.com (Fatimata Seye Sylla) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:23:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] today' meeting in rm 22 - new building In-Reply-To: <62220.193.239.220.249.1180004258.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> References: <46556DA1.9090509@wzb.eu> <62220.193.239.220.249.1180004258.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Message-ID: <19a59c60705240723h732d8e76p3639891ab07357a5@mail.gmail.com> And what about the input from the public consultation of yesterday ? An other importantl issue linked to Access is Capacity building on the ground for a better participation of developing countries, involving existing local expertise. Fatimata On 5/24/07, klohento at panos-ao.org wrote: > > In addition he also said that if stakeholders have alternative titles for > that session they may propose them since nothing is already decided > firmly. A country like China has strongly raised the point that core > resources should be discussed. > > KL > > > Nitin summarizes the discussion this morning and yesterday. His sense is > > that we will have a main theme in Rio that will address what he now > > calls the "Internet Governance framework" and the management of core > > infrastructure resources. Interconnection costs could also fall into > > this main theme but might also be discussed under "access". > > > > jeanette > > > > Avri Doria wrote: > >> fyi > >> > >> is open - up to the constraints of room size. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Fatimata Seye Sylla Presidente Bokk Jang Bokk Jeff Coordonnatrice ACSIS - Senegal BP : 22336 Dakar Senegal Tel : 221 864 42 84 email : fsylla at gmail.com fsylla at orange.sn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Thu May 24 10:39:47 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:39:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Today's CS Plenary meeting Message-ID: <200705241438.l4OEcGJ7023218@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, The CS plenary meeting today will take place at 6:00 pm in Room XXVI (I'll confirm the agenda at a later stage). Best, Ph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Thu May 24 10:49:04 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:49:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality Message-ID: >>> avri at psg.com 5/24/2007 1:56 AM >>> >we cannot call it a Bureau as that word has too much baggage >and a particular meaning especially to the governments in >the process. Yes, Adam has convinced me of this and after investigating I am convinced completely that he is right. >just as the IGF could not call dynamic coalitions working groups or >task forces or work parties ... Exactly, these terminological choices, which seemed perfectly sensible to our community, meant something very different to governments. So we have to be very careful about terms used. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu May 24 11:06:22 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:06:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] MAG and bureau Message-ID: >>> raul at lacnic.net 5/24/2007 9:02 AM >>> >I still have not seen exactly what are the >problems that we (or somebody else) are trying to solve. For me, the main problem with the MAG is simply that it is insufficiently institutionalized. Instead of a defined, bottom up process for ongoing selection and rotation of its members, we have the initial selections stuck into place indefinitely. And the selections were hand-picked in a completely nontransparent and somewhat arbitrary way. Let me hasten to add that that was ok to get things going, but we cannot get stuck there. There are some other issues related to the activities of the MAG and the way they relate to the Secretariat that could be improved. This is not a crisis, not yet, just a need for progress. What problem are we trying to solve? We are trying to solve the problem of preventing the IGF from stagnating and becoming irrelevant. We want to build resilient institutional mechanisms that allow the IGF structure to handle differences of perspectives among PS, CS and govts. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu May 24 11:13:11 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:13:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? Message-ID: >>> ca at rits.org.br 5/24/2007 9:17 AM >>> >A big change might be, finally, the introduction of "management >of critical resources" as one of the main topics I think that would be both an important change and a huge victory. A victory for reality over illusion and obfuscation, as well as for civil society interventions. I am not on the ground there and thus not privy to the atmospherics surrounding the discussion, so would gladly receive correction and criticism on this point. But to me, an IGF that does not directly and openly acknowledge the existence of Internet resource administration as one of its key issues is a farce. Of course, it is not the only issue or even necessarily the dominant one. But we cannot go on with the "head in the sand" attitude promoted by some. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Thu May 24 11:18:15 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:18:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD up date 4 Message-ID: <200705241516.l4OFGngc000858@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> The main question within CSTD until 5 minutes ago was whether we should go in 3 different small drafting groups or address the various issues sequentially during the on going informal meeting. The latest decision by the Austrian delegate chairing the meeting is: - from now until 6 pm: informal discussion on the multi-year program of work, based on the draft concept note circulated by the Secretariat last Monday; - from 6 pm onwards: drafting groups on the various issues to be discussed. On NGO participation: I understood the Chair proposed NGOs, CS and the PS to sit as silent observer in the room during the on going informal consultation, through a very unclear ruling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Concept Note Muti-year Program2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 88064 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 May 24 11:58:24 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:58:24 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vsfunctionality References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D47B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Milton you are right. But this is also relevant for the terminology "framework convention". wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Gesendet: Do 24.05.2007 16:49 An: Governance Governance Caucus; avri at psg.com Betreff: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vsfunctionality >>> avri at psg.com 5/24/2007 1:56 AM >>> >we cannot call it a Bureau as that word has too much baggage >and a particular meaning especially to the governments in >the process. Yes, Adam has convinced me of this and after investigating I am convinced completely that he is right. >just as the IGF could not call dynamic coalitions working groups or >task forces or work parties ... Exactly, these terminological choices, which seemed perfectly sensible to our community, meant something very different to governments. So we have to be very careful about terms used. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 14:17:51 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 03:17:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: <61A8D376-3816-4016-81B2-3420A23C80A0@privaterra.info> References: <61A8D376-3816-4016-81B2-3420A23C80A0@privaterra.info> Message-ID: I have a slightly controversial idea. The caucus should be grateful to the people who make the effort to turn up at meetings. Many travel a long way at quite a lot of expense --sometimes their organizations, sometimes personal cash/resources. Parminder's worked extremely hard. All credit to him. If people find time to report, consult or whatever, then that's cool. Generally people are busy. Generally, the group doesn't inspire much confidence in effort being worthwhile. 1 person asked a question using the remote access. Streams in all UN languages (apologies, Australia seemed cut off the connection), questions taken in English and French. 1 person asked. Show more interest and people who are busy and perhaps tired might make more effort. Adam At 12:08 PM -0400 5/23/07, Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: >As McTim mentions, the IGC isn't just the >fortunate few who can travel to and made all the >numerous meetings. There are many of us who >can't make it meeting, but are involved and >would like to be consulted. > >Consultations can be done online and quickly >with virtual members of the caucus. If anything, >an attempt should be made. For example, an email >could have been sent to the list that a certain >issue came up and requires an urgent action >and/or a decision. > >Likely a few of us were online, as such could >have responded and/or commented. Saying that >"well you weren't here", for me - doesn't cut it. > >If anything, as the caucus does call for greater >transparency and openness - then we should >practice what we preach to ICANN and others.. > > >regards, > >Robert >--- >Robert Guerra >Managing Director, Privaterra >Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > >On 23-May-07, at 11:26 AM, William Drake wrote: > >>Hi McTim, >> >>You are referring to the procedural modalities statement that Parminder >>made, which was approved by the 17 people here. This did in fact "require a >>very quick response" if the caucus was going to have anything to say on the >>topic in time for it to matter, since it was one of the main things being >>discussed in the room. But more importantly, the statement almost entirely >>comprised positions lifted directly from the document drafted by Vittorio >>and adopted by the caucus on the list prior to the February consultation. >>The latter was never delivered to the secretariat and hence not posted on >>the IGF site, but Vittorio read it out at the time, and essentially what P >>did was to read the relevant bits again, wrapped in more verbiage.   >>I don't >>really understand how his stating positions that were adopted by the full >>caucus online in February and never challenged since and that were then >>adopted by the 17 people at the meeting here could be inappropriate. >> >>What bits do you find objectionable, BTW? >> >>Best, >> >>BD >> >> >>On 5/23/07 5:13 PM, "McTim" wrote: >> >>>Hi Bill, >>> >>>On 5/23/07, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be >>>>>>discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision >>>>>>procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be >>>>>>occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and >>>>>>will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that >>>>>>require a very quick response. >>> >>>I don't think this qualifies as an "opportunity to make statements >>>that require a very quick response." >>> >>>I think that it should have been discussed and agreed beforehand. >>> >>>I think it was a short-circuit of our agreed process, and object >>>strongly to it's inclusion. >>> >>>It says to the caucus that if you attend a meeting, you can insert >>>language that you want included, as long as it fits under #5 below. >>> >>>I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it did, we would have >>>explicitly mentioned/included it in our statement. >>> >>>/McTim >>> >>>In these cases, while it is still >>>>>>required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its >>>>>>contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied   >>>>>>when >>>>>>necessary: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> The coordinators will act as the official representatives of >>>>>>the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that >>>>>>cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. >>>>>> 2. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also   >>>>>>coordinate >>>>>>with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should >>>>>>reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just >>>>>>that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. >>>>>> 3. >>>>>> >>>>>> If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in >>>>>>face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another >>>>>>participant of such events. This delegation should, if   >>>>>>possible, be >>>>>>made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. >>>>>> 4. >>>>>> >>>>>> Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be >>>>>>prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as >>>>>>appropriate. >>>>>> 5. >>>>>> >>>>>> Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic >>>>>>principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. >>>>>>Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed >>>>>>general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and >>>>>>documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the >>>>>>caucus in the past. >>>>>> 6. >>>>>> >>>>>> Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, >>>>>>preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as >>>>>>soon after their presentation as possible. >>>>>> >> >>*********************************************************** >>William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >>Director, Project on the Information >> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >> Graduate Institute for International Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >>http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html >>*********************************************************** >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu May 24 14:57:34 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 20:57:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nothing is formally decided until the mAG formally reconvenes in September, but does seem that there will be a core resources main session. I'm not sure I regard it is an enormous victory, since we were supporting actors, some of the governments who've pushed for it undoubtedly have different agendas from at least some of us, and our other main session suggestions have not engendered a peep of discussion. Moreover, we're talking about a two hour panel discussion, which is hardly earth shaking. But it is progress toward being a context in which at least some issues of particular concern to many can be addressed in some fashion. BD On 5/24/07 5:13 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > >>>> ca at rits.org.br 5/24/2007 9:17 AM >>> >> A big change might be, finally, the introduction of "management >> of critical resources" as one of the main topics > > I think that would be both an important change and a huge victory. A > victory for reality over illusion and obfuscation, as well as for civil > society interventions. > > I am not on the ground there and thus not privy to the atmospherics > surrounding the discussion, so would gladly receive correction and > criticism on this point. But to me, an IGF that does not directly and > openly acknowledge the existence of Internet resource administration as > one of its key issues is a farce. Of course, it is not the only issue or > even necessarily the dominant one. But we cannot go on with the "head in > the sand" attitude promoted by some. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Thu May 24 15:00:31 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:00:31 +0200 Subject: SV: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01909197@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Jeanette, Thanks for an understandable and interesting report! It is good to have for us who can not be at spot! 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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Skickat: den 24 maj 2007 12:08 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Wolfgang Ämne: Re: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting Yes, it was already visible yesterday that both China's and Russia's interest in the IGF has significantly increased. China again made very detailed suggestions this morning regarding both the program and the further procedure. Russia focused on Nitin's report to the SG. The Russian delegate asked if we could see the report of this meeting Nitin Desai prepares for the SG. He insisted that the wording of the report is very important that the draft should therefore be open to everybody. Nitin conceded that he also includes his on opinion on matters in the report and that this is his right to do so. The Russian delegate insisted to a point where Nitin offered him to chair the session if he doesn't trust him. China took up Russia's discomfort regarding the status of the advisory group and the selection procedure of its members. China wants a transparent selection procedure with a result more balanced both regionally and politically. The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of the advisory group, the more contested its informal status will become. jeanette Kleinwächter wrote: > Thanks Philippe > > the IGF-AG meeting is now open for everybody and it has started with a great confusion about the status of the group and the next steps and who is responsible for what and can report to whom. > > It is mainly China and Russia government which obviously want to formnlize the whole process in the traditional way, underminding the successful informal character of the IGF so far. And the issue of the Bureau is one vehicle to do that. IGC would make a big mistake to ush for a bureau because at the end of the day CS would be a looser. > > w > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] > Gesendet: Do 24.05.2007 10:45 > An: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org > Betreff: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting > > > > Dear all, > > > > Quick report after the CST Bureau meeting in which observer stakeholder participated. The direction which is now planning to be taken is not having negotiated decisions/resolutions as the outcome of the session, but a series of "agreed conclusions" by the CSTD, annexed to the CSTD report. > > > > This morning's session is anticipated to be a series of 2 multi-stakeholder interactive dialogues (the first one being on the CSTD traditional mandate, the second on the WSIS follow-up mandate). CS observers could make oral contributions on issues to be included in the agreed conclusions, and could also send written inputs to be included in the agreed conclusions. > > > > It is still probably that a Decision should be adopted on the CSTD multi-year programme of work, probably based on the CSTD draft concept note, circulated on Monday. > > > > The morning CSTD meeting has not started yet. I'll let you know asap when the WSIS follow-up mandate will be addressed and how CS would participate. > > > > Best, > > > > Ph > > > > Philippe Dam > Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > Program Officer - WSIS and Human Rights 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org > Website: www.ngocongo.org > > > > The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Thu May 24 16:13:50 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <579661.23387.qm@web58710.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Thanks Bill for this clarification. --- William Drake wrote: > Mawaki, > > We did affirm just three months ago support for the mAG model > while > criticizing sharply its ultimate formulation and > implementation. Since a > few governments have been pushing from the start for a bureau, > and the mAG > was quite clearly designed as an alternative, I'd have thought > that everyone > understood our support for the mAG as a model (not its > implementation) as > not supporting its opposite. My message yesterday guessed > that that's what > Adam was thinking when he made his statement, but he can speak > for himself. > > To amplify Adam's explanatory message: at the beginning of the > afternoon > session, Karen came over to tell me that some EU governments > were shocked > that I'd said the caucus supports a bureau. In fact, I had not > even uttered > the word, bureau, in my intervention, which was about our four > suggested > themes for the main session. Turned out later when I talked > to them that > they'd conflated in their ears Francis Muget's statement and > mine, which I > think is indicative or the fact that maybe we shouldn't assume > they're > listening all that carefully to our precise formulations, or > particularly > attentive to differences within CS. We were surprised that > they thought > that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to > disabuse them > of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some. > > All that said, if people now want to spend the cycles debating > language > reversing our previous stance and supporting the replacement > of the mAG with > a bureau, or some other nomenclature per Guru's message, go > for it. As the > caucus is clearly divided I suspect we'd end up having to vote > etc. And > with all the industrialized countries, business, ISOC, and the > IGF's > leadership opposed and a few developing countries in favor, > it's reasonable > to forecast that no consensus to do so will be forthcoming > there, either. > > Best, > > Bill > > On 5/23/07 7:58 PM, "Mawaki Chango" > wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > I fail to understand this. Are we not in a new/different > > situation now from the time of our "previously affirmed > support" > > to the mAG? And aren't the participants or stakeholders > called > > to make inputs, again, for this second round of IGF? And > when > > one of the current coordinators make an honest statement > based > > on the *current* situation, does any one of us need to spend > > energy and mic time to contradict him, and this on the basis > of > > a *previous* state of affair? Don't we have better things to > > strive and advocate for during that limited time at the mic? > > > > Mawaki > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 24 17:28:48 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 02:58:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD up date 4 In-Reply-To: <200705241516.l4OFGngc000858@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070524212857.321E2E04C8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All I am enclosing two submission made by IT for Change in the CSTD process, One on 22nd, and excerpts from it read our yesterday, and the other one today. I think the CSTD (unexpectedly) in moving towards directions which are quite satisfactory from our point of view.. There seems to be a good amount of agreement on making a resolution towards putting together good reporting structures / interface of the commission with agencies in charge of action lines and themes. I think it is a very important development towards having an anchoring political structure, however imperfect, for the emerging information society, about which I do not tire of repeating, there will be need for much more effective, extensive, and politically legitimate, governance. I am not saying the cstd is the perfect model for it, but it creates an anchor point. On the contentious theme whether the commission will take note of an absence of any reference to 'enhanced cooperation' in the secy general's report to the commission, I think there will be some mention in the resolution of that. There will also be some reference to earlier ecosoc resolutions regarding multi-stakeholder participation, though the exact nature of these references is not clear.. We, meaning CS, were today allowed to speak briefly in even the small drafting group, and Philippe earlier participated in the CSTD bureau meeting. We were also able to intervene in the middle of the discussions at the plenary session by raising our hand. more later. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of CONGO - Philippe Dam Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:48 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD up date 4 The main question within CSTD until 5 minutes ago was whether we should go in 3 different small drafting groups or address the various issues sequentially during the on going informal meeting. The latest decision by the Austrian delegate chairing the meeting is: - from now until 6 pm: informal discussion on the multi-year program of work, based on the draft concept note circulated by the Secretariat last Monday; - from 6 pm onwards: drafting groups on the various issues to be discussed. On NGO participation: I understood the Chair proposed NGOs, CS and the PS to sit as silent observer in the room during the on going informal consultation, through a very unclear ruling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC's input to the 10th CSTD session.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 24557 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc's input 2 to cstd 240507.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 17325 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu May 24 20:55:49 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:55:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] MAG and bureau In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46563415.4040705@Malcolm.id.au> Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> raul at lacnic.net 5/24/2007 9:02 AM >>> >> I still have not seen exactly what are the >> problems that we (or somebody else) are trying to solve. > > For me, the main problem with the MAG is simply that it is > insufficiently institutionalized. Instead of a defined, bottom up > process for ongoing selection and rotation of its members, we have the > initial selections stuck into place indefinitely. And the selections > were hand-picked in a completely nontransparent and somewhat arbitrary > way. Let me hasten to add that that was ok to get things going, but we > cannot get stuck there. The other problem is that it is a square peg for a round hole. It is inconsistent that there should be a hierarchical governing structure for a non-hierarchical governance network. The strong element of hierarchy lies in that decision-making power is formally vested in one person: the Secretary-General of the United Nations (and in practice, in his advisers). The United Nations has (some) supranational authority over governments, but it has no legitimate authority whatever over civil society or the private sector. Therefore there is no reason of principle why the IGF, as a multi-stakeholder governance network incorporating all of these stakeholder groups as equals, should be led by an intergovernmental organisation. It is only for this reason why I would like the option of a lowercase-b bureau in which all stakeholder groups act as equals in making decisions about the IGF, rather than merely acting as advisers to the UN Secretary General, to be considered for the longer term. I do realise that in the shorter term it is politically impracticable. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't call for 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu May 24 21:45:38 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 03:45:38 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of > the advisory group, the more contested its informal status will > become. The MAG does not exist anymore, and it seems to tranform into an informal consultation process with no webcast nor scribes - at least that is the status quo at the moment. From what you write, Jeanette, would you also subscribe to this? "The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of the IGF organizing structure, the more contested Nitin's (and the SG's) status will become." Explanatory note: I talked to some government people this afternoon while sneaking out of the IGF informal consultations and having a coffee. They were a bit surprised - to say the least - that this informal meeting was not announced as open. This will hit Nitin, not the MAG. He said yesterday at the request of Russia: CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think the only reference so far to meetings was that a further consultation like this in September. I know there's nothing else on my agenda between now and then. So I'm not aware of anything else between that and the September meeting. Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu May 24 22:00:59 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:00:59 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vsfunctionality Message-ID: >>> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >you are right. But this is also relevant for the terminology "framework convention". Only partly. An FC could incorporate a multi-stakeholder process, just as the environmental FC did. I still find myself shaking my head in disbelief at people who think that governmental power can be tamed and contained by pretending that governments don't exist and by ignoring the fact that govts are encroaching daily upon the governance of the Internet. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 00:19:44 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:19:44 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D47E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Ralph this is splitting hairs :-((( w ________________________________ Von: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de] Gesendet: Fr 25.05.2007 03:45 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of > the advisory group, the more contested its informal status will > become. The MAG does not exist anymore, and it seems to tranform into an informal consultation process with no webcast nor scribes - at least that is the status quo at the moment. From what you write, Jeanette, would you also subscribe to this? "The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of the IGF organizing structure, the more contested Nitin's (and the SG's) status will become." Explanatory note: I talked to some government people this afternoon while sneaking out of the IGF informal consultations and having a coffee. They were a bit surprised - to say the least - that this informal meeting was not announced as open. This will hit Nitin, not the MAG. He said yesterday at the request of Russia: CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think the only reference so far to meetings was that a further consultation like this in September. I know there's nothing else on my agenda between now and then. So I'm not aware of anything else between that and the September meeting. Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 25 02:24:00 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:24:00 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: At 3:45 AM +0200 5/25/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of >>the advisory group, the more contested its informal status will become. >The MAG does not exist anymore, and it seems to tranform into an informal >consultation process with no webcast nor scribes - at least that is >the status quo at the moment. > >From what you write, Jeanette, would you also subscribe to this? >"The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of >the IGF organizing structure, the more contested Nitin's (and the >SG's) status will become." > >Explanatory note: I talked to some government people this afternoon >while sneaking out of the IGF informal consultations and having a >coffee. They were a bit surprised - to say the least - that this >informal meeting was not announced as open. This will hit Nitin, not >the MAG. He said yesterday at the request of Russia: >CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think the only reference so far to meetings was that a >further consultation like this in September. I know there's nothing >else on my agenda between now and then. So I'm not aware of >anything else between that and the September meeting. The announcement from New York was expected and had it come overnight (Wednesday night, Geneva) then the advisory group meeting would have been closed, held under normal procedures for such meetings (chatham house, etc.) But no news came, so the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an open meeting in the schedule at the Palais. As soon as it was open it was open. Adam >Best, Ralf >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri May 25 02:34:31 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:34:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: References: <20070524032059.7331CE0660@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2248634C-797B-44D9-B451-0C203841E81B@psg.com> Message-ID: <0FB8E808-6FCA-49C7-8F4B-C3CA9D3D2184@psg.com> Hi, I am not thinking of backing away from the MSH format at all. And you are right changing the name would be brain dead (i don't know what i was thinking). though of course it would be good to have the MAG brand be the real brand as opposed to nickname we have given it. What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus position for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced and which would be self renewing. I would like to see a process where each of the houses in the MAG has an equal number of seats and can pick, through some yet to be designed process, the occupants of these seats using an open and transparent set of processes. To get back to what i wish i said, i think it would be useful if the IGC could develop and suggest such a set of methods as a recommendation. BTW, this is the kind of work I had hoped the MSH Modalities WG (MMWG) would have done, but that group seems to be rather dormant if not dead. maybe we can do the work here. a. On 24 maj 2007, at 12.18, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> i think this approach may make sense. with one other caveat, one >> cannot call it a Bureau as that word has too much baggage and a >> particular meaning especially to the governments in the process. >> just as the IGF could not call dynamic coalitions working groups >> or task forces or work parties ... >> >> if the IGC were to formulate a coherent suggestion for some sort >> of multistakeholder reference committee (for want of a better term >> - i don't think this one means anything to anyone in the UN >> context - but whatever we call it) it might be able to garner >> support. but i do think we would need to think it through for a >> bit first. > > > Interesting that we would think of backing away from "multi- > stakeholder advisory group" just as the concept of multi- > stakeholder advisory groups are being discussed/entertained in > meetings about other processes ongoing in Geneva this week. > > I can only imagine how other stakeholders would respond if we > suggested a renaming now (incredulous, shock, amusement...) > > I see nothing wrong with the name. I think it describes what we > want the group to do. We just need to improve how it operates > (which we've done in various contributions and should continue.) > > Adam > > > >> it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was true that that the >> IGC has not really considered a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had >> spoken about it pro and con, but in no sense that i can identify >> had we really worked on or 'considered' it. >> >> a. >> >> On 24 maj 2007, at 05.20, Guru at ITfC wrote: >> >>> I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no' >>> formulation. >>> >>> Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying- >>> "But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to >>> prepare >>> such a report without the help of a representative, >>> multistakeholder, and >>> regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group? Friends >>> of the >>> chair? Bureau? Supporting committee?" >>> >>> Would there be greater support for the idea explained above? >>> Could we say >>> that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, multistakeholder, and >>> regionally >>> balanced group' to support the IGF processes / mandate >>> >>> With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it, >>> should not lead >>> to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out viz- >>> A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments, >>> business and >>> civil society retreat' and >>> B. a WSIS-like arrangement in which the govermental bureau is >>> "more equal" >>> than the others >>> >>> These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such >>> a group, >>> which would need to be worked out - our context does present us a >>> wonderful >>> new opportunity to bring out some innovations in global >>> governance, through >>> creative and meaningful combinations of 'representative' as well as >>> 'multistakeholder' legitimacies. >>> >>> Guru >>> _____________ >>> Gurumurthy K >>> IT for Change, Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net >>> Visit ŒInformation Society Watch¹ (www.IS-Watch.net) - a resource >>> portal >>> providing a Southern perspective on information society (IS) issues >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria >>> Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? >>> >>> I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which >>> could have a >>> different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do. >>> >>> Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need >>> for a bureau >>> (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any government >>> proposal. >>> >>> Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian >>> representative today at the consultation (which is in the >>> transcripts >>> available at the IGF's site): >>> >>> "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and >>> is aimed at >>> the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it is >>> understood >>> that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or refinement of >>> its >>> agenda, of its format, of its structure and process. >>> So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next >>> meeting in >>> Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the >>> chairman of >>> the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory >>> Group is >>> to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the >>> meeting. And >>> that's perfect. But who, then, will help the chairman in >>> conducting the >>> meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental role in >>> preparing for >>> Athens, and its work is commendable for the success of the Athens >>> meeting. >>> But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens >>> meeting. So one >>> possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the >>> possibility >>> of having some sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which >>> is, of >>> course, understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF >>> itself. As >>> in many other international fora, there is always the possibility >>> of, for >>> instance, a chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not >>> have the >>> required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a >>> representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. >>> So how do >>> we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting >>> committee? I >>> think that there are many options. What we believe is that we >>> need to have >>> this kind of support. Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be >>> able to >>> deliver to the expectations that are already created by the >>> international >>> community. So we would encourage very much that in this >>> preparatory process, >>> we further discuss this necessity, which we believe is vital to >>> the proper >>> conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings." >>> >>> In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing >>> reports, >>> recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends >>> BTW), some >>> form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of >>> the MAG. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> Raul Echeberria wrote: >>>> At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>>> --- William Drake wrote: >>>>>> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning >>>>>> meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" >>>>>> on the renewed bureau suggestions. >>>>>> However, it is also true that the caucus has previously affirmed >>>>>> support for the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no >>>>>> mistake, they are understood by all as opposites (but of >>>>>> course we >>>>>> have also criticized the way the mAG concept has been >>>>>> implemented). >>>>> >>>>> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear >>>>> that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, >>>>> business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in >>>>> which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then >>>>> the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that should not be >>>>> taken. (it >>>>> may however be possible for a bureau to not do that.) >>>> >>>> I agree with Milton >>>> Good point. >>>> >>>> But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. >>>> I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some >>>> governments >>>> to have more participation. >>>> They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. >>>> >>>> While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the >>>> origin of >>>> the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for >>>> civil society. >>>> >>>> If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG >>>> or the >>>> structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. >>>> >>>> Raúl >>>> >>>> >>>>> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between >>>>> McTim et >>>>> al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our >>>>> caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. >>>>> Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We >>>>> have >>>>> mechanisms to hold our officers accountable if they abuse the >>>>> latitude. >>>>> >>>>> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, >>>>> in my >>>>> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing >>>>> anything. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: >>>>> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Fri May 25 02:53:16 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:53:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <44150.62.203.22.113.1180075996.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> > The announcement from New York was expected and had it come overnight > (Wednesday night, Geneva) then the advisory group meeting would have > been closed, held under normal procedures for such meetings (chatham > house, etc.) Maybe a one million dollar question : why is the announcement from New York taking so much time to come? (whatever its content). I wonder if it's only because of administrative delays. KL > At 3:45 AM +0200 5/25/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >>Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of >>>the advisory group, the more contested its informal status will become. >>The MAG does not exist anymore, and it seems to tranform into an informal >>consultation process with no webcast nor scribes - at least that is >>the status quo at the moment. >> >>From what you write, Jeanette, would you also subscribe to this? >>"The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of >>the IGF organizing structure, the more contested Nitin's (and the >>SG's) status will become." >> >>Explanatory note: I talked to some government people this afternoon >>while sneaking out of the IGF informal consultations and having a >>coffee. They were a bit surprised - to say the least - that this >>informal meeting was not announced as open. This will hit Nitin, not >>the MAG. He said yesterday at the request of Russia: >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think the only reference so far to meetings was that a >>further consultation like this in September. I know there's nothing >>else on my agenda between now and then. So I'm not aware of >>anything else between that and the September meeting. > > > The announcement from New York was expected and had it come overnight > (Wednesday night, Geneva) then the advisory group meeting would have > been closed, held under normal procedures for such meetings (chatham > house, etc.) But no news came, so the meeting was called open in the > morning and was described as an open meeting in the schedule at the > Palais. As soon as it was open it was open. > > Adam > > > > >>Best, Ralf >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 02:57:38 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] UN statement/announcement on IGF meeting Message-ID: <62933.3301.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, I'm not sure if this was posted, but an announcement from the UN on the IGF meeting, and a story on Heise in German on the same. And a story on redesigning the internet infrastructure. All these and more at http://technewsreview.com.au/ Cheers David Internet Governance Forum in November to address access, security issues, UN official says (news release) The next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in November will focus on access, openness, security and diversity, a top United Nations official said today at a press conference in Geneva. Speaking after today’s preparatory consultations for the Forum’s second meeting, which will take place in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November, Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator of the Forum’s secretariat, told reporters that the Rio meeting would advance the discussion that had taken place at the first Forum meeting in Athens last November. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22658 http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/11166 http://newsblaze.com/story/20070524144737tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-239/0705243005194515.htm DNS-Management kommt ins Hauptprogramm des nächsten IGF-Treffens Meldung vorlesen Das Internet Governance Forum will sich bei seinem zweiten Treffen vom 12. bis 15. November in Rio de Janeiro nicht nur mit dem DDOS-Angriff auf die Root Server befassen, sondern auch mit dem Management von Kernressourcen des Internets, also der DNS- und IP-Adressverwaltung. Das sagte heute bei einem Vorbereitungstreffen Nitin Desai, soeben vom neuen UN-Generalsekretär bestätigter Sonderbeauftragter für das Thema Internet Governance und das beim Weltgipfel der Informationsgesellschaft (WSIS) beschlossene IGF. Desai sagte nach Beratungen mit Regierungen, Unternehmensvertretern und NGOs, es gebe ganz offensichtlich bei vielen Delegationen ein starkes Bedürfnis, das umstrittene Thema Verwaltung der Kernressourcen des Internets in eine der Plenarsitzungen in Rio aufzunehmen. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/90151 U.S. Government to Spend Up To US$10M on Internet Redesign, aka GENI As reported by the Associated Press this week, the National Science Foundation has announced that BBN Technologies Inc. will receive up to $10 million over four years to oversee the planning and design of the Global Environment for Network Innovations, or GENI. http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_global_environment_network_innovations_geni/ --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 anriette at apc.org Fri May 25 03:12:00 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 04:12:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: <0FB8E808-6FCA-49C7-8F4B-C3CA9D3D2184@psg.com> References: <20070524032059.7331CE0660@smtp3.electricembers.net>, , <0FB8E808-6FCA-49C7-8F4B-C3CA9D3D2184@psg.com> Message-ID: <46566210.28328.473DB87@anriette.apc.org> Hallo Avri I agree with this, and would be interested in and willing to work with others who are interested on developing such a set of procedures/methods terms of reference etc. for the MAG. I am sure that we can address some of the points of people who are proposing a bureau in that way, without introducing a completely new structure. Anriette > Hi, > > I am not thinking of backing away from the MSH format at all. And > you are right changing the name would be brain dead (i don't know > what i was thinking). though of course it would be good to have the > MAG brand be the real brand as opposed to nickname we have given it. > > What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus position > for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced and which > would be self renewing. I would like to see a process where each of > the houses in the MAG has an equal number of seats and can pick, > through some yet to be designed process, the occupants of these seats > using an open and transparent set of processes. > > To get back to what i wish i said, i think it would be useful if the > IGC could develop and suggest such a set of methods as a > recommendation. BTW, this is the kind of work I had hoped the MSH > Modalities WG (MMWG) would have done, but that group seems to be > rather dormant if not dead. maybe we can do the work here. > > a. > > > On 24 maj 2007, at 12.18, Adam Peake wrote: > > >> Hi, > >> > >> i think this approach may make sense. with one other caveat, one > >> cannot call it a Bureau as that word has too much baggage and a > >> particular meaning especially to the governments in the process. > >> just as the IGF could not call dynamic coalitions working groups > >> or task forces or work parties ... > >> > >> if the IGC were to formulate a coherent suggestion for some sort > >> of multistakeholder reference committee (for want of a better term > >> - i don't think this one means anything to anyone in the UN > >> context - but whatever we call it) it might be able to garner > >> support. but i do think we would need to think it through for a > >> bit first. > > > > > > Interesting that we would think of backing away from "multi- > > stakeholder advisory group" just as the concept of multi- > > stakeholder advisory groups are being discussed/entertained in > > meetings about other processes ongoing in Geneva this week. > > > > I can only imagine how other stakeholders would respond if we > > suggested a renaming now (incredulous, shock, amusement...) > > > > I see nothing wrong with the name. I think it describes what we > > want the group to do. We just need to improve how it operates > > (which we've done in various contributions and should continue.) > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was true that that the > >> IGC has not really considered a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had > >> spoken about it pro and con, but in no sense that i can identify > >> had we really worked on or 'considered' it. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> On 24 maj 2007, at 05.20, Guru at ITfC wrote: > >> > >>> I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no' > >>> formulation. > >>> > >>> Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying- > >>> "But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to > >>> prepare such a report without the help of a representative, > >>> multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So how do we call > >>> such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting > >>> committee?" > >>> > >>> Would there be greater support for the idea explained above? > >>> Could we say that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, > >>> multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group' to support the > >>> IGF processes / mandate > >>> > >>> With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it, > >>> should not lead to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out > >>> viz- A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments, > >>> business and civil society retreat' and B. a WSIS-like > >>> arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than > >>> the others > >>> > >>> These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such > >>> a group, which would need to be worked out - our context does > >>> present us a wonderful new opportunity to bring out some > >>> innovations in global governance, through creative and meaningful > >>> combinations of 'representative' as well as 'multistakeholder' > >>> legitimacies. > >>> > >>> Guru > >>> _____________ > >>> Gurumurthy K > >>> IT for Change, Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net > >>> Visit OEInformation Society Watch¹ (www.IS-Watch.net) - a resource > >>> portal providing a Southern perspective on information society > >>> (IS) issues > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > >>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? > >>> > >>> I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which > >>> could have a different name) may not do what he says it would > >>> "normally" (?) do. > >>> > >>> Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need > >>> for a bureau (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of > >>> any government proposal. > >>> > >>> Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian > >>> representative today at the consultation (which is in the > >>> transcripts available at the IGF's site): > >>> > >>> "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and > >>> is aimed at the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I > >>> think it is understood that it requires each time a certain > >>> fine-tuning or refinement of its agenda, of its format, of its > >>> structure and process. So one of the refinements that perhaps is > >>> needed for this next meeting in Rio is the establishment of a > >>> structure that would support the chairman of the IGF in > >>> conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory Group is > >>> to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the > >>> meeting. And that's perfect. But who, then, will help the > >>> chairman in conducting the meeting? So the Advisory Group had a > >>> fundamental role in preparing for Athens, and its work is > >>> commendable for the success of the Athens meeting. But it had at > >>> the same time no role at all during the Athens meeting. So one > >>> possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the > >>> possibility of having some sort of conclusion or report of the > >>> meeting, which is, of course, understood to be nonbinding because > >>> of the nature of IGF itself. As in many other international > >>> fora, there is always the possibility of, for instance, a > >>> chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not have the > >>> required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a > >>> representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. > >>> So how do we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? > >>> Supporting committee? I think that there are many options. What > >>> we believe is that we need to have this kind of support. > >>> Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be able to deliver to the > >>> expectations that are already created by the international > >>> community. So we would encourage very much that in this > >>> preparatory process, we further discuss this necessity, which we > >>> believe is vital to the proper conduct of business in Rio and in > >>> subsequent meetings." > >>> > >>> In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing > >>> reports, recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda > >>> recommends BTW), some form of hands-on support is needed, and > >>> this is not the role of the MAG. > >>> > >>> --c.a. > >>> > >>> Raul Echeberria wrote: > >>>> At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> --- William Drake wrote: > >>>>>> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning > >>>>>> meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" on the renewed > >>>>>> bureau suggestions. However, it is also true that the caucus > >>>>>> has previously affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed > >>>>>> to a bureau---and make no mistake, they are understood by all > >>>>>> as opposites (but of course we have also criticized the way > >>>>>> the mAG concept has been implemented). > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it > >>>>> clear that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which > >>>>> governments, business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like > >>>>> arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than > >>>>> the others, then the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that > >>>>> should not be taken. (it may however be possible for a bureau > >>>>> to not do that.) > >>>> > >>>> I agree with Milton > >>>> Good point. > >>>> > >>>> But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could > >>>> solve. I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some > >>>> governments to have more participation. They have not adapted > >>>> themselves to the innovative format of IGF. > >>>> > >>>> While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the > >>>> origin of the proposal makes me think that it will not be > >>>> something good for civil society. > >>>> > >>>> If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG > >>>> or the structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. > >>>> > >>>> Raúl > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between > >>>>> McTim et al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and > >>>>> particularly our caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate > >>>>> action while there. Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an > >>>>> effective force. We have mechanisms to hold our officers > >>>>> accountable if they abuse the latitude. > >>>>> > >>>>> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, > >>>>> in my opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from > >>>>> doing anything. > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You > >>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>>> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: > >>>>> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ You > >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: > 5/23/2007 3:59 PM > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Fri May 25 03:20:09 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:20:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: <46566210.28328.473DB87@anriette.apc.org> References: <20070524032059.7331CE0660@smtp3.electricembers.net>, , <0FB8E808-6FCA-49C7-8F4B-C3CA9D3D2184@psg.com> <46566210.28328.473DB87@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <7B4D8E78-C830-4F28-B15E-F131869041A7@maxwell.syr.edu> Avri, I am also interested in this and would be willing to work on it. John On May 25, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hallo Avri > > I agree with this, and would be interested in and willing to > work with others who are interested on developing such a > set of procedures/methods terms of reference etc. for the > MAG. > > I am sure that we can address some of the points of > people who are proposing a bureau in that way, without > introducing a completely new structure. > > Anriette > > >> Hi, >> >> I am not thinking of backing away from the MSH format at all. And >> you are right changing the name would be brain dead (i don't know >> what i was thinking). though of course it would be good to have the >> MAG brand be the real brand as opposed to nickname we have given it. >> >> What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus position >> for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced and which >> would be self renewing. I would like to see a process where each of >> the houses in the MAG has an equal number of seats and can pick, >> through some yet to be designed process, the occupants of these seats >> using an open and transparent set of processes. >> >> To get back to what i wish i said, i think it would be useful if the >> IGC could develop and suggest such a set of methods as a >> recommendation. BTW, this is the kind of work I had hoped the MSH >> Modalities WG (MMWG) would have done, but that group seems to be >> rather dormant if not dead. maybe we can do the work here. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 24 maj 2007, at 12.18, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> i think this approach may make sense. with one other caveat, one >>>> cannot call it a Bureau as that word has too much baggage and a >>>> particular meaning especially to the governments in the process. >>>> just as the IGF could not call dynamic coalitions working groups >>>> or task forces or work parties ... >>>> >>>> if the IGC were to formulate a coherent suggestion for some sort >>>> of multistakeholder reference committee (for want of a better term >>>> - i don't think this one means anything to anyone in the UN >>>> context - but whatever we call it) it might be able to garner >>>> support. but i do think we would need to think it through for a >>>> bit first. >>> >>> >>> Interesting that we would think of backing away from "multi- >>> stakeholder advisory group" just as the concept of multi- >>> stakeholder advisory groups are being discussed/entertained in >>> meetings about other processes ongoing in Geneva this week. >>> >>> I can only imagine how other stakeholders would respond if we >>> suggested a renaming now (incredulous, shock, amusement...) >>> >>> I see nothing wrong with the name. I think it describes what we >>> want the group to do. We just need to improve how it operates >>> (which we've done in various contributions and should continue.) >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was true that that the >>>> IGC has not really considered a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had >>>> spoken about it pro and con, but in no sense that i can identify >>>> had we really worked on or 'considered' it. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> On 24 maj 2007, at 05.20, Guru at ITfC wrote: >>>> >>>>> I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no' >>>>> formulation. >>>>> >>>>> Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying- >>>>> "But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to >>>>> prepare such a report without the help of a representative, >>>>> multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So how do we call >>>>> such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting >>>>> committee?" >>>>> >>>>> Would there be greater support for the idea explained above? >>>>> Could we say that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, >>>>> multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group' to support the >>>>> IGF processes / mandate >>>>> >>>>> With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it, >>>>> should not lead to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out >>>>> viz- A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments, >>>>> business and civil society retreat' and B. a WSIS-like >>>>> arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than >>>>> the others >>>>> >>>>> These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such >>>>> a group, which would need to be worked out - our context does >>>>> present us a wonderful new opportunity to bring out some >>>>> innovations in global governance, through creative and meaningful >>>>> combinations of 'representative' as well as 'multistakeholder' >>>>> legitimacies. >>>>> >>>>> Guru >>>>> _____________ >>>>> Gurumurthy K >>>>> IT for Change, Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net >>>>> Visit OEInformation Society Watch¹ (www.IS-Watch.net) - a resource >>>>> portal providing a Southern perspective on information society >>>>> (IS) issues >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which >>>>> could have a different name) may not do what he says it would >>>>> "normally" (?) do. >>>>> >>>>> Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need >>>>> for a bureau (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of >>>>> any government proposal. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian >>>>> representative today at the consultation (which is in the >>>>> transcripts available at the IGF's site): >>>>> >>>>> "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and >>>>> is aimed at the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I >>>>> think it is understood that it requires each time a certain >>>>> fine-tuning or refinement of its agenda, of its format, of its >>>>> structure and process. So one of the refinements that perhaps is >>>>> needed for this next meeting in Rio is the establishment of a >>>>> structure that would support the chairman of the IGF in >>>>> conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory Group is >>>>> to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the >>>>> meeting. And that's perfect. But who, then, will help the >>>>> chairman in conducting the meeting? So the Advisory Group had a >>>>> fundamental role in preparing for Athens, and its work is >>>>> commendable for the success of the Athens meeting. But it had at >>>>> the same time no role at all during the Athens meeting. So one >>>>> possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the >>>>> possibility of having some sort of conclusion or report of the >>>>> meeting, which is, of course, understood to be nonbinding because >>>>> of the nature of IGF itself. As in many other international >>>>> fora, there is always the possibility of, for instance, a >>>>> chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not have the >>>>> required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a >>>>> representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. >>>>> So how do we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? >>>>> Supporting committee? I think that there are many options. What >>>>> we believe is that we need to have this kind of support. >>>>> Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be able to deliver to the >>>>> expectations that are already created by the international >>>>> community. So we would encourage very much that in this >>>>> preparatory process, we further discuss this necessity, which we >>>>> believe is vital to the proper conduct of business in Rio and in >>>>> subsequent meetings." >>>>> >>>>> In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing >>>>> reports, recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda >>>>> recommends BTW), some form of hands-on support is needed, and >>>>> this is not the role of the MAG. >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> Raul Echeberria wrote: >>>>>> At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> --- William Drake wrote: >>>>>>>> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning >>>>>>>> meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" on the renewed >>>>>>>> bureau suggestions. However, it is also true that the caucus >>>>>>>> has previously affirmed support for the mAG approach as opposed >>>>>>>> to a bureau---and make no mistake, they are understood by all >>>>>>>> as opposites (but of course we have also criticized the way >>>>>>>> the mAG concept has been implemented). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it >>>>>>> clear that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which >>>>>>> governments, business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like >>>>>>> arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than >>>>>>> the others, then the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that >>>>>>> should not be taken. (it may however be possible for a bureau >>>>>>> to not do that.) >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with Milton >>>>>> Good point. >>>>>> >>>>>> But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could >>>>>> solve. I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some >>>>>> governments to have more participation. They have not adapted >>>>>> themselves to the innovative format of IGF. >>>>>> >>>>>> While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the >>>>>> origin of the proposal makes me think that it will not be >>>>>> something good for civil society. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG >>>>>> or the structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Raúl >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between >>>>>>> McTim et al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and >>>>>>> particularly our caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate >>>>>>> action while there. Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an >>>>>>> effective force. We have mechanisms to hold our officers >>>>>>> accountable if they abuse the latitude. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, >>>>>>> in my opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from >>>>>>> doing anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>>>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: >>>>>>> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: >> 5/23/2007 3:59 PM >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri May 25 04:46:25 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 04:46:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: <0FB8E808-6FCA-49C7-8F4B-C3CA9D3D2184@psg.com> References: <20070524032059.7331CE0660@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2248634C-797B-44D9-B451-0C203841E81B@psg.com> <0FB8E808-6FCA-49C7-8F4B-C3CA9D3D2184@psg.com> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410705250146g5b54d7ddr2667afc22cb11184@mail.gmail.com> Greetings Avri and All, I would like to bring the *Respectful Interfaces* Programme to bear here, as well. Can be Googled. Cordial regards, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff On 5/25/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I am not thinking of backing away from the MSH format at all. And > you are right changing the name would be brain dead (i don't know > what i was thinking). though of course it would be good to have the > MAG brand be the real brand as opposed to nickname we have given it. > > What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus position > for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced and which > would be self renewing. I would like to see a process where each of > the houses in the MAG has an equal number of seats and can pick, > through some yet to be designed process, the occupants of these seats > using an open and transparent set of processes. > > To get back to what i wish i said, i think it would be useful if the > IGC could develop and suggest such a set of methods as a > recommendation. BTW, this is the kind of work I had hoped the MSH > Modalities WG (MMWG) would have done, but that group seems to be > rather dormant if not dead. maybe we can do the work here. > > a. > > > On 24 maj 2007, at 12.18, Adam Peake wrote: > > >> Hi, > >> > >> i think this approach may make sense. with one other caveat, one > >> cannot call it a Bureau as that word has too much baggage and a > >> particular meaning especially to the governments in the process. > >> just as the IGF could not call dynamic coalitions working groups > >> or task forces or work parties ... > >> > >> if the IGC were to formulate a coherent suggestion for some sort > >> of multistakeholder reference committee (for want of a better term > >> - i don't think this one means anything to anyone in the UN > >> context - but whatever we call it) it might be able to garner > >> support. but i do think we would need to think it through for a > >> bit first. > > > > > > Interesting that we would think of backing away from "multi- > > stakeholder advisory group" just as the concept of multi- > > stakeholder advisory groups are being discussed/entertained in > > meetings about other processes ongoing in Geneva this week. > > > > I can only imagine how other stakeholders would respond if we > > suggested a renaming now (incredulous, shock, amusement...) > > > > I see nothing wrong with the name. I think it describes what we > > want the group to do. We just need to improve how it operates > > (which we've done in various contributions and should continue.) > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was true that that the > >> IGC has not really considered a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had > >> spoken about it pro and con, but in no sense that i can identify > >> had we really worked on or 'considered' it. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> On 24 maj 2007, at 05.20, Guru at ITfC wrote: > >> > >>> I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no' > >>> formulation. > >>> > >>> Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying- > >>> "But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to > >>> prepare > >>> such a report without the help of a representative, > >>> multistakeholder, and > >>> regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group? Friends > >>> of the > >>> chair? Bureau? Supporting committee?" > >>> > >>> Would there be greater support for the idea explained above? > >>> Could we say > >>> that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, multistakeholder, and > >>> regionally > >>> balanced group' to support the IGF processes / mandate > >>> > >>> With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it, > >>> should not lead > >>> to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out viz- > >>> A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments, > >>> business and > >>> civil society retreat' and > >>> B. a WSIS-like arrangement in which the govermental bureau is > >>> "more equal" > >>> than the others > >>> > >>> These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such > >>> a group, > >>> which would need to be worked out - our context does present us a > >>> wonderful > >>> new opportunity to bring out some innovations in global > >>> governance, through > >>> creative and meaningful combinations of 'representative' as well as > >>> 'multistakeholder' legitimacies. > >>> > >>> Guru > >>> _____________ > >>> Gurumurthy K > >>> IT for Change, Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net > >>> Visit ŒInformation Society Watch¹ (www.IS-Watch.net) - a resource > >>> portal > >>> providing a Southern perspective on information society (IS) issues > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > >>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? > >>> > >>> I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which > >>> could have a > >>> different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do. > >>> > >>> Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need > >>> for a bureau > >>> (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any government > >>> proposal. > >>> > >>> Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian > >>> representative today at the consultation (which is in the > >>> transcripts > >>> available at the IGF's site): > >>> > >>> "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and > >>> is aimed at > >>> the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it is > >>> understood > >>> that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or refinement of > >>> its > >>> agenda, of its format, of its structure and process. > >>> So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next > >>> meeting in > >>> Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the > >>> chairman of > >>> the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory > >>> Group is > >>> to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the > >>> meeting. And > >>> that's perfect. But who, then, will help the chairman in > >>> conducting the > >>> meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental role in > >>> preparing for > >>> Athens, and its work is commendable for the success of the Athens > >>> meeting. > >>> But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens > >>> meeting. So one > >>> possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the > >>> possibility > >>> of having some sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which > >>> is, of > >>> course, understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF > >>> itself. As > >>> in many other international fora, there is always the possibility > >>> of, for > >>> instance, a chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not > >>> have the > >>> required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a > >>> representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. > >>> So how do > >>> we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting > >>> committee? I > >>> think that there are many options. What we believe is that we > >>> need to have > >>> this kind of support. Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be > >>> able to > >>> deliver to the expectations that are already created by the > >>> international > >>> community. So we would encourage very much that in this > >>> preparatory process, > >>> we further discuss this necessity, which we believe is vital to > >>> the proper > >>> conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings." > >>> > >>> In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing > >>> reports, > >>> recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends > >>> BTW), some > >>> form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of > >>> the MAG. > >>> > >>> --c.a. > >>> > >>> Raul Echeberria wrote: > >>>> At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> --- William Drake wrote: > >>>>>> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning > >>>>>> meeting, we said "the caucus has no position" > >>>>>> on the renewed bureau suggestions. > >>>>>> However, it is also true that the caucus has previously affirmed > >>>>>> support for the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no > >>>>>> mistake, they are understood by all as opposites (but of > >>>>>> course we > >>>>>> have also criticized the way the mAG concept has been > >>>>>> implemented). > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear > >>>>> that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, > >>>>> business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in > >>>>> which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then > >>>>> the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that should not be > >>>>> taken. (it > >>>>> may however be possible for a bureau to not do that.) > >>>> > >>>> I agree with Milton > >>>> Good point. > >>>> > >>>> But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve. > >>>> I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some > >>>> governments > >>>> to have more participation. > >>>> They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF. > >>>> > >>>> While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the > >>>> origin of > >>>> the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for > >>>> civil society. > >>>> > >>>> If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG > >>>> or the > >>>> structure of that group, we should focus in this issue. > >>>> > >>>> Raúl > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between > >>>>> McTim et > >>>>> al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our > >>>>> caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. > >>>>> Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We > >>>>> have > >>>>> mechanisms to hold our officers accountable if they abuse the > >>>>> latitude. > >>>>> > >>>>> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, > >>>>> in my > >>>>> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing > >>>>> anything. > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>>> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: > >>>>> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri May 25 05:03:28 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:03:28 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4656A660.2050709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> (on the informal MAG meeting) Adam Peake wrote: > the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an open > meeting in the schedule at the Palais. As soon as it was open it was > open. Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards at the Palais. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 05:28:05 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:28:05 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: <4656A660.2050709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4656A660.2050709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: >(on the informal MAG meeting) > >Adam Peake wrote: >>the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an open >>meeting in the schedule at the Palais. As soon as it was open it was >>open. >Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards at >the Palais. Was it... my mistake. Then that is a problem. And govt and other's concerns you described were justified. Adam >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri May 25 06:01:02 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 12:01:02 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4656A660.2050709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4656B3DE.3070407@wzb.eu> Yesterday when I looked it was announced as an informal meeting. It didn't say "privee". jeanette Adam Peake wrote: >> (on the informal MAG meeting) >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >>> the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an open >>> meeting in the schedule at the Palais. As soon as it was open it was >>> open. >> Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards at >> the Palais. > > > Was it... my mistake. > > Then that is a problem. And govt and other's concerns you described > were justified. > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 06:33:07 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 12:33:07 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4656BB63.9060000@wzb.eu> Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of >> the advisory group, the more contested its informal status will become. > The MAG does not exist anymore, and it seems to tranform into an informal > consultation process with no webcast nor scribes - at least that is the > status quo at the moment. > > From what you write, Jeanette, would you also subscribe to this? > "The longer New York waits with any announcement regarding the future of > the IGF organizing structure, the more contested Nitin's (and the SG's) > status will become." Hi Ralf, certainly not. And I never meant to imply that in case there has been any misunderstanding. What I realized only the last two days here in Geneva is how very fragile this whole process still is. The entire preparatory process with several open consultations, an advisory group, Nitin's and Markus' reports to New York and various back and forth interactions cannot be taken for granted. There are several groups who would like to replace this very informal process by something more constitutionalized. Among them certainly some countries such as Russia and China and also some civil society people or groups. On a principle level, I would always argue for a more formal, rule driven process. The reason would be that in the long run I think one should never solely rely on the personal integrity of the people involved. Nitin and Markus might not be around forever, and we will probably fully realize only afterwards how much this whole process owes to them. Rules may serve as a safety net against all kinds of undesirable behavior. On a practical level, things look slightly different. A formalization of the process at this point implies the danger of killing it altogether. It is anyone's guess how small or large this danger is. My sense is that the forum and its preparatory process will eventually become more formalized. However, like the forum itself, this could happen as an experimental process where things can be tried out like, for example, new membership mechanism as Avri suggested. We need to keep in mind though that governments, international organizations, private sector and civil society governments all have different recruiting practices with various rationalities involved, and that it won't be easy to find some common ground here. I would thus argue for a slow pace if possible to avoid dammaging this precious new process and to give it a chance to come with innovative solutions to old procedural problems (representation, legitimacy, transparency, accountability, etc, etc) that would find support among all the actors involved. jeanette > > Explanatory note: I talked to some government people this afternoon > while sneaking out of the IGF informal consultations and having a > coffee. They were a bit surprised - to say the least - that this > informal meeting was not announced as open. This will hit Nitin, not the > MAG. He said yesterday at the request of Russia: > CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think the only reference so far to meetings was that a > further consultation like this in September. I know there's nothing else > on my agenda between now and then. So I'm not aware of anything else > between that and the September meeting. > > Best, Ralf > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Fri May 25 08:18:29 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:18:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Today's CS 'Plenary' meeting at CONGO Office - 6 pm Message-ID: <200705251216.l4PCGwRA010375@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to announce that the latest CS Plenary meeting would take place at the CONGO Office meeting room (see map attached), from 6:00 pm onwards. The reason why today's CS Plenary meeting would take place there is because the last - and probably main - agenda item will be to share a glass of wine. All the best, Philippe Dam 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: map - CONGO Office (3).doc Type: application/msword Size: 60928 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Fri May 25 09:03:04 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:03:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rio IGF workshop proposal dates Message-ID: <4656DE88.8090002@ipjustice.org> Sorry for the cross-posting. Quick update from end of IGF meeting: - Workshop proposals for Rio will be due at the end of June. - Workshop organizers will be notified at the end of July about whether their proposal has been accepted. Robin ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri May 25 12:50:28 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 12:50:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: <4656BB63.9060000@wzb.eu> References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4656BB63.9060000@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I appreciate Jeanette's wise observation below. The German political philosopher Max Weber gave some comfort, it seems, to come to grips with the scenario - he pointed at a common progression, from charismatic leadership to routinized bureaucracy. When understood as a process, not unexpected, the essence becomes attention to the details of routinization, from leader to bureaucracy. Writ large, this particular case is the expansion of power-sharing, from among just governments to a new world where other societal actors have some say also. As such, it is not a small thing. As said any number of times before, CS's ability to present itself as a model for power sharing, in its own structure and behavior, will likely be prerequisite. Those with the power currently, who naturally are skeptical, may then have basis to consider partnering and further steps along the progression. Nor will we want to miss an irony: The occasion for innovation is in the early part. Once we get to routine bureaucracy, we have to wait - if we want more change - until the next revolution ... It pays to get it thoughtfully right, of course through some experimentation, particularly early on, as we go through. Representation, legitimacy, and the like, are not-small problematics. Such progressions have their own genesis in a real issue. Here (at least one part) that is the simmering tension around globalization of rule-setting for some key Internet stuff. The drivers for that will not go away, if anything they will grow even more insistent. The pressures for action on this larger front could make it more difficult to work artfully on the nearer-in front (call both 'power distribution' - but each with its own circumstance). And there is also a recursive quality to the logic. The same progression will likely characterize both foreground and background. Again then, movement in one can confound prospects in the other, though fortunately that does not have to be. David At 12:33 PM +0200 5/25/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >... >What I realized only the last two days here in Geneva is how very fragile this whole process still is. The entire preparatory process with several open consultations, an advisory group, Nitin's and Markus' reports to New York and various back and forth interactions cannot be taken for granted. There are several groups who would like to replace this very informal process by something more constitutionalized. Among them certainly some countries such as Russia and China and also some civil society people or groups. > >On a principle level, I would always argue for a more formal, rule driven process. The reason would be that in the long run I think one should never solely rely on the personal integrity of the people involved. Nitin and Markus might not be around forever, and we will probably fully realize only afterwards how much this whole process owes to them. Rules may serve as a safety net against all kinds of undesirable behavior. > >On a practical level, things look slightly different. A formalization of the process at this point implies the danger of killing it altogether. It is anyone's guess how small or large this danger is. My sense is that the forum and its preparatory process will eventually become more formalized. However, like the forum itself, this could happen as an experimental process where things can be tried out like, for example, new membership mechanism as Avri suggested. We need to keep in mind though that governments, international organizations, private sector and civil society governments all have different recruiting practices with various rationalities involved, and that it won't be easy to find some common ground here. > >I would thus argue for a slow pace if possible to avoid dammaging this precious new process and to give it a chance to come with innovative solutions to old procedural problems (representation, legitimacy, transparency, accountability, etc, etc) that would find support among all the actors involved. > >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 vb at bertola.eu Fri May 25 14:57:16 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 20:57:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] MAG and bureau In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4657318C.4000707@bertola.eu> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > For me, the main problem with the MAG is simply that it is > insufficiently institutionalized. Instead of a defined, bottom up > process for ongoing selection and rotation of its members, we have the > initial selections stuck into place indefinitely. And the selections > were hand-picked in a completely nontransparent and somewhat arbitrary > way. Let me hasten to add that that was ok to get things going, but we > cannot get stuck there. > > There are some other issues related to the activities of the MAG and > the way they relate to the Secretariat that could be improved. This is > not a crisis, not yet, just a need for progress. > > What problem are we trying to solve? We are trying to solve the problem > of preventing the IGF from stagnating and becoming irrelevant. We want > to build resilient institutional mechanisms that allow the IGF structure > to handle differences of perspectives among PS, CS and govts. I concur with Milton. I think that the [b|B]ureau is a false problem, that only arises because more and more participants are dissatisfied with a few issues: - the lack of clarity on the procedures to compose the AG - the lack of clarity on terms and mandate of the AG - the lack of a mechanism that can actually release "outcomes" of the IGF. The AG should realize this and promote its own evolution, through some public discussion, even online, or maybe by setting up a small working group to manage the process, or whatever; get to Rio with a proposal on the table, and have it discussed openly. If, on the other hand, the AG will just float until Rio... calls for a [b|B]ureau will become more and more frequent, and the discussion will polarize. -- 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 Fri May 25 15:01:09 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:01:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46573275.2080604@bertola.eu> McTim ha scritto: > In the IG world that I participate in, this change in language couldn't > be made without consensus from the list. I was the one that, during the IGC Charter process, proposed the second part of #2 and other language to avoid the physical meetings from hijacking the online consensus. However, this was not meant to prevent action completely: there is a judgement to make, and the call was up to Parminder, who was coordinating this time. Personally, I think that the deciding point is: were we just restating existing text, or adding anything new? As far as I understand (and for what was discussed on list in the very last days before the 23rd), we just restated points that the caucus already approved in February, so I don't see that as a "change in language" - actually, it abides by the spirit of the Charter. In any case, if you disagree with the coordinators' call, we have an appeal mechanism that you can use. -- 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 Mueller at syr.edu Fri May 25 17:00:09 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:00:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality Message-ID: >>> avri at psg.com 5/25/2007 2:34 AM >>> >What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus >position for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced >and which would be self renewing. I would like to see a >process where each of the houses in the MAG has an equal >number of seats and can pick, through some yet to be >designed process, the occupants of these seats >using an open and transparent set of processes. Agreed. This is exactly what I meant by the MAG being "under-institutionalized." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 18:27:04 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 07:27:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > >>> avri at psg.com 5/25/2007 2:34 AM >>> >>What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus >>position for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced  >>and which would be self renewing. I would like to see a >>process where each of the houses in the MAG has an equal >>number of seats and can pick, through some yet to be >>designed process, the occupants of these seats  >>using an open and transparent set of processes. > >Agreed. This is exactly what I meant by the MAG being >"under-institutionalized." > for example: "About the Advisory Group. While supporting the concept, we note that its composition, including the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the crosscutting technical and academic communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its appointment. Nor there is any clear transparency or clear norm on its terms, mandate, and working principles. We think that clear terms and rules should be established for the Advisory Group between now and Rio, through an open process involving all the participants in the IGF as a shared foundation for our common work. We further consider that if these rules and quarters for representation from each stakeholder group were openly established, it would be possible for the Secretary-General to delegate the actual process of selection of Advisory Group members to the stakeholder groups themselves. Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the limited representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory Group, which amounted to about five members out of about 40. We think that the significant participation of civil society and individual users, as proved by the WGIG, is key to making Internet governance events a success both in practical and political terms. Thus, we would like to see such participation expanded to at least one-fourth of the group, if not one-third, and to the same levels of the private-sector and of the Internet technical community. We confirm our support to the civil society members of the incumbent group and stand ready to provide suggestions for additional members with direct experience from diverse civil society groups. We also reiterate the need for the IGF to be considered as a process rather than as an event." >From the February IGC submission to IGF consultation. I might well be wrong, but I think this statement while read at the consultation may have been submitted late to the secretariat, seems to have been overlooked on the website and was not considered in the synthesis paper summarizing the online contributions prepared by the secretariat prior to that meeting. Best, 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 vb at bertola.eu Fri May 25 18:33:16 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:33:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4657642C.1000200@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > for example: Glad you like our text from February. I think there was a lot of good stuff in it. > From the February IGC submission to IGF consultation. I might well be > wrong, but I think this statement while read at the consultation may > have been submitted late to the secretariat, seems to have been > overlooked on the website and was not considered in the synthesis paper > summarizing the online contributions prepared by the secretariat prior > to that meeting. We were late and we only approved the statement in time for it to be read at the consultation. However, I don't know why it's not on the website - perhaps you or Avri could raise the issue with the Secretariat and get it published? -- 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Fri May 25 19:20:52 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:20:52 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: References: <200705240844.l4O8i0HF006461@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D46C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <465563E3.5020509@wzb.eu> <46563FC2.4090906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4656A660.2050709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <000001c79f23$5991d630$6700000a@TEST55C9A4E356> Wrt to the two days of meetings after the open 23 May meeting. I'm sure we'll figure out what happened over time but from my perspective: Nitin Desai was put under pressure from a number of governments over the issue and influence of the Advisory Group during the 23 May meeting. He downplayed the influence the Group had (read it on the transcript); this lead to the possibility that the two days of (closed) Advisory Group meetings planned afterwards might be open. I asked at the end of the Wednesday meeting whether the meeting would be open - no one was sure. So I turned up on the Thursday morning to see if I would be turned away and/or if I would be asked to leave if I had sat down. Nitin then made it clear at the start of the meeting that it was an open meeting (although you wouldn't know that unless you were already in the room - and the room number required chasing down). There was an exchange with Janis Karklins over this because Janis wished to invite people in if indeed it was open. Clearly something was happening behind the scenes. I don't know what it was. But I did think that the meeting themselves were the most interesting of the whole IGF process so far. Kieren (speaking as an individual) -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath Subject: Re: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting >(on the informal MAG meeting) > >Adam Peake wrote: >>the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an open >>meeting in the schedule at the Palais. As soon as it was open it was >>open. >Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards at >the Palais. Was it... my mistake. Then that is a problem. And govt and other's concerns you described were justified. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat May 26 09:18:49 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 06:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] igc@ igf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <916349.7143.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hi, --- McTim wrote: > On 5/24/07, William Drake wrote: > > > > Anyway, I doubt that anyone in the room really fixed on this > one sentence > > at > > the end of a long statement all that much, that it have an > impact on the > > agenda, or that anyone will think that you are tarred by > listserv > > association with it. > > > I don't care about that, the idea (and correct me if I am > wrong) is to > build IG processes that are transparent, bottom up, blah, > blah, blah. This must well be the first time I see the pragmatic/practical, the matter-of-fact, the no nonsense 'dogwallah' agree on any blah, blah, blah! OK, don't mind me. I'm just cleaning my mailbox (and reading at least the shortest emails I've missed) while transiting to gmail... Enjoy your weekend! Mawaki My > point is that this example was a short-circuit of our agreed > process. > > In the IG world that I participate in, this change in language > couldn't be > made without consensus from the list. > > It's also a slippery slope IMO. Next it'l be person x wanting > to insert a > caluse about their pet gripe, then person y will jump in and > want their > issue mentioned, etc. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat May 26 13:08:01 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 13:08:01 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting Message-ID: Interesting report, Kieren, thanks for it. It is yet another example of how the lack of an institutionalized MAG leads to a lack of fairness. Some people are told the meeting is closed, others find out its open. The reason for opening it (to the select few who happened to be in the know or who were hanging around that day) was determined by some behind-the-scenes pressures. Surely we can all see that this is a poor way to proceed. >>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 5/25/2007 7:20:52 PM >>> Wrt to the two days of meetings after the open 23 May meeting. I'm sure we'll figure out what happened over time but from my perspective: Nitin Desai was put under pressure from a number of governments over the issue and influence of the Advisory Group during the 23 May meeting. He downplayed the influence the Group had (read it on the transcript); this lead to the possibility that the two days of (closed) Advisory Group meetings planned afterwards might be open. I asked at the end of the Wednesday meeting whether the meeting would be open - no one was sure. So I turned up on the Thursday morning to see if I would be turned away and/or if I would be asked to leave if I had sat down. Nitin then made it clear at the start of the meeting that it was an open meeting (although you wouldn't know that unless you were already in the room - and the room number required chasing down). There was an exchange with Janis Karklins over this because Janis wished to invite people in if indeed it was open. Clearly something was happening behind the scenes. I don't know what it was. But I did think that the meeting themselves were the most interesting of the whole IGF process so far. Kieren (speaking as an individual) -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath Subject: Re: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting >(on the informal MAG meeting) > >Adam Peake wrote: >>the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an open >>meeting in the schedule at the Palais. As soon as it was open it was >>open. >Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards at >the Palais. Was it... my mistake. Then that is a problem. And govt and other's concerns you described were justified. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 23:35:20 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:35:20 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Interesting report, Kieren, thanks for it. >It is yet another example of how the lack of an institutionalized MAG >leads to a lack of fairness. Some people are told the meeting is closed, >others find out its open. The reason for opening it (to the select few >who happened to be in the know or who were hanging around that day) was >determined by some behind-the-scenes pressures. Nitin /Markus still had some hope at the end of the Wednesday consultation that the SG's office would issue a press release about membership of the advisory group overnight. Had that happened then the private advisory group meeting would have taken place as planned. Thursday morning, no news from New York, Nitin had no option but to hold an open meeting. No inside pressure, Nitin simply said in the situation he had no right to hold a private meeting so called it open. That's how the UN is in such situations. Best I remember (Jeanette I think agrees, Ralf disagrees) the electronic sign boards in the Palais used to announce the days' schedule showed the meeting as Open. The boards give details of all meetings going on that day (meeting name, room, status etc.) The sign on the door of the meeting said open. As soon as Nitin made the announcement in the meeting itself Avri sent a note to the governance list. Not a matter of insiders and select few. Just circumstance. >Surely we can all see that this is a poor way to proceed. It surly is poor way to succeed, costly too... But no one I spoke to in Geneva could think what the problem in New York might be. It was unusual. Adam > >>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 5/25/2007 7:20:52 PM >>> >Wrt to the two days of meetings after the open 23 May meeting. > >I'm sure we'll figure out what happened over time but from my >perspective: >Nitin Desai was put under pressure from a number of governments over >the >issue and influence of the Advisory Group during the 23 May meeting. > >He downplayed the influence the Group had (read it on the transcript); >this >lead to the possibility that the two days of (closed) Advisory Group >meetings planned afterwards might be open. I asked at the end of the >Wednesday meeting whether the meeting would be open - no one was sure. > >So I turned up on the Thursday morning to see if I would be turned >away >and/or if I would be asked to leave if I had sat down. > >Nitin then made it clear at the start of the meeting that it was an >open >meeting (although you wouldn't know that unless you were already in the >room >- and the room number required chasing down). There was an exchange >with >Janis Karklins over this because Janis wished to invite people in if >indeed >it was open. > >Clearly something was happening behind the scenes. I don't know what it >was. >But I did think that the meeting themselves were the most interesting >of the >whole IGF process so far. > > > >Kieren >(speaking as an individual) > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath >Subject: Re: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting > >>(on the informal MAG meeting) >> >>Adam Peake wrote: >>>the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an >open >>>meeting in the schedule at the Palais. As soon as it was open it >was >>>open. >>Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards >at >>the Palais. > > >Was it... my mistake. > >Then that is a problem. And govt and other's concerns you described >were justified. > >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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 08:15:56 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:15:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Rio IGF workshop proposal dates In-Reply-To: <4656DE88.8090002@ipjustice.org> References: <4656DE88.8090002@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: >Sorry for the cross-posting. > >Quick update from end of IGF meeting: >- Workshop proposals for Rio will be due at the end of June. >- Workshop organizers will be notified at the end of July about >whether their proposal has been accepted. Worth noting the workshop rooms will be much larger than Athens, 200-300 people. The main room can accommodate 1500. Expect the meeting to attract more than attended the Athens meeting, perhaps 2000 on the first day. Adam >Robin >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 08:15:47 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:15:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF - next consultation In-Reply-To: <4656DE88.8090002@ipjustice.org> References: <4656DE88.8090002@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: There are plans to hold the next IGF consultation in early September. Format will depend on whether there's an advisory group (expected there will be) and thought is September 3, open consultation. September 4-5, closed advisory group. 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 rbloem at ngocongo.org Mon May 28 14:20:13 2007 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:20:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Update In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D487@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <200705281820.l4SIKIEc026858@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Hi Wolfgang and all, CSTD adopted a resolution introduced by El Salvador on behalf of GRULAG with many amendments from the floor. However it contains OP 2 "Takes note of the request to the Secretary-General to start a process towards enhanced cooperation, as referred to in paragraphs 69 to71 of the Tunis Agenda, and expects information on it to be included in his annual report as referred to in Paragraph 1 above". OP 8 states "Recommends that the WSIS cluster of events takes place annually in Geneva back-to-back around the World Information Day, May 17th, and close enough to the CSTD session, to schedule in the CSTD agenda two interactive dialogues, one with UN regional Commissions and the other with the leading facilitating agencies, both of which should include the participation of all WSIS stake-holders and serve as a linkage between implementation and follow-up" The same resolution contains in its preambular paras reiteration of NGO/CSO and business sector entities participation to which China mumbled some resistance but gave in when the ..'keep in general its intergovernmental character' was added. In addition CSTD took a decision for a multi-year work programme which balanced the mandates of the old and new Commission, adopted a provisional agenda for its next session and elected a new Bureau (much more dynamic) for the next (11th) session. Chair: Malaysia with four Vice-Chairs: Chile, Latvia, Lesotho and Austria. While the Commission was really in a transitional session, it found in the last moment enough energy to go forward. CS could easily interact and we can hope that with our friends from Latvia and Chile the Commission will be on reasonably good grounds. More when available... Best 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 -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: dimanche, 27. mai 2007 12:16 To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: SV: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Update [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ Dear list what was finally adopted by the CSTD? Is this para. on enhanced cooperation in an adopted resolution? Thanks wolfgang ________________________________ Från: Renate Bloem [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] Skickat: fr 2007-05-25 11:50 Till: plenary at wsis-cs.org Ämne: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Update CSTD is currently working on member states comments to the draft decisions on the multi-year programme of work of the Commission. Some observers are in the room, but none of us so far asked for the floor. R. 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 _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 28 14:43:40 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:43:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Update References: <200705281820.l4SIKIEc026858@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D493@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thamls Renate, it would be good to get the full text of the resolution as soon as available. Is it correct that this resolution goes to the ECOSOC and the UN GA? Could this lead also the UNGA resolution? w ________________________________ Von: Renate Bloem [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2007 20:20 An: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau wsis; governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Update [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ Hi Wolfgang and all, CSTD adopted a resolution introduced by El Salvador on behalf of GRULAG with many amendments from the floor. However it contains OP 2 "Takes note of the request to the Secretary-General to start a process towards enhanced cooperation, as referred to in paragraphs 69 to71 of the Tunis Agenda, and expects information on it to be included in his annual report as referred to in Paragraph 1 above". OP 8 states "Recommends that the WSIS cluster of events takes place annually in Geneva back-to-back around the World Information Day, May 17th, and close enough to the CSTD session, to schedule in the CSTD agenda two interactive dialogues, one with UN regional Commissions and the other with the leading facilitating agencies, both of which should include the participation of all WSIS stake-holders and serve as a linkage between implementation and follow-up" The same resolution contains in its preambular paras reiteration of NGO/CSO and business sector entities participation to which China mumbled some resistance but gave in when the ..'keep in general its intergovernmental character' was added. In addition CSTD took a decision for a multi-year work programme which balanced the mandates of the old and new Commission, adopted a provisional agenda for its next session and elected a new Bureau (much more dynamic) for the next (11th) session. Chair: Malaysia with four Vice-Chairs: Chile, Latvia, Lesotho and Austria. While the Commission was really in a transitional session, it found in the last moment enough energy to go forward. CS could easily interact and we can hope that with our friends from Latvia and Chile the Commission will be on reasonably good grounds. More when available... Best 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 -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: dimanche, 27. mai 2007 12:16 To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: SV: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Update [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ Dear list what was finally adopted by the CSTD? Is this para. on enhanced cooperation in an adopted resolution? Thanks wolfgang ________________________________ Från: Renate Bloem [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] Skickat: fr 2007-05-25 11:50 Till: plenary at wsis-cs.org Ämne: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Update CSTD is currently working on member states comments to the draft decisions on the multi-year programme of work of the Commission. Some observers are in the room, but none of us so far asked for the floor. R. 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 _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue May 29 06:48:43 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:48:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD outcomes Message-ID: <200705291048.l4TAm6rk010269@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the outcome texts of the CSTD session, including the Decision on Multi-year programme of work and the resolution of flow of information for WSIS follow up. Note in the resolution the reference to enhanced cooperation in its paragraph 2. These texts might be made available on the CSTD webpage shortly. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Multi-year programme final version 25 May.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31744 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Resol 10th session CSTD final version 25 May.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27648 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue May 29 07:36:46 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:36:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD outcomes In-Reply-To: <200705291048.l4TAm6rk010269@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> References: <200705291048.l4TAm6rk010269@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: Philippe, thank you. "2. Takes note of the request to the Secretary- General to start a process towards enhanced cooperation, as referred to in paragraphs 69 to 71 of the Tunis Agenda, and expects information on it to be included in his annual report as referred to in Paragraph 1 above; " with para 1 saying: "1. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the CSTD annually on the implementation of the Summit outcomes, including all e-applications;" The "take note" part softening of the original El Salvador floor resolution which I hear said something like "CSTD requests the SG to take steps to commence the enhanced cooperation process". Thanks, Adam At 12:48 PM +0200 5/29/07, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: >Dear all, > >Find attached the outcome texts of the CSTD >session, including the Decision on Multi-year >programme of work and the resolution of flow of >information for WSIS follow up. >Note in the resolution the reference to enhanced >cooperation in its paragraph 2. > >These texts might be made available on the CSTD webpage shortly. > >All the best, >Philippe Dam >CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat >E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org >Website: www.ngocongo.org  > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Multi-year >programme#314F27.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00314F27) >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Resol 10th >session C#314F28.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00314F28) >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue May 29 07:52:47 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:52:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD outcomes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200705291152.l4TBqANv011464@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Indeed the initial drafting proposed by El Salvador on Thursday morning was composed as follows: "Requests the SG to take the necessary actions towards the implementation on the process of enhanced cooperation for Internet Governance, as defined in para. 69 to 71 of the Tunis Agenda, and to include the progress made in the annual report [of the CSTD]". I only have a hard copy of the initial text. To answer Wolfgang's previous questions, the CSTD report, decision and resolution will be looked at by ECOSOC in July, which would might rubberstamp those texts. Then the ECOSOC final report will go to the GA, but as a whole so that the specifics will not be looked at by the GA. Ph -----Message d'origine----- De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Envoyé : mardi, 29. mai 2007 12:37 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : rbloem at ngocongo.org; philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Objet : Re: [governance] CSTD outcomes Philippe, thank you. "2. Takes note of the request to the Secretary- General to start a process towards enhanced cooperation, as referred to in paragraphs 69 to 71 of the Tunis Agenda, and expects information on it to be included in his annual report as referred to in Paragraph 1 above; " with para 1 saying: "1. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the CSTD annually on the implementation of the Summit outcomes, including all e-applications;" The "take note" part softening of the original El Salvador floor resolution which I hear said something like "CSTD requests the SG to take steps to commence the enhanced cooperation process". Thanks, Adam At 12:48 PM +0200 5/29/07, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: >Dear all, > >Find attached the outcome texts of the CSTD >session, including the Decision on Multi-year >programme of work and the resolution of flow of >information for WSIS follow up. >Note in the resolution the reference to enhanced >cooperation in its paragraph 2. > >These texts might be made available on the CSTD webpage shortly. > >All the best, >Philippe Dam >CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat >E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org >Website: www.ngocongo.org  > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Multi-year >programme#314F27.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00314F27) >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Resol 10th >session C#314F28.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00314F28) >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue May 29 08:21:24 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:21:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Follow up to the informal consultation between ITU and civil society - summary available Message-ID: <200705291220.l4TCKmxD018968@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, The ITU Secretariat posted online Draft Summary of Discussion and Outcomes (also here attached) of the informal consultation between ITU and civil society. Participants in the meeting are also invited to send comments on the document before 8th June 2007. Link: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2007/civilsocietyconsultation/index.h tml Ph Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CS-Report-vf.doc Type: application/msword Size: 281600 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue May 29 13:43:34 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:43:34 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd0705291043i1f694d8hae116c9bab1b52ed@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, For your information, the hesitations about the closed/open nature of the meetings on 24-25 also raised similar concerns among some governmental delegations who would have liked to participate but did not turn up thinking they were closed. These are the comments I circulated to them in response. I suppose they are as valid for the IGC as for governments. There is no conspiracy here I believe, just circumstances, as Adam rightly said. "For information, European union members who attended (in full or only partially due to other meetings like CSTD) the extended informal consultations on IGF were : Germany, Latvia, Finland, Greece and France. The European Commission was also there, as well as Canada and Australia. A good debriefing would certainly be useful (see below). On why this happened, everything comes from the incapacity of the UN Secretary General to make a formal announcement reconducting the MAG. This put Nitin Desai in a very delicate situation. He certainly could have handled it in a more explicit manner and the frustration of colleagues that could have been there is understandable. Some communication to missions here may indeed have been useful. But having no consultations at all (missed opportuity) or gathering only the members of the now defunct MAG (with the risk of being attacked for acting without legal ground and excluding some government actors) would have been actually worse. In terms of substance, the discussions may have been intense and may have ventured in different territory than usual. But overall, such discussions were useful and constructive among a reasonably balanced and diverse group of people. Outcomes are in no way final anyway and the secretariat and Nitin Desai will certainly welcome further comments. And, as Bill mentions, there is a remote feed available. Altogether, one can also consider that the active participation of China and Russia (Brazil is naturally active being the host) is also a demonstration that they consider the IGF an important space. They will certainly engage actively and other actors need to be prepared for it. Their ultimate influence on the orientation of the Forum will only be in inverse proportion of the clarity of our own objectives. As a result, the most useful avenue is to make a very thorough assesment of the emergent dynamics and identify constructive proposals to influence the Forum structure, content and working methods." A final point. To a governmental delegate who was advocating a much more structured IGF in Rio, arguing that repetition of a mere Athens -like "talk shop" would be a failure, I indicated that there are two ways to kill the IGF : 1) keeping indefinitely the format so loose and informal that no progress on controversial issues can be made (his "talk-shop" criticism), but also 2) introducing UN-style negotiation of texts that would bring back all the rigidity and posturing that we need to avoid. All stakeholders must carefully progress between these two pitfalls, knowing that it is in everybody's interest to make this very fragile experiment work. The IGF is a unique space for debate. And thorough debate (not only elections) is the essence of the democratic approach, as Nobel Price winner Amartya Sen wrote, quoting J.S. Mill's definition of democracy as "government by discussion". Let us make the IGF the place where all actors can discuss precisely the issues that raise their concern. Not to solve them right away, but to explore their various facets and understand each other's perspective first. This is what "informed deliberation" is about. Best Bertrand On 5/27/07, Adam Peake wrote: > Milton wrote : >Interesting report, Kieren, thanks for it. > >It is yet another example of how the lack of an institutionalized MAG > >leads to a lack of fairness. Some people are told the meeting is closed, > >others find out its open. The reason for opening it (to the select few > >who happened to be in the know or who were hanging around that day) was > >determined by some behind-the-scenes pressures. > > > > > Nitin /Markus still had some hope at the end of the Wednesday > consultation that the SG's office would issue a press release about > membership of the advisory group overnight. Had that happened then > the private advisory group meeting would have taken place as planned. > > Thursday morning, no news from New York, Nitin had no option but to > hold an open meeting. No inside pressure, Nitin simply said in the > situation he had no right to hold a private meeting so called it > open. That's how the UN is in such situations. > > Best I remember (Jeanette I think agrees, Ralf disagrees) the > electronic sign boards in the Palais used to announce the days' > schedule showed the meeting as Open. The boards give details of all > meetings going on that day (meeting name, room, status etc.) The > sign on the door of the meeting said open. As soon as Nitin made the > announcement in the meeting itself Avri sent a note to the governance > list. > > Not a matter of insiders and select few. Just circumstance. > > > > >Surely we can all see that this is a poor way to proceed. > > > It surly is poor way to succeed, costly too... But no one I spoke to > in Geneva could think what the problem in New York might be. It was > unusual. > > Adam > > > > > >>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 5/25/2007 7:20:52 PM >>> > >Wrt to the two days of meetings after the open 23 May meeting. > > > >I'm sure we'll figure out what happened over time but from my > >perspective: > >Nitin Desai was put under pressure from a number of governments over > >the > >issue and influence of the Advisory Group during the 23 May meeting. > > > >He downplayed the influence the Group had (read it on the transcript); > >this > >lead to the possibility that the two days of (closed) Advisory Group > >meetings planned afterwards might be open. I asked at the end of the > >Wednesday meeting whether the meeting would be open - no one was sure. > > > >So I turned up on the Thursday morning to see if I would be turned > >away > >and/or if I would be asked to leave if I had sat down. > > > >Nitin then made it clear at the start of the meeting that it was an > >open > >meeting (although you wouldn't know that unless you were already in the > >room > >- and the room number required chasing down). There was an exchange > >with > >Janis Karklins over this because Janis wished to invite people in if > >indeed > >it was open. > > > >Clearly something was happening behind the scenes. I don't know what it > >was. > >But I did think that the meeting themselves were the most interesting > >of the > >whole IGF process so far. > > > > > > > >Kieren > >(speaking as an individual) > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath > >Subject: Re: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting > > > >>(on the informal MAG meeting) > >> > >>Adam Peake wrote: > >>>the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an > >open > >>>meeting in the schedule at the Palais. As soon as it was open it > >was > >>>open. > >>Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards > >at > >>the Palais. > > > > > >Was it... my mistake. > > > >Then that is a problem. And govt and other's concerns you described > >were justified. > > > >Adam > > > > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Tue May 29 14:31:39 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:31:39 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting Message-ID: >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 5/26/2007 11:35 PM >>> >Thursday morning, no news from New York, Nitin had no >option but to hold an open meeting. No inside pressure, >Not a matter of insiders and select few. Just circumstance. OK, good to know. Thanks for the correction. This should not however detract from the main point, which is that even if the UN had come through with an announcement we are still dealing with an ad hoc, discretion-based process driven by personalities, not by commonly understood and agreed processes. Or so it seems to me. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Wed May 30 18:18:08 2007 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] MINUTES OF THE ACSF NIGERIA STAKEHOLDERS' MEETING Message-ID: <800039.31953.qm@web34312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Friends and Coleaques, Find attached the minutes of the First Stakeholders' Meeting. Please, we want to inform everyone interested in being part of this laudable venture to register with the e-group list serve created for this purpose. Be placed on NOTICE that henceforth, notices, information, discussions, and other sundry matters/issues relating to this event will ONLY be communicated via the ACSFNIGERIA List serve. Your cooperation is highly solicited in this regards. Thanking you in anticipation. Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Chairman/Convener 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: 2ND AFRICAN CIVIL SOCEITY FORUM STAKEHOLDERS MEETING].doc Type: application/msword Size: 42496 bytes Desc: 1747070584-2ND AFRICAN CIVIL SOCEITY FORUM STAKEHOLDERS MEETING].doc URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu May 31 00:23:02 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] SPYING ON THE HOME FRONT Message-ID: SPYING ON THE HOME FRONT In a permanent war aginst a hidden enemy, how far has the government (U.S.) gone in hunting terrorists by watching us? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/ ---- *INTRODUCTION* - SPYING ON THE HoME FRONT http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/etc/synopsis.html Note: VIDEOS- load the entire mms:// string into your address bar or download to save. Video Home Page: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/ ----------------------- *The New Era of Preemption/Prevention* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/preemption/ - Chapter ONE - A Pre-Emption Operation in Vegas mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/media4/frontlin e/2512/windows/ch1_xl.wmv?v1st=F3FED489B767CDCB - Chapter TWO - The New Era of Pre-Emption/Prevention mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/media4/frontlin e/2512/windows/ch2_xl.wmv?v1st=F3FED489B767CDCB - Chapter THREE - The NSA's Eavesdropping at AT&T mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/media4/frontlin e/2512/windows/ch3_xl.wmv?v1st=F3FED489B767CDCB - Chapter FOUR - National Security Letters and Data Mining mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/media4/frontlin e/2512/windows/ch4_xl.wmv?v1st=F3FED489B767CDCB - Chapter FIVE - Pre-Emption vs. the Fourth Amendment mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/general/windows/media4/frontlin e/2512/windows/ch5_xl.wmv?v1st=F3FED489B767CDCB ----------------------- *ANALYSIS* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/themes/ The Debate of the 21st Century http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/themes/debate.html - What Else Might the NSA Be Up To? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/themes/debate.html - Did the President Violate the Law? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/themes/didpres.html - Can FISA Keep Up With the Terrorism Threat? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/themes/fisa.html ----------------------- *INTERVIEWS* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/ - John Ashcroft http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/ashcroft.html - James Baker http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/baker.html - Mark Klein http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html - Suzanne Spaulding http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/spaulding.html - Peter Swire http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/swire.html - Michael Woods http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/woods.html - John Yoo http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/yoo.html ----------------------- *WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/etc/producer.html ----------------------- *Readings and Links* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/etc/links.html ----- End ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 31 03:54:12 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:24:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] igc@igf - process issues in making a statement on the behalf of IGC Message-ID: <20070531075514.4F59DE04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> 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 don't 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 Adam's 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 Adam's that I hadn't prepared a second statement on 'process' (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 caucus's 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, 'in my understanding seem to have wide acceptance in the caucus' and present it to the evening CS plenary and the next morning IGC meeting for reactions. (One must note that in the second 'process' statement there were really none of any 'pet' 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 'process' 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 'process' (and not necessarily with reference to its substantive content) as McTim's 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 view... Why come in with your views post facto, when the 'event' 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 '..to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes' and objective 4 'Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices'. 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 'assumed general thinking of the caucus' (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 'the realization of internationally agreed human rights' 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 'assumed general thinking of the caucus' 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 "I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it did, we would have explicitly mentioned/included it in our statement." 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 "If 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." 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From pouzin at well.com Thu May 31 06:16:25 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:16:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting Message-ID: <200705311016.l4VAGPnY021019@muse.enst.fr> On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:35:20 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >Thursday morning, no news from New York, Nitin had no option but to hold an open meeting. On opening the IGF consultation meeting on 23 May, there were two possible events to be expected in the following 24 hours. Either the UN SG would extend the MAG life, or he would not. From a managerial standpoint there should have been two options for the 24/25 May meeting, and these two options should have been announced. They were not. Best ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 31 06:50:24 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:20:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070531105054.47453E049C@smtp3.electricembers.net> We were surprised that they thought > that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to disabuse > them > of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some. Bill To add to your description of events, after you brought the issue of the confusion in some gov members minds to my notice and I did clarify to the house that the bureau proposal was not an IGC proposal but that made by some civil society members on their own behalf or of their organization, and that IGC had no position on this proposal. And that we have not talked about it internally. I understand that there is some difference of views if this last part on 'we haven't talked about it' is correct. In my view there were a couple of bureau proposals (Francis, brazil) some elements of which were quite new, and different from what is generally known and thought about a bureau (especially brazil's proposal) and in this context it was right of me to say what I said about the IGC having not considered this issue (in the present context).( I am only dealing with the process issue here, and will discuss my personal views on this matter in a separate email) I quote a subsequent email of Vittorio dt 21st which while describing the feb IGC statement says that " though it did not address explicitly the "bureau" idea since it had not come up yet." Also an email of Avri's dt 24th that " it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was true that that the IGC has not really considered a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had spoken about it pro and con, but in no sense that i can identify had we really worked on or 'considered' it." Many others also have expressed different views on this issue.... Whereby I think I was justified in saying what I said, even as I understand the basis of the difference of opinions on this 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: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:39 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? > > Mawaki, > > We did affirm just three months ago support for the mAG model while > criticizing sharply its ultimate formulation and implementation. Since a > few governments have been pushing from the start for a bureau, and the mAG > was quite clearly designed as an alternative, I'd have thought that > everyone > understood our support for the mAG as a model (not its implementation) as > not supporting its opposite. My message yesterday guessed that that's > what > Adam was thinking when he made his statement, but he can speak for > himself. > > To amplify Adam's explanatory message: at the beginning of the afternoon > session, Karen came over to tell me that some EU governments were shocked > that I'd said the caucus supports a bureau. In fact, I had not even > uttered > the word, bureau, in my intervention, which was about our four suggested > themes for the main session. Turned out later when I talked to them that > they'd conflated in their ears Francis Muget's statement and mine, which I > think is indicative or the fact that maybe we shouldn't assume they're > listening all that carefully to our precise formulations, or particularly > attentive to differences within CS. We were surprised that they thought > that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to disabuse > them > of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some. > > All that said, if people now want to spend the cycles debating language > reversing our previous stance and supporting the replacement of the mAG > with > a bureau, or some other nomenclature per Guru's message, go for it. As > the > caucus is clearly divided I suspect we'd end up having to vote etc. And > with all the industrialized countries, business, ISOC, and the IGF's > leadership opposed and a few developing countries in favor, it's > reasonable > to forecast that no consensus to do so will be forthcoming there, either. > > Best, > > Bill > > On 5/23/07 7:58 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > I fail to understand this. Are we not in a new/different > > situation now from the time of our "previously affirmed support" > > to the mAG? And aren't the participants or stakeholders called > > to make inputs, again, for this second round of IGF? And when > > one of the current coordinators make an honest statement based > > on the *current* situation, does any one of us need to spend > > energy and mic time to contradict him, and this on the basis of > > a *previous* state of affair? Don't we have better things to > > strive and advocate for during that limited time at the mic? > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > --- William Drake wrote: > > > >> Hi Carlos, > >> > >> More coordination, sure. > >> > >> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the > >> morning meeting, we > >> said "the caucus has no position" on the renewed bureau > >> suggestions. > >> However, it is also true that the caucus has previously > >> affirmed support for > >> the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no mistake, > >> they are > >> understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also > >> criticized the > >> way the mAG concept has been implemented). I think Adam was > >> reacting to > >> Parminder's particular framing that the caucus has no position > >> "because > >> we've not talked about it" (forget his precise words, but not > >> true) and was > >> restating the prior position which, absent any revision since, > >> does stand > >> now. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > >> On 5/23/07 4:10 PM, "carlos a. afonso" wrote: > >> > >>> This just happened in the IGF consultation here in Geneva: > >>> > >>> Parminder stated that the CS caucus has no position > >> regarding the > >>> formation of a bureau, as this needs more debate within the > >> caucus for a > >>> consensus (or at least rought consensus) to be made -- this > >> is the view > >>> we got from our caucus morning meeting today. On the other > >> hand, Adam, > >>> who was not at the morning meeting, said that the caucus has > >> absolutely > >>> rejected any bureau proposal, which in my view is not true. > >>> > >>> What is this? We need, at a minimum, a bit more > >> coordination... > >>> > >>> --c.a. > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > *********************************************************** > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 31 07:00:17 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:00:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] igc@igf - process issues in making a statement on the behalf of IGC In-Reply-To: <20070531075514.4F59DE04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070531075514.4F59DE04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: 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 Œprocess¹ (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, >Œin 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 Œprocess¹ statement there were really >none of any Œpet¹ 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 Œprocess¹ 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 Œprocess¹ (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 viewŠ.. Why come in >with your views post facto, when the Œevent¹ 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 ŒŠ.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 ŒProvide 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 >Œassumed 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 >Œthe 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 Œassumed 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 31 07:18:19 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:18:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <20070531105054.47453E049C@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070531105054.47453E049C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >We were surprised that they thought >> that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to disabuse >> them >> of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some. > >Bill > >To add to your description of events, after you brought the issue of the >confusion in some gov members minds to my notice and I did clarify to the >house that the bureau proposal was not an IGC proposal but that made by some >civil society members on their own behalf or of their organization, and that >IGC had no position on this proposal. And that we have not talked about it >internally. I understand that there is some difference of views if this last >part on 'we haven't talked about it' is correct. > >In my view there were a couple of bureau proposals (Francis, brazil) Yes, but what you said was "I was told by my colleagues that some civil society members here proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some government delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of the Internet governance caucus." Nothing to do with Brazil's comments. And Francis seems to disassociated himself the caucus (Louis of course is a participant/member.) Whatever. Sitting in the room it sounded like you had dodged the question as you yourself phrased it, particularly as it came at the end of a long statement where you began with comments from the caucus, then added observations of your own, and then back to a non-committal comment about a bureau. Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus". The answer is obviously No. But it's fine. They got the message. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 31 07:23:29 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:23:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and IGF References: <20070531075514.4F59DE04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 31 08:32:51 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:02:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070531123314.CF467E05D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Nothing to do with Brazil's comments. Not directly, but I had heard some discussion on a range of bureau related proposals, in and outside the room, and the fact that there were these new bureau-related proposals, and the fact that I myself hadn't fully read/understood/ considered these proposals, as I took many others hadn't as well, played on my mind when I made the clarification. > Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure > proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus". > The answer is obviously No. The following is the full transcript of my intervention, and I think it adequately answers the question (as I think was the right answer, in the given circumstances) as I phrased it. "I would like to make a clarification, I was told by my colleagues that some civil society members here proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some government delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of the Internet governance caucus. And I would like to clarify that Internet governance caucus right now do not have any position on that. They have not considered the issue. And that is the opinion of some members who directly expressed the opinion on their own behalf or on the behalf of the organizations they represent." And now since you have raised the issue, I think if my response was as you say 'dodgy' I think your expression of views that " the caucus does not in any way support the concept of a bureau" and that "it is somewhat distressing that there is this misunderstanding that we might do" wasn't well-advised either. Not after the co-coordinator, who has been given the right to express the official position said something (for which of course he is subsequently completely accountable) and your views clearly seemed to contradict his statement. And you did this when you sat 2 rows from me and a few others of the IGC and we could have discussed the matter. In fact, when I saw Jeanette trying to tell me something after my statement I did go to her seat, and quickly discussed the issue with her and Bill. We could have discussed if a further statement of expression of views on IGC's position was necessary. And you would have noted from the exchanges on the emails on the list, and my quotes from Vittorio's and Avri's emails that the construction that the bureau idea (in the existing circumstances, and its multiple shades) could be taken to have been formally considered by the IGC and rejected wasn't sound at all. Now, I understand that you intervention was well-intentioned (and I know you strongly feel about the issue, as do many others) and I know that in middle of such meetings one need to give some leeway to speakers and not hold too close a scrutiny over each and every word uttered, as long as the general spirit is right and well-meaning. But, well, since the issue is being discussed I thought Id make these above points. 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, May 31, 2007 4:48 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? > > >We were surprised that they thought > >> that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to > disabuse > >> them > >> of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some. > > > >Bill > > > >To add to your description of events, after you brought the issue of the > >confusion in some gov members minds to my notice and I did clarify to the > >house that the bureau proposal was not an IGC proposal but that made by > some > >civil society members on their own behalf or of their organization, and > that > >IGC had no position on this proposal. And that we have not talked about > it > >internally. I understand that there is some difference of views if this > last > >part on 'we haven't talked about it' is correct. > > > >In my view there were a couple of bureau proposals (Francis, brazil) > > > Yes, but what you said was > > "I was told by my colleagues that some civil society members here > proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some government > delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of the > Internet governance caucus." > > Nothing to do with Brazil's comments. And Francis seems to > disassociated himself the caucus (Louis of course is a > participant/member.) > > Whatever. Sitting in the room it sounded like you had dodged the > question as you yourself phrased it, particularly as it came at the > end of a long statement where you began with comments from the > caucus, then added observations of your own, and then back to a > non-committal comment about a bureau. > > Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure > proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus". > The answer is obviously No. > > But it's fine. They got the message. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu May 31 08:44:30 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:44:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070531075514.4F59DE04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <209A8763-F81D-4A2D-95F9-D4251770E974@ras.eu.org> 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu May 31 08:44:13 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:44:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> 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 -- ____________________ 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 vb at bertola.eu Thu May 31 09:00:49 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:00:49 +0200 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: <465EC701.20005@bertola.eu> Meryem Marzouki ha scritto: > 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... ? Actually, I think that it would be very important to focus the IGF also on high level discussions about values and human rights - that's where dialogue between such diverse stakeholders might be more valuable even if there is no binding agreement or enforcement, as first of all what is lacking is a common cultural agreement on what are the values that have to lead the development of the Internet. Personally, I hoped to reach this objective by launching the "Internet Bill of Rights" campaign - I know that many people are skeptical about the idea of new statements of rights, but I think that, while the form of the outcome and the process can be discussed, there is a real need to discuss not just specific issues, but values and principles. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu May 31 09:05:52 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:05:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, The question can be answered too: no. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/final_e.htm Best, Bill On 5/31/07 1:23 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu May 31 09:18:51 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 06:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: 20070531123314.CF467E05D8@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: Where did the Bureau �idea� come from ??? If the �bureau idea� did not come from the IGC [Internet Governance Caucus], {Obviously by all accounts it *was-not* Paraminder, the idea was circulating �before� Paraminder made clarifications.} Then from whom was the idea interjected ??? - �ALL� (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 �Someone� in the room did. [Hummm? � sympathetic ITU personnel perhaps � 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 From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu May 31 09:38:47 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:38:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and IGF In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear all I can see Meryem chipping in some "new vission" in this debate with th notion that Goods ans Services are not being considered considered as fundamental elements of democracy If democracy per se entails multiple choice and the right to choose or get chosen, the multiplicity of goods and services provides the most conducive arena for th exrcise of freedom of choice. Goods and Services in that respect become fundamental elements of democracy in that on has a variety in which to make a democratic choice. That is where I stand. As for Wolfgang's core and intriguing question of whether ignorance of human rights can constitute trade barriers. I say yes because once you neglect what actually is the désiderata of the other people, you cannot trade with them. On this aspect, it is the knowledge of trade legislations of different trading partners that can break the barriers. My answer to the question is YES Aaron On 5/31/07, William Drake wrote: > Wolfgang, > > The question can be answered too: no. > http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/final_e.htm > > Best, > > Bill > > > On 5/31/07 1:23 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Thu May 31 10:02:06 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 07:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53370.193.194.63.129.1180620126.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> At the risk of re-hashing old discussions and with thanks to Bertrand for presenting the matter with typical clarity let me raise what I consider to be crucial if not fatal caveats concerning at least one of the "common sense" elements presented below. As we all know the precise status and thus significance of the IGF and the overall IG set of activities is still unclear (not fully formed etc.etc.) That being said, issues such as representation, accountability, inclusiveness and so on (r., a., i.) might arguably be deferred to future consideration or as seems in the context here left to some (mystical?) form of emergence, or as Bertrand suggests it doesn't matter because...the group isn't making decisions rather it is facilitating processes towards decisions , and "formalizing zones of agreement among stakeholders" -- which I think takes us back up to the issue of categories of stakeholders, n'est ce pas... i.e. those who are in a position to articulate and thus form agreements around zones of agreement! Anyway, a lot (and seemingly an increasing number) of serious people and players are taking the IGF increasingly seriously so leaving issues such as r., a., i. etc. to be worked out in the future is, to my mind at least, not good enough. And specifically let me refer to "common sense" item (3) below i.e. "categories of actors" namely "governments, civil society and business sector". As with others I don't have a real problem with either the government category (they know who they are and have no problem in figuring out their internal issues of r., a. and i.); nor do I have a problem (at this point) with the private sector although I can envisage having problems with it in the future and certainly members of the private sector will have increasing problems of their own with r., a., i. in the future; rather my concern is with "civil society". By presenting the world so neatly into the three categories one can presume that "civil society" is meant to "represent" all of those who are neither governments, nor the private sector. In practice of course, "civil society" in this context refers to those individuals, in some few instances representing groupings, with both the interest and the resources to pursue involvement in these discussions. Precisely what links there might be between this group and the rather larger group of those not (for whatever reason) participating in these discussions (representation); nor how this group responds to or identifies the interests of the larger group (accountability) has to the best of my knowledge been articulated; and perhaps most damaging of all, there appears to have been almost no attempt by "civil society" in this context to reach out to that larger group, even those such as the ones that I am in touch with, the community ICT activists and practitioners, who might have the greatest interest in participation and the most to contribute to such discussions (inclusiveness). A counter to my set of observations is of course, that this discussion (as with the Internet) is open to everyone to participate in, and this is true; however, I would feel rather more comfortable overall if the concept (and presentation) of "civil society" in this context were put in both literal and operational quotation marks and if this group were to recognize these issues as its responsibility (and to acknowledge that its very legitimacy depends on visibly making efforts to respond). That is, my immediate suggestion is that Bertrand (only summarizing what he in my opinion, quite correctly identifies as the common sense position of this group here) isn't quite so categorical with his categories; and what is presented as summation is in fact seen for what it is, as only the beginning of the definition of the problem. Best, Mike Gurstein > 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 > > > -- > ____________________ > 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:2676,465ec3e815225149418951! > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Thu May 31 10:17:48 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:17:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is done is done - A recommended course forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B16ECC9-9E10-40E6-B7EF-68190FEC4566@privaterra.info> 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 From mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Thu May 31 10:30:48 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 07:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: An Additional Observation Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <53370.193.194.63.129.1180620126.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> <53370.193.194.63.129.1180620126.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <48232.193.194.63.129.1180621848.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> I, perhaps with others, have been waiting for the shoe to drop i.e. for the other "stakeholders" to challenge "civil society" either in the context of WSIS or in this post-WSIS environment concerning r., a. and i. etc. That there has been no such challenge suggests to me that the other stakeholders are more than content to deal with the current "civil society" representation for reasons of their own and my guess is that they would find it rather more uncomfortable dealing with a grouping which was somewhat more robust, grounded in its experience of Internet realities/risks/opportunities on the ground, and more directly linked into networks of potential size and political influence (the examples of the role and structuring of "civil society" in the area of the environment and international trade issues springs immediately to mind). MG > At the risk of re-hashing old discussions and with thanks to Bertrand for > presenting the matter with typical clarity let me raise what I consider to > be crucial if not fatal caveats concerning at least one of the "common > sense" elements presented below. > > As we all know the precise status and thus significance of the IGF and the > overall IG set of activities is still unclear (not fully formed etc.etc.) > That being said, issues such as representation, accountability, > inclusiveness and so on (r., a., i.) might arguably be deferred to future > consideration or as seems in the context here left to some (mystical?) > form of emergence, or as Bertrand suggests it doesn't matter because...the > group isn't making decisions rather it is facilitating processes towards > decisions , and "formalizing zones of agreement among stakeholders" -- > which I think takes us back up to the issue of categories of stakeholders, > n'est ce pas... i.e. those who are in a position to articulate and thus > form agreements around zones of agreement! > > Anyway, a lot (and seemingly an increasing number) of serious people and > players are taking the IGF increasingly seriously so leaving issues such > as r., a., i. etc. to be worked out in the future is, to my mind at least, > not good enough. > > And specifically let me refer to "common sense" item (3) below i.e. > "categories of actors" namely "governments, civil society and business > sector". As with others I don't have a real problem with either the > government category (they know who they are and have no problem in > figuring out their internal issues of r., a. and i.); nor do I have a > problem (at this point) with the private sector although I can envisage > having problems with it in the future and certainly members of the private > sector will have increasing problems of their own with r., a., i. in the > future; rather my concern is with "civil society". > > By presenting the world so neatly into the three categories one can > presume that "civil society" is meant to "represent" all of those who are > neither governments, nor the private sector. In practice of course, > "civil society" in this context refers to those individuals, in some few > instances representing groupings, with both the interest and the resources > to pursue involvement in these discussions. Precisely what links there > might be between this group and the rather larger group of those not (for > whatever reason) participating in these discussions (representation); nor > how this group responds to or identifies the interests of the larger group > (accountability) has to the best of my knowledge been articulated; and > perhaps most damaging of all, there appears to have been almost no attempt > by "civil society" in this context to reach out to that larger group, even > those such as the ones that I am in touch with, the community ICT > activists and practitioners, who might have the greatest interest in > participation and the most to contribute to such discussions > (inclusiveness). > > A counter to my set of observations is of course, that this discussion (as > with the Internet) is open to everyone to participate in, and this is > true; however, I would feel rather more comfortable overall if the concept > (and presentation) of "civil society" in this context were put in both > literal and operational quotation marks and if this group were to > recognize these issues as its responsibility (and to acknowledge that its > very legitimacy depends on visibly making efforts to respond). > > That is, my immediate suggestion is that Bertrand (only summarizing what > he in my opinion, quite correctly identifies as the common sense position > of this group here) isn't quite so categorical with his categories; and > what is presented as summation is in fact seen for what it is, as only > the beginning of the definition of the problem. > > Best, > > Mike Gurstein > > > >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> 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 > > > !DSPAM:2676,465ed61115223210172999! > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 31 10:38:31 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:38:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070531075514.4F59DE04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D4A2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <465EDDE7.4030204@rits.org.br> Well, it has been, selectively (according to the economic interest of the stronger parties), established several times -- through economic sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, PR of Korea, South Africa's apartheid regime. And ignored many other times (like China, Saudi Arabia etc etc). It all depends, in nearly all cases, not on human rights, but on economic interests, unfortunately. Sometimes they do coincide (like against the apartheid regime...). --c.a. Kleinwächter wrote: > 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 > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 lists at privaterra.info Thu May 31 10:39:05 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:39:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is done is done - A recommended course forward [CORRECTION] In-Reply-To: <4B16ECC9-9E10-40E6-B7EF-68190FEC4566@privaterra.info> References: <4B16ECC9-9E10-40E6-B7EF-68190FEC4566@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <98BBA275-7401-426E-9194-54B68FA0F39D@privaterra.info> > > 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. CORRECTION - that a bureau is a construct that does NOT replicate well ... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 May 31 10:42:00 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:42:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <20070531123314.CF467E05D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070531123314.CF467E05D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <465EDEB8.4090000@rits.org.br> What Parminder is saying (correctly) is what I said in my initial msg in this thread, but in any case I think we had enough to clarify one thing: the caucus has at this point **no** official position regarding a bureau in any form. frt rgds --c.a. Parminder wrote: >> Nothing to do with Brazil's comments. > > > > Not directly, but I had heard some discussion on a range of bureau related > proposals, in and outside the room, and the fact that there were these new > bureau-related proposals, and the fact that I myself hadn't fully > read/understood/ considered these proposals, as I took many others hadn't as > well, played on my mind when I made the clarification. > > > >> Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure > >> proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus". > >> The answer is obviously No. > > > > The following is the full transcript of my intervention, and I think it > adequately answers the question (as I think was the right answer, in the > given circumstances) as I phrased it. > > > > "I would like to make a clarification, I was told by my colleagues that some > civil society members here proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some > government delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of > the Internet governance caucus. And I would like to clarify that Internet > governance caucus right now do not have any position on that. They have not > considered the issue. And that is the opinion of some members who directly > expressed the opinion on their own behalf or on the behalf of the > organizations they represent." > > > > And now since you have raised the issue, I think if my response was as you > say 'dodgy' I think your expression of views that " the caucus does not in > any way support the concept of a bureau" and that "it is somewhat > distressing that there is this misunderstanding that we might do" wasn't > well-advised either. Not after the co-coordinator, who has been given the > right to express the official position said something (for which of course > he is subsequently completely accountable) and your views clearly seemed to > contradict his statement. And you did this when you sat 2 rows from me and a > few others of the IGC and we could have discussed the matter. In fact, when > I saw Jeanette trying to tell me something after my statement I did go to > her seat, and quickly discussed the issue with her and Bill. We could have > discussed if a further statement of expression of views on IGC's position > was necessary. > > And you would have noted from the exchanges on the emails on the list, and > my quotes from Vittorio's and Avri's emails that the construction that the > bureau idea (in the existing circumstances, and its multiple shades) could > be taken to have been formally considered by the IGC and rejected wasn't > sound at all. > > Now, I understand that you intervention was well-intentioned (and I know you > strongly feel about the issue, as do many others) and I know that in middle > of such meetings one need to give some leeway to speakers and not hold too > close a scrutiny over each and every word uttered, as long as the general > spirit is right and well-meaning. But, well, since the issue is being > discussed I thought Id make these above points. > > 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, May 31, 2007 4:48 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: RE: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? > > >>> We were surprised that they thought > >>>> that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to > >> disabuse > >>>> them > >>>> of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some. > > >>> Bill > > >>> To add to your description of events, after you brought the issue of the > >>> confusion in some gov members minds to my notice and I did clarify to the > >>> house that the bureau proposal was not an IGC proposal but that made by > >> some > >>> civil society members on their own behalf or of their organization, and > >> that > >>> IGC had no position on this proposal. And that we have not talked about > >> it > >>> internally. I understand that there is some difference of views if this > >> last > >>> part on 'we haven't talked about it' is correct. > > >>> In my view there were a couple of bureau proposals (Francis, brazil) > > > >> Yes, but what you said was > > >> "I was told by my colleagues that some civil society members here > >> proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some government > >> delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of the > >> Internet governance caucus." > > >> Nothing to do with Brazil's comments. And Francis seems to > >> disassociated himself the caucus (Louis of course is a > >> participant/member.) > > >> Whatever. Sitting in the room it sounded like you had dodged the > >> question as you yourself phrased it, particularly as it came at the > >> end of a long statement where you began with comments from the > >> caucus, then added observations of your own, and then back to a > >> non-committal comment about a bureau. > > >> Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure > >> proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus". > >> The answer is obviously No. > > >> But it's fine. They got the message. > > >> 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 From ca at rits.org.br Thu May 31 10:42:42 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:42:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <465EDEE2.9030206@rits.org.br> 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 From lists at privaterra.info Thu May 31 10:58:00 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:58:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <465EDEB8.4090000@rits.org.br> References: <20070531123314.CF467E05D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <465EDEB8.4090000@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <5B9A6279-5354-47AC-AD41-59CB8F6E95C7@privaterra.info> 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. regards Robert On 31-May-07, at 10:42 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > What Parminder is saying (correctly) is what I said in my initial > msg in this thread, but in any case I think we had enough to > clarify one thing: the caucus has at this point **no** official > position regarding a bureau in any form. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Thu May 31 11:21:38 2007 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: RE : MINUTES OF THE ACSF NIGERIA STAKEHOLDERS' MEETING In-Reply-To: <217990.81265.qm@web26608.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <344596.43781.qm@web34306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Mama Koite, I have just written a letter in response to Kamara on this very issue-even though I did not circulate it as you have just done on this. It is very clear to us now that, FEMNET was never in suport -(surreptiously) on Nigeria hosting the next Forum. While avoiding to go into ANY exchange on this matter, may I refer all to the minutes at the last Plennary held 24 March 2007 in Addis-and for the record-NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS PROPOSED WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION THAT NIGERIA WILL BE HOSTING THE NEXT FORUM. Mama, I want to believe that, you do realize with all respect that, we were not too comfortable with the manner the document for the Adhoc Committee was smuggled into the program for adoption-without debate. Of course, Nurses Across the Borders did make this position known, but for the intervention of Madam President Renate, we let go. If we want to debate the issue whether Nigeria will host the forum or not then, it is no gainsaying that all other decisions taken at the last plennary be debated all over again including the Adhoc Committee headed by your very good self. Now I accept that the descion not not to involve Nurses Across the Borders thus far in the Adhoc Committee activities was deliberate-and we shall vehemently do all that is constitutionally and legally possible to protect our rights as bonafide members of CONGO. Thank you. Pastor Peters OMORAGBON. PS: Please we oppose to the 'command' and 'order' contained in your letter asking to stop our activities. The ONLY BODY that so instruct us, shall be CONGO. --- MAMA KOITE wrote: > Cher Pastor Peter, > > Je suis vraiment navrée pour cette situation . > Nous n avons jamais cautionné à Addis > l 'organisation du ACSF au Nigéria . Tu es > entrain de persister et ça risque de faire un > problème . Je te demande d 'arrêter le processus > .Tu avais bien dit la semaine dernière que c' > est pour organiser les Nigérians pour la Session > de 2008 .Mais le contenu de ce compte rendu > de réunion atteste que vous voulez coûte que > coûte faire ce Forum Africain avec tous les > partenaires au Nigéria . > Je ne veux pas en partenaire nuire à vos > intérêts mais tu ne devras pas semer la > discorde et la zizanie dans les rangs des > organisations de la societe civile africaine . > Tiu devras rester sage au risque de casser > cette chaine de solidarité entre nous . > FEMNET ne te permettra jamais de lui jouer > un coup pareil . Soyons sérieux et honnête > dans tout ce que nous faisons . > > A bon entendeur salut !!!!! > > Dear Pastor Peter, > > I'm very uspet about this situation. At Addis, it > has not been mentionned that Nigeria is going to > organise the ACSFmeeting. You are still insisting > and such behaviour can bring another problem. > > For this reason, I'm asking you to stop what you > enterprise. I thought in your last message unless I > misunderstand, you said that it was to organise the > Nigerian for the session of 2008? But the content of > this message denote another view, that it is the > organisation of the forum in Nigeria > > In a partnership, I do not want to destroy once > interest, for that reason you have no right to stir > up-feeling among the African Civil Society > Organisation's. > > FEMNET won't allow such think.We have to be honest > and serious in everything we intended. > > A word to the wise it's enough > > MAMA KOITE President of FEMNET > > NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS > a écrit : > > Dear Friends and Coleaques, > Find attached the minutes of the First Stakeholders' > Meeting. > > Please, we want to inform everyone interested in > being > part of this laudable venture to register with the > e-group list serve created for this purpose. > > Be placed on NOTICE that henceforth, notices, > information, discussions, and other sundry > matters/issues relating to this event will ONLY be > communicated via the ACSFNIGERIA List serve. > > Your cooperation is highly solicited in this > regards. > Thanking you in anticipation. > Pastor Peters OMORAGBON > Chairman/Convener > > > > 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 > > > > > --------------------------------- > Découvrez le blog Yahoo! Mail : dernières > nouveautés, astuces, conseils.. et vos réactions ! 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 31 11:29:53 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:29:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: <5B9A6279-5354-47AC-AD41-59CB8F6E95C7@privaterra.info> References: <20070531123314.CF467E05D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <465EDEB8.4090000@rits.org.br> <5B9A6279-5354-47AC-AD41-59CB8F6E95C7@privaterra.info> Message-ID: 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. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu May 31 14:15:34 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:15:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: I also agree Bertrand's is a helpful formulation. If classic international organizations like the UN and entities emerging from industry and academic circles like ietf and w3c can be treated as co-equal in this new space, then we have made a breathrough. However, the line between those and other civil society groups with an international mandate is still blurry, at least to me. But if we can move from oppressed minority in terms of mag membership to part of a co-equal coalition, then that's cool. 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 5/31/2007 10:42 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 From karl at cavebear.com Thu May 31 15:58:50 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:58:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) In-Reply-To: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0705310544u1040f613t658f2b3db267ed7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <465F28FA.3060804@cavebear.com> 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-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 31 16:12:13 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 23:12:13 +0300 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: On 5/31/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > I tend to feel rather uncomfortable with your formulation because it > doesn't seem to include people. Agreed For example, your formulation excludes me. and 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. Absolutely! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Thu May 31 16:13:22 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:13:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: 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 From ca at rits.org.br Thu May 31 16:25:20 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:25:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? In-Reply-To: References: 20070531123314.CF467E05D8@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: Ideas "from the outside" might be good too. There is life outside of the caucus :) --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 06:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: [governance] bureau yes bureau no??? > Where did the Bureau ‘idea’ come from ??? > > If the ‘bureau idea’ did not come from the IGC [Internet > Governance Caucus], > {Obviously by all accounts it *was-not* Paraminder, the idea was > circulating > ‘before’ Paraminder made clarifications.} > > Then from whom was the idea interjected ??? > > - > > ‘ALL’ (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 ‘Someone’ in the room > did. > > [Hummm? – sympathetic ITU personnel perhaps … 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 From Mueller at syr.edu Thu May 31 16:27:24 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:27:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas) Message-ID: Michael: >>> mgurst at vcn.bc.ca 5/31/2007 10:02:06 AM >>> >"civil society" in this context refers to those individuals, in >some few instances representing groupings, with both the >interest and the resources to pursue involvement in these >discussions. Same is true of the private sector. In spades. It's even true of governments. >perhaps most damaging of all, there appears to have been >almost no attempt by "civil society" in this context to reach >out to that larger group Not true, lots of outreach takes place. It's expensive and time-consuming by the way, and thus limited by how many resources you have. But we have learned through direct experience that many people in CS simply aren't going to be interested in these rather specialized issues, for the time being. The level of participation can change overnight when something happens that catches people's attention. So I reject the view that there is something deeply wrong with what we (CS) are doing because not every single advocacy group, church group, local radio station, college student group, telecentre, etc. in the world is not on this list. If you understand political process, you would know that getting people involved in something is far more complex than inviting them. In the history of movements you learn that 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. And you never know when they will suddenly pay attention. So you'd better be ready. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu May 31 16:31:54 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:54 +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: <465F30BA.4090708@wzb.eu> I am sort of in between Bertrand's and Karl's position. Of course, it would be good to define the magic formula for the composition of multi-stakeholder structures in a way that questions such as balance and fairness of representation are once and forever settled. And what Bertrand describes sounds like a good model although I don't quite understand the arithmetic. (If all UN organizations have access to UN meetings and we add other couple of organizations such as ICANN, IETF etc, we end up with a clear dominance of international organizations.) At the same time, Bertrand's model looks like snapshot in time whose time to live might be less than a year or two. 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. jeanette Karl Auerbach schrieb: > > 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-- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jsarr at refer.sn Tue May 22 06:13:20 2007 From: jsarr at refer.sn (jsarr at refer.sn) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 10:13:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Happy birthday wolfgang! In-Reply-To: <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <4650EAA3.6050307@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4651C320.3050804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20070521174405.4667B1AD4C1@mail.gn.apc.org> <20070522081006.7FD3D1AD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20070522101320.5tm58qcrk0s44ocw@courrier.refer.sn> A l'attention de Wolfgang, Bon anniversaire, vieille branche Joseph SARR ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance