From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Nov 30 18:40:44 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:40:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Indeed, Veni, competition in consumer broadband last-mile connectivity service in the US is dreadfully low. So, all that really does is support Karl's claim of end user powerlessness that George was disputing. It seems to me that Karl was just allowing George's point without deep analysis (or perhaps Karl was thinking about domain-hosting services, independent of last-mile connectivity, where competition remains quite robust even in the US -- "ISP" may not be a very precise term anymore) because Karl was making a different point about power in institutional structures of political governance, rather than power in a commercial marketplace (two *very* different realms). Please, this is just a "gotcha" tactic of rhetorical distraction, and brings us off point from what Karl and George are really trying to discuss, which is a substantive issue of real significance. This is precisely part of the "noise" that dilutes productive discussion on this list. There was really no need for this comment at all, and nothing was really gained by it, unless you were simply trying to spuriously undermine trust in Karl as an individual speaker. That is not a substantive topic. As long as we're trying to clear the list of ad hominems, can we please try to clear this stuff off too? It dissipates the substantive focus of discussions on the list, and that's good for no one except those who wish to obstruct and distract from such productive discussion. Thanks, Dan At 3:31 PM -0500 11/30/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >At 11:20 11/30/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: > >>For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>select ISP's and the like. > >This sounds strange. At least in New York City there is a choice - >between cable Internet and Verizon. Both are at the same price, more >or less. Is this really a choice? Compare: in Sofia, Bulgaria you can >choose among about 20 big ISPs, and about 500 smaller (true, in the >whole city, not each of them covers all of the buildings). >In New York you can choose between "business" and "family" or >something like that plan. Speeds - up to 6Mbps. In Sofia - tens of >plans, speeds - up to 1000 Mbps. Prices - adequate: in New York City >it is more expensive than in Sofia. I call that a choice. > >But, again, that is my own, non US-centric, point of view. Or, rather, fact? > >veni > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Fri Nov 30 21:12:12 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:12:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <272f01c83392$55fa7be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <272f01c83392$55fa7be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> Ian Peter ha scritto: > Sorry to raise yet another heresy, > > But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users Constituency and > a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who would get > involved in ALAC? > > I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing > structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an ALAC and > a NCUC? In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic and NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as well) do not always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had in the At Large several people from consumer organizations and technical groups pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those of the NCUC and of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating full disclosure and authentication of whoever is behind a website, including individuals. A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some perhaps in both). That might make more sense. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Fri Nov 30 21:25:13 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 02:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> References: <272f01c83392$55fa7be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Vittorio, this all is a feature coming from design. As Jackie has already well indicated, the NCUC (originally non-commercial domain-name holders, which we later expanded to represent non-commercial interest in generic domain names) is focused on generic domain names, whereas the ALAC covers all that ICANN does and may attract the general user, i.e. not only generic names but also ccTLD names, IP addresses, etc. WARNING. This is not a defense because there is no attack. It is an explanation. It is too bad that for many people an explanation or the dismissal of an untruth reads like a defense. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:12:12 +0800 > From: Vittorio Bertola > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Vittorio Bertola > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > Ian Peter ha scritto: >> Sorry to raise yet another heresy, >> >> But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users Constituency and >> a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who would get >> involved in ALAC? >> >> I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing >> structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an ALAC >> and >> a NCUC? > > In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of the > average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic and NGO > groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as well) do not > always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had in the At Large > several people from consumer organizations and technical groups pushing for > positions that are completely opposite to those of the NCUC and of the civil > rights organizations, e.g. advocating full disclosure and authentication of > whoever is behind a website, including individuals. > > A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups have to > be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some perhaps in both). > That might make more sense. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 30 21:37:37 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:37:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4750C8F1.2000401@cavebear.com> George Sadowsky wrote: > However, I do think that the way you phrase it, i.e. "the body that > extracts over half a billion dollars (US$ out of the pockets of domain > name buyers every year," goes in the wrong direction. It's correct that > ICANN is involved in price setting, but per domain name the cost is > closer to $6. My estimate is based on a computed registry cost (which I'll get to in a few paragraphs), an ICANN granted registry fee of about $7 (not to mention the ICANN piece of every registration), and about 75,000,000 names (largely in .com). There is no doubt that domain name buyers are paying in excess of $500,000,000 per year just in the ICANN granted registry fee. The question is how much does it actually cost to provide those registry services? A price-setting regulatory body ought to know how much it costs to provide the regulated service being provided. Unfortunately the body of internet governance that sets domain name registry prices (and its own fee as well) seems to never have bothered to inquire as to the actual cost. Perhaps it is obvious to that body, but it is certainly not obvious to me. The $6 appears to be nothing but a fiat amount - it appears to be based on no evidence, no information, no audit - no nothing. There is no evidence that ICANN has never tried to establish a cost basis. And now it is going up to $7, not $6, with an additional bi-yearly 7% rise, again without any supporting accounting, much less audited accounting. I've estimated the cost at about $0.03 per name per year. Perhaps that is too low, perhaps not. But what evidence is there to contradict my calculations? I'd love to hear concrete, auditable, quantitative information that leads me (and us) to a real answer that we can believe and use rather than debate. The analysis of others also indicates that $6 much, much higher than the real cost. Suppose that I'm off by a factor of 33x. That still means that ICANN is pumping/taxing the internet to the tune of about $400,000,000 (USD) on .com alone every year and splitting the proceeds between itself and Verisign. Alternatively we can use Tucow's bid at running .com at $2 - on which basis the money pump is a mere $330,000,000 every year (on .com alone) and rising with ICANN's 7% solution. Even at these lesser amounts, the sums are still quite significant. Thus we see an ICANN, because it is not accountable to the community of internet users, that has become excessively accommodating to the registry industry - gifting it with huge revenue streams and profit margins that are measured in the 1000% to 35,000% range. When the body of internet governance not only guarantees registries a profit, but a profit margin measured in tens of thousands of percents, is it still internet governance? Or is it something else? When I was on the board at ICANN I found an across-the-board (pun intended) reluctance to look at any sort of hard numbers of anything, even ICANN's own expenses. Indeed, when I went to look for myself I found my way barred and I had to bring legal action simply so that I could do what board members around the world are empowered to do - look at the financial records. In other words, I am suggesting that there may be an institutional aversion to asking too many questions about where and how money flows. One of my concerns about ICANN's nominating committee process is that it tends to produce people who are worthies but are of an accommodating nature, not of the ilk will demand to see hard proof of an assertion. As such it is not surprising that ICANN has simply accepted a domain name registry price policy that began with an arbitrary number - a number that was simply created out of thin air a few years ago - and increments it by a percentage that was also created out of thin air. Had ICANN had a working election process it may have found its board populated by more people willing to require hard facts before granting rich price terms, paid for not by ICANN but, instead, out of the pockets of the users of the internet. > I agree with you that WHOIS continues to be a problem, complicated by > competing interests but also by non-interoperable national legal codes, > over which we have relatively no control (at least in the short run). > I'd like to see that sorted out also, but I don't see any voting scheme > able to solve that problem without creating other problems of equal or > greater magnitude. You are right that voting systems alone will not solve Whois. But allowing internet users light a fire under ICANN's board, a fire created through the accountability provided by elections, then I submit that ICANN would not have repeatedly waivered when the intellectual property industry said "boo", as it did just a few weeks ago in Los Angeles. > I understand that you have a severe dislike of the current UDRP. Is > there a comprehensive alternative you would like to suggest that is > significantly better? If you have already suggested it, what has been > its reception and why? The UDRP starts with a fundamental error: It acts as a sword to vindicate rights in a name only if those rights are based on trademark. In other words, if I own a trademark "foo" then I can use the UDRP to challenge others who use "foo". I might win, I might loose, but at least I have the UDRP as a tool. On the other hand, if I am named "foo" or my god is named "foo" or my university is named "foo" - all of which are legal, valid, and legitimate non-trademark uses of that name - and I feel that my rights are violated by someone else's use of "foo", then I can not call upon the UDRP, the UDRP is not a tool that I can invoke simply because my rights in the name are not trademark based. In other words, the first thing to fix in the UDRP is to make require only that the plantiff have rights in a name, not that those rights are trademark rights. Secondly, the UDRP replaces the existing legal system. The legal system is complex and expensive because it bends over backwards to be fair. The UDRP is attractive to intellectual property owners and lawyers (like me, on both counts) because it is fast and cheap. But that speed and low cost come at a price - the loss of fairness. Among the ways the UDRP is unfair is the way that those who make choices are paid, it tends to make them friendly to the plaintiff. Thirdly, because the UDRP is a private law that supersedes nations it tends to squash cultural differences. I'm certain that in the Sudan right now nobody is wondering about the trademark names associated with a certain teddy bear that has been in the news. That situation demonstrates how different are the cultural feelings about names that the UDRP covers with a single worldwide, commercial trade name based system. > What do you think of my suggestion to concentrate on the great majority > of Internet users, mostly those without domain names, and do two > things. First, define their real needs to the best of our ability. > Second, and only after we've done the first, discuss what forms of > structure, conduct and governance would best meet those needs, nows and > in the future? Yes is useful to remember that the internet is much larger than those who spend money on domain names. And that is precisely why I find the "stakeholder" conception so pernicious - it tends to identify the degree of interest ("stake") and thus the degree of authority in bodies of internet governance with the amount of money that the putative "stakeholder" spends or makes. So yes, we ought to remember the vast masses who are unheard and who's money in the net is not clearly identifiable and not, on an individual basis, very large. On the other hand, when we have a fairly clear cut issue - such as domain name registry fees unrelated to the actual cost of providing the domain name registry service - and a well identifiable body of people being harmed (those who buy domain names and also, as we should not forget, those who find them too expensive and this forego buying a domain name), and an amount of money that would be significant even by Rockefeller standards, then that is an issue we ought to face. --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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 21:42:13 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:42:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> References: <272f01c83392$55fa7be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20071201024213.GA9469@hserus.net> Vittorio Bertola [01/12/07 10:12 +0800]: > always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had in the At > Large several people from consumer organizations and technical groups > pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those of the NCUC and > of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating full disclosure and > authentication of whoever is behind a website, including individuals. Well, at least the technical groups are going to push for full disclosure in whois. Any and every group that is working on spam, botnets etc (and these are not restricted to any particular stakeholder community) know the dangers of completely suppressing whois, or introducing na�ve proposals like OPOC, and can produce quite a lot of valid reasons for full disclosure - reasons that have to do with protecting users privacy from being abused in a way that is going to be far more likely than the usual reasons cited by sections of civil society for suppressing whois. If you will accept my position that "civil society" as such doesnt exist - it is an amorphous mass with a diverse spectrum of opinions, and little or no hope of getting consensus on these .. > A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups have > to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some perhaps in > both). That might make more sense. Different functions for these two communities, as others suggested? srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 30 21:38:25 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:38:25 +1100 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <4750C2FC.8020202@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> Vittorio stated >A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups >have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some >perhaps in both). That might make more sense. I remain unconvinced at the necessity for both an ALAC and a NCUC in a sensible and efficient structure for channeling what might effectively be called relevant civil society input to a names and numbers organisation. Alx added >the NCUC (originally non-commercial domain-name holders, which we later >expanded to represent non-commercial interest in generic domain names) is >focused on generic domain names, whereas the ALAC covers all that ICANN >does and may attract the general user, i.e. not only generic names but also >ccTLD names, IP addresses, etc. Historically relevant because of the forces at play and the insistence of Esther Dyson, but in a greenfields situation would you ever come up with a structure like that? I don't see great differentiation between those interest areas and those likely to want to be involved. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] Sent: 01 December 2007 13:12 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? Ian Peter ha scritto: > Sorry to raise yet another heresy, > > But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users Constituency and > a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who would get > involved in ALAC? > > I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing > structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an ALAC and > a NCUC? In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic and NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as well) do not always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had in the At Large several people from consumer organizations and technical groups pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those of the NCUC and of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating full disclosure and authentication of whoever is behind a website, including individuals. A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some perhaps in both). That might make more sense. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Nov 30 21:46:15 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:46:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Dan, I would disagree that low costs and more consumer choice, as reported by Veni, support Karl's claim of powerlessness. Every country has an ISP industry, shaped by competitive forces, history, and the legislative and regulatory environment in which it exists. These determine the structure, conduct, and behavior of the actors in ISP industry. In the US, it depends where you are. If you're in Washington, you have lots of choices; if you're in Hanover, New Hampshire, you have at most two. There are locations in the US where there are no broadband choices. Some countries, especially those that are geographically compact, can offer more comprehensive broadband connectivity in similar policy environments. Users are not made powerless by connectivity prices that are above lower costs available elsewhere in the world. The ARE made powerless by lack of any connectivity or by connectivity that is outrageously expensive. I would like to stress that these are national and local problems, and not international problems except to the extent that they are replicated in country after country. To the extent that they exist, I argue that this is a case for telecommunications reform at the national and local level, and that we should be working with governments, as well as other sectors of society, to demonstrate the benefits of liberalization for this sector. On the one had, I think that it's terrific that Bulgarians have all kinds of choices with respect to the purchase of Internet connectivity. On the other hand, I don't think that users in other countries are necessarily substantially disadvantaged by that. We need to work with all countries to enable them to understand the opportunity costs of not liberalizing, so that they can make the Internet even more of an empowering tool than it is already. I would argue that institutional governance of the Internet is important, but less important than seeing that user needs are met. They are clearly interrelated, but identifying needs comes first, and then governance arrangements that maximize meeting those identified needs should follow. Form should follow function. I think that tends to be forgotten for a number of postings on this list. Let's focus first on real needs and then how to best meet them. Let's also remember that when we talk about Internet users, the great majority of them don't have domain names, so it's not the domain name industry that we should be focusing on but the user community as a whole, at present and to a fair extent, in the future also. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 3:40 PM -0800 11/30/07, Dan Krimm wrote: >Indeed, Veni, competition in consumer broadband last-mile connectivity >service in the US is dreadfully low. > >So, all that really does is support Karl's claim of end user powerlessness >that George was disputing. It seems to me that Karl was just allowing >George's point without deep analysis (or perhaps Karl was thinking about >domain-hosting services, independent of last-mile connectivity, where >competition remains quite robust even in the US -- "ISP" may not be a very >precise term anymore) because Karl was making a different point about power >in institutional structures of political governance, rather than power in a >commercial marketplace (two *very* different realms). > >Please, this is just a "gotcha" tactic of rhetorical distraction, and >brings us off point from what Karl and George are really trying to discuss, >which is a substantive issue of real significance. > >This is precisely part of the "noise" that dilutes productive discussion on >this list. There was really no need for this comment at all, and nothing >was really gained by it, unless you were simply trying to spuriously >undermine trust in Karl as an individual speaker. That is not a >substantive topic. > >As long as we're trying to clear the list of ad hominems, can we please try >to clear this stuff off too? It dissipates the substantive focus of >discussions on the list, and that's good for no one except those who wish >to obstruct and distract from such productive discussion. > >Thanks, >Dan > > > >At 3:31 PM -0500 11/30/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >>At 11:20 11/30/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: >> >>>For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >>>select ISP's and the like. >> >>This sounds strange. At least in New York City there is a choice - >>between cable Internet and Verizon. Both are at the same price, more >>or less. Is this really a choice? Compare: in Sofia, Bulgaria you can >>choose among about 20 big ISPs, and about 500 smaller (true, in the >>whole city, not each of them covers all of the buildings). >>In New York you can choose between "business" and "family" or >>something like that plan. Speeds - up to 6Mbps. In Sofia - tens of >>plans, speeds - up to 1000 Mbps. Prices - adequate: in New York City >>it is more expensive than in Sofia. I call that a choice. >> >>But, again, that is my own, non US-centric, point of view. Or, rather, fact? >> >>veni >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 21:49:26 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:49:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <4750C8F1.2000401@cavebear.com> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <4750C8F1.2000401@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071201024926.GA9554@hserus.net> Karl Auerbach [30/11/07 18:37 -0800]: > A price-setting regulatory body ought to know how much it costs to provide > the regulated service being provided. Unfortunately the body of internet > governance that sets domain name registry prices (and its own fee as well) > seems to never have bothered to inquire as to the actual cost. Karl, anybody at all can trot out figures - $.03 to $7. I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle - certainly several times your figure but rather less than $6 or $7, especially at volume. What would you say to providing a minimum floor set of criteria for services a registrar must provide its customers, that would actually be worth $6 (e&oe lowering costs by outsourcing your ops, support etc to the Phillipines)? srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 30 21:45:13 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:45:13 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <28c201c833c4$3b4826d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Taking up Alx's challenge A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs 1. Governmental 2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) 3. Technical innovators and standards groups 4. Public interest groups Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. Each would need to have its point of view considered in addressing the issue. Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group That's the building blocks (or a first stab at them), and gives you an idea of the sort of structure that might evolve 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: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] Sent: 30 November 2007 17:03 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Milton, so, for a breath of fresh air for all, do we choose one of those subjects (any will do for me as they are all of importance) and work out what the governance physiology and anatomy have to be, building on the experience avaialble to date? That way, we don't have to shy away from difficult questions, we just tackle them as they appear in a different context. So if for any of the issues a structure that can be useful requires, say, global user representation, a discussion can be held about how to provide it in a meaningful way, and then, if elections look like the alternative, a reasonably clear electorate can be defined, etc., people can look at how they should work; and if an ALAC-like web-of-trust concept seems a better, or at least an alternative solution, again that can be given proper thought. And so on. No discussion precluded, no holds barred, no punches held, ample room for flame wars and what have you. But instead of dwelling on the imperfections of one organization with one field of work, people have a chance to apply all the lessons already learned to start something that solves a different, yet unsolved problem. This productive exercise starts by identifying the problem, segmenting it into treatable chunks, clarifying who are the stakeholders, who their representatives, what their different - potentially competing - interests and the principles that drive them, and so on and on. Institutional design, problem-oriented, problem-domain by problem-domain, building on history. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:25:14 -0500 > From: Milton L Mueller > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Alejandro Pisanty > Subject: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] >> >> 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet >> Governance question that is not ICANN; > > There is strong interest here in many IG issues that are not purely ICANN. I see four main categories: > > 1. Internet security governance, and the related privacy issues. These issues intersect with ICANN (DNSSEC, Whois, certain aspects of the IPv6 transition) but go beyond it (spam, viruses, phishing, DDoS attacks, transnational cooperation among CERTS; routing security; transnational surveillance and data retention; digital identity) > > 2. Transnational content regulation. A big push to regulate content in the name of child abuse was evident at Rio; at the same time, human rights NGOs sought to advance or solidify global commitments to free expression on the internet (AI, Bill of Rights, Net Neutrality). Here too, there is an intersection with ICANN issues, as when ICANN develops new global standards to regulate the semantic content of new top-level domain names. > > 3. Intellectual property (at the global level). The "France to Require ISPs to Filter Infringing Music" is an example of how copyright protection can intersect with IG issues. IPRs do however intersect in many ways with domain name and Whois issues, as you know, AP. > > 4. Trade & competition policy. A variety of international economic regulatory issues ranging from Internet interconnection arrangements to market dominance by MS or Google to content regulations that act as trade barriers fall in this category. These too intersect with IPR issues (TRIPS) and ICANN issues (e.g., IP address markets, whether national ccTLD monopolies will be privileged with new IDNs before anyone else, etc.) > > You ask whether there is "still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list with the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full than half-empty?" My answer is of course there is. The discussion would be impoverished otherwise. As I have shown in the categories above, ICANN is a central institution and its activities intersect with all four of them. I think ICANN defenders need to move beyond their obsession with the "are you for us or against us" question, which is really getting old, and deal with the substantive policy issues and the accountability questions. Most of us so-called "ICANN critics" have always been concerned about substantive policy issues; the criticisms stem from disagreement with the policy directions it has taken and (not unrelated) its susceptibility to influence from interest groups (trademark and copyright) or political powers (USG, GAC) due to its imperfect structure. > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: 29/11/2007 20:32 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Fri Nov 30 21:56:13 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 02:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <28c101c833c3$47013580$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: Ian, when we get to a greenfields situation for a new issue it will be great to discuss what structure fits the function. Looking back a day into the files of this list you may find a proposal in which Bill Drake, Milton, and I seem to agree to not discuss ICANN for a period. Instead, to pick another issue in the WGIG list, amenable for global Internet governance, and start discussing the governance needs, mechanisms, and then if logic takes us there, structures that perform the functions identified as necessary. The intent of that proposal is to frigging stop the frigging polarized discussion and see if there are issues on which there can be more agreement and then start the heat again. The adjective "productive" also applies to such a discussion. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Ian Peter wrote: > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:38:25 +1100 > From: Ian Peter > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter > To: 'Vittorio Bertola' , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > Vittorio stated > >> A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups >> have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some >> perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > > I remain unconvinced at the necessity for both an ALAC and a NCUC in a > sensible and efficient structure for channeling what might effectively be > called relevant civil society input to a names and numbers organisation. > > Alx added > >> the NCUC (originally non-commercial domain-name holders, which we later >> expanded to represent non-commercial interest in generic domain names) is >> focused on generic domain names, whereas the ALAC covers all that ICANN >> does and may attract the general user, i.e. not only generic names but also >> ccTLD names, IP addresses, etc. > > Historically relevant because of the forces at play and the insistence of > Esther Dyson, but in a greenfields situation would you ever come up with a > structure like that? I don't see great differentiation between those > interest areas and those likely to want to be involved. > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: 01 December 2007 13:12 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? > > Ian Peter ha scritto: >> Sorry to raise yet another heresy, >> >> But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users Constituency > and >> a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who would get >> involved in ALAC? >> >> I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing >> structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an ALAC > and >> a NCUC? > > In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of > the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic and > NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as well) > do not always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had in > the At Large several people from consumer organizations and technical > groups pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those of > the NCUC and of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating full > disclosure and authentication of whoever is behind a website, including > individuals. > > A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups > have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some > perhaps in both). That might make more sense. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 > 12:12 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 > 12:12 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 22:00:17 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:00:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <28c201c833c4$3b4826d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <28c201c833c4$3b4826d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: >A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs >1. Governmental >2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) >3. Technical innovators and standards groups >4. Public interest groups >Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to other civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask for. CoE convention on cybercrime - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-toolkit-background.pdf And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess how ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html >Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group At an international level? What you would get at that level is again coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each others initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all the citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public toilet or how much to spend to improve a local park. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 30 22:03:21 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:03:21 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> Message-ID: <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get cross-boundary co-operation currently. That’s a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved solely by governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms at least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are substantial of course. . Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller' Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]: >A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs >1. Governmental >2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc) >3. Technical innovators and standards groups >4. Public interest groups >Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue. Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to other civ soc, agency talking to agency etc) Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask for. CoE convention on cybercrime - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying them practically, instead of as a thought experiment - http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-toolki t-background.pdf And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess how ready it is to deal with cybersecurity. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html >Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group At an international level? What you would get at that level is again coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each others initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all the citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public toilet or how much to spend to improve a local park. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Fri Nov 30 22:14:11 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 03:14:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <4750C8F1.2000401@cavebear.com> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <4750C8F1.2000401@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, the continued ad-hominem diatribes contained in your postings motivate me to go once into a very different mode of discussion than we all prefer. You will have to reconsider your language. First of all, the non-native English speakers in this list deserve at least that you do some serious spell-checking, as a minimal courtesy. I know manners are beyond your preferred character of the unbounded, unfettered spoiled three-year old brat, and begin to believe that it is not only a rhetorical or theatrical persona which you like to assume. Second, you will have to moderate your characterizations of people you are talking about, and to, in negative terms. You may decide to call uncivil the responses you get when they finally decide to call your bluff face-on. It will be helpful for all that you pay a more attentive ear to what others are saying. I take your responses about the ALAC, even after reading Jacqueline's clear rendering of the reasons why others think a direct, one-person, etc. vote does not work to bring a voice of the users, to mean that, as our celebrated Guillermo de Tovar y de Teresa once said, "you don't understand that you don't understand." I do not think that people in this group can do useful work based on flawed assumptions and premises. The ones you profer about the ICANN Board during the time of your presence in it belong in that category. You went into the ICANN Board in a wild hunt against a lawyer you disliked, and while others were hard at work looking at hard figures, asking hard questions, designing complex systems, fighting monopolies' attacks and trickery, and so on (admittedly with shortcomings) you chose to ignore and belittle the people and their work. That you continue offending them unchallenged has become inadmissible. That you continue to try to make people accept your ideas on flawed premises, presumptions of third parties' intentions, and blatant lies has exceeded the limits of tolerance. The asymmetry of your making ad-hominem attacks without response has, too. I am very sorry to have to use more list bandwidth in this appeal for you to consider others, their ideas, and their expressions of them with moderation and temperance, and to repeat my appeal to look at something different that can be made to work. Ian Peter has joined that view too, it seems to me, and I couldn't be more glad. On to the cybercrime issue he proposes. Let those experienced, knowledgeable, and in good will tread those grounds. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:37:37 -0800 > From: Karl Auerbach > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Karl Auerbach > To: George Sadowsky > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? > > George Sadowsky wrote: > >> However, I do think that the way you phrase it, i.e. "the body that >> extracts over half a billion dollars (US$ out of the pockets of domain name >> buyers every year," goes in the wrong direction. It's correct that ICANN >> is involved in price setting, but per domain name the cost is closer to $6. > > My estimate is based on a computed registry cost (which I'll get to in a few > paragraphs), an ICANN granted registry fee of about $7 (not to mention the > ICANN piece of every registration), and about 75,000,000 names (largely in > .com). > > There is no doubt that domain name buyers are paying in excess of > $500,000,000 per year just in the ICANN granted registry fee. The question > is how much does it actually cost to provide those registry services? > > A price-setting regulatory body ought to know how much it costs to provide > the regulated service being provided. Unfortunately the body of internet > governance that sets domain name registry prices (and its own fee as well) > seems to never have bothered to inquire as to the actual cost. > > Perhaps it is obvious to that body, but it is certainly not obvious to me. > > The $6 appears to be nothing but a fiat amount - it appears to be based on no > evidence, no information, no audit - no nothing. There is no evidence that > ICANN has never tried to establish a cost basis. And now it is going up to > $7, not $6, with an additional bi-yearly 7% rise, again without any > supporting accounting, much less audited accounting. > > I've estimated the cost at about $0.03 per name per year. Perhaps that is > too low, perhaps not. But what evidence is there to contradict my > calculations? I'd love to hear concrete, auditable, quantitative information > that leads me (and us) to a real answer that we can believe and use rather > than debate. > > The analysis of others also indicates that $6 much, much higher than the real > cost. > > Suppose that I'm off by a factor of 33x. That still means that ICANN is > pumping/taxing the internet to the tune of about $400,000,000 (USD) on .com > alone every year and splitting the proceeds between itself and Verisign. > > Alternatively we can use Tucow's bid at running .com at $2 - on which basis > the money pump is a mere $330,000,000 every year (on .com alone) and rising > with ICANN's 7% solution. > > Even at these lesser amounts, the sums are still quite significant. > > Thus we see an ICANN, because it is not accountable to the community of > internet users, that has become excessively accommodating to the registry > industry - gifting it with huge revenue streams and profit margins that are > measured in the 1000% to 35,000% range. > > When the body of internet governance not only guarantees registries a profit, > but a profit margin measured in tens of thousands of percents, is it still > internet governance? Or is it something else? > > When I was on the board at ICANN I found an across-the-board (pun intended) > reluctance to look at any sort of hard numbers of anything, even ICANN's own > expenses. Indeed, when I went to look for myself I found my way barred and I > had to bring legal action simply so that I could do what board members around > the world are empowered to do - look at the financial records. > > In other words, I am suggesting that there may be an institutional aversion > to asking too many questions about where and how money flows. > > One of my concerns about ICANN's nominating committee process is that it > tends to produce people who are worthies but are of an accommodating nature, > not of the ilk will demand to see hard proof of an assertion. > > As such it is not surprising that ICANN has simply accepted a domain name > registry price policy that began with an arbitrary number - a number that was > simply created out of thin air a few years ago - and increments it by a > percentage that was also created out of thin air. > > Had ICANN had a working election process it may have found its board > populated by more people willing to require hard facts before granting rich > price terms, paid for not by ICANN but, instead, out of the pockets of the > users of the internet. > > >> I agree with you that WHOIS continues to be a problem, complicated by >> competing interests but also by non-interoperable national legal codes, >> over which we have relatively no control (at least in the short run). I'd >> like to see that sorted out also, but I don't see any voting scheme able to >> solve that problem without creating other problems of equal or greater >> magnitude. > > You are right that voting systems alone will not solve Whois. > > But allowing internet users light a fire under ICANN's board, a fire created > through the accountability provided by elections, then I submit that ICANN > would not have repeatedly waivered when the intellectual property industry > said "boo", as it did just a few weeks ago in Los Angeles. > >> I understand that you have a severe dislike of the current UDRP. Is there >> a comprehensive alternative you would like to suggest that is significantly >> better? If you have already suggested it, what has been its reception and >> why? > > The UDRP starts with a fundamental error: It acts as a sword to vindicate > rights in a name only if those rights are based on trademark. > > In other words, if I own a trademark "foo" then I can use the UDRP to > challenge others who use "foo". I might win, I might loose, but at least I > have the UDRP as a tool. > > On the other hand, if I am named "foo" or my god is named "foo" or my > university is named "foo" - all of which are legal, valid, and legitimate > non-trademark uses of that name - and I feel that my rights are violated by > someone else's use of "foo", then I can not call upon the UDRP, the UDRP is > not a tool that I can invoke simply because my rights in the name are not > trademark based. > > In other words, the first thing to fix in the UDRP is to make require only > that the plantiff have rights in a name, not that those rights are trademark > rights. > > Secondly, the UDRP replaces the existing legal system. The legal system is > complex and expensive because it bends over backwards to be fair. The UDRP is > attractive to intellectual property owners and lawyers (like me, on both > counts) because it is fast and cheap. But that speed and low cost come at a > price - the loss of fairness. Among the ways the UDRP is unfair is the way > that those who make choices are paid, it tends to make them friendly to the > plaintiff. > > Thirdly, because the UDRP is a private law that supersedes nations it tends > to squash cultural differences. I'm certain that in the Sudan right now > nobody is wondering about the trademark names associated with a certain teddy > bear that has been in the news. That situation demonstrates how different > are the cultural feelings about names that the UDRP covers with a single > worldwide, commercial trade name based system. > > >> What do you think of my suggestion to concentrate on the great majority of >> Internet users, mostly those without domain names, and do two things. >> First, define their real needs to the best of our ability. Second, and >> only after we've done the first, discuss what forms of structure, conduct >> and governance would best meet those needs, nows and in the future? > > Yes is useful to remember that the internet is much larger than those who > spend money on domain names. And that is precisely why I find the > "stakeholder" conception so pernicious - it tends to identify the degree of > interest ("stake") and thus the degree of authority in bodies of internet > governance with the amount of money that the putative "stakeholder" spends or > makes. > > So yes, we ought to remember the vast masses who are unheard and who's money > in the net is not clearly identifiable and not, on an individual basis, very > large. > > On the other hand, when we have a fairly clear cut issue - such as domain > name registry fees unrelated to the actual cost of providing the domain name > registry service - and a well identifiable body of people being harmed (those > who buy domain names and also, as we should not forget, those who find them > too expensive and this forego buying a domain name), and an amount of money > that would be significant even by Rockefeller standards, then that is an > issue we ought to face. > > --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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 22:14:29 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:14:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <008601c833c8$4a5947e0$df0bd7a0$@net> Ian Peter wrote: > Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the > almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the > ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get > cross-boundary co-operation currently. It depends on which part of the government you are asking. Telecom / Internet regulators, consumer protection / competition authorities, law enforcement etc do cooperate. But the stakeholder silo effect comes into play - quite a lot of these different "groups" of government reps have their own channels of cooperation, and may not be aware of others that exist. However, the silver lining is that what you describe - broad based - IS being done at various levels. And quite a few of the stakeholders actually involved are perfectly aware of each other. Did you attend the stopspamalliance dynamic coalition at Rio (or at Athens) by any chance? You would have met quite a few of the key players there. http://www.stopspamalliance.org - and its member organizations (ITU, OECD, APECTEL, London Action Plan, MAAWG, CAUCE/APCAUCE ..) are intl orgs, public/private groups like LAP, ISP associations like MAAWG, civil society antispam like CAUCE and APCAUCE..) The focus is "spam" - though most of them do have a rather broader interest in cybercrime because whether or not "telecom" convergence has been achieved, spammers, botherders and other online criminals have certainly converged, and have done so years back. What's more, they are cooperating to the sort of extent the "good guys" in this fight can possibly just dream about. > That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved > solely by governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical > co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms We *are* actually on the same page here e&oe details, believe it or not. Could you go back to my last email and read that background paper I wrote, please? srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 22:18:15 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:18:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <008601c833c8$4a5947e0$df0bd7a0$@net> References: <20071201030017.GB9554@hserus.net> <28d001c833c6$c2bcbf70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <008601c833c8$4a5947e0$df0bd7a0$@net> Message-ID: <008701c833c8$d0e34450$72a9ccf0$@net> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > http://www.stopspamalliance.org - and its member organizations (ITU, > OECD, APECTEL, London Action Plan, MAAWG, CAUCE/APCAUCE ..) are intl orgs, > public/private groups like LAP, ISP associations like MAAWG, civil > society antispam like CAUCE and APCAUCE..) There's a much bigger list on the website of course, but for the purposes of this discussion,ISOC is also a stopspamalliance member. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 30 22:34:09 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:34:09 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <008701c833c8$d0e34450$72a9ccf0$@net> Message-ID: <290f01c833cb$100b68e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Yep, I went to their workshop. Dutch regulator on spam said only countries he could rely on for co-operation were USA and Australia. Industry guy said worst phishers were known, and where they lived, but because of lack of cross-border co-operation they couldn’t touch them. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: 01 December 2007 14:18 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > http://www.stopspamalliance.org - and its member organizations (ITU, > OECD, APECTEL, London Action Plan, MAAWG, CAUCE/APCAUCE ..) are intl orgs, > public/private groups like LAP, ISP associations like MAAWG, civil > society antispam like CAUCE and APCAUCE..) There's a much bigger list on the website of course, but for the purposes of this discussion,ISOC is also a stopspamalliance member. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007 12:12 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 22:43:18 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:43:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <290f01c833cb$100b68e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <008701c833c8$d0e34450$72a9ccf0$@net> <290f01c833cb$100b68e0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <008f01c833cc$50c853b0$f258fb10$@net> Ian Peter wrote: > > Yep, I went to their workshop. Dutch regulator on spam said only > countries > he could rely on for co-operation were USA and Australia. Industry guy > said > worst phishers were known, and where they lived, but because of lack of > cross-border co-operation they couldn't touch them. > What was unspoken is .. cross border cooperation is active in countries that are already doing something about this. Countries that are not doing something about this fall into two categories. 1. Don't know + lack capacity - several developing and LDC economies 2. Don't care - such as (say) the countries that quite a few of the phishers and virus / worm writers are based in Now, finding ways to engage the countries that don't know is fairly easy and straightforward, especially when working through (or rather, in cooperation with) international orgs like ITU, APEC, etc. Finding ways to engage the countries that don't care? Well now, there's the rub. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 30 23:23:24 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:23:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4750E1BC.9020901@cavebear.com> George Sadowsky wrote: > I would disagree that low costs and more consumer choice, as reported by > Veni, support Karl's claim of powerlessness. As I may have mentioned elsewhere my use of the word "powerless" is in the context of bodies of internet governance, whether existing or contemplated. This has nothing whatsoever to do with consumer choice. (Although one must admit that in terms of consumer choices, the TLD products that ICANN allows to be sold on the internet are rather few and the similarities are rather more striking than the differences.) My concern here is political power - with the understanding, of course, that in matters of governance, we are talking about political choices involving the use of power to deny, tax, and coerce that exceed those powers available to mere people or even non-governmental aggregates of people. In a prior note you asked about the UDRP. One of the aspects that I mentioned is that the UDRP is designed by ICANN to be a weapon that is available only to trademark holders and is denied to mere users of the net. Similarly, registries, one of the several internet technical bodies, intellectual property lawyers, and businesses get a red carpet invitation directly into the heart of ICANN's decision making processes. While at the same time internet users have to go through layer upon layer upon layer of ALAC filtering. It is the accumulation of these badges of second class citizenship that make internet users' power within ICANN paltry and nearly invisible when compared to the authority that ICANN grants to those few who receive the vaunted label of "stakeholders". --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Nov 1 11:50:14 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:50:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits In-Reply-To: <242901c81bef$08118a00$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <242901c81bef$08118a00$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20071101155014.GA1493@sources.org> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 05:51:10AM +1100, Ian Peter wrote a message of 230 lines which said: > the Internet technical community's biggest failure. I fail to see why it's the *technical* community failure. Technically, IPv6 works and do so for a long time. Its non-deployment is purely the result of economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of), without any technical issue involved. > It doesn?t do much at all really except address the numbering > allocation issue. Yes, and this is one of the big problems we currently face. So it's nice to see that at least one problem has a solution -:) I've just visited the university of Nouakchott (Mauritania) and it has a /24 (255 IP addresses) for its 9,000 students. That's the problem IPv6 solves. (Stanford University in the USA has 15,000 students and a /14, 260,000 addresses.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Nov 1 13:03:51 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 18:03:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits In-Reply-To: <773398.98942.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <773398.98942.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071101170351.GA14743@sources.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:15:54AM -0700, David Goldstein wrote a message of 72 lines which said: > Language such as this does nothing to encourage people to have a > voice in internet governance other than current interested > players. If you want to keep internet goverance in the hands of the > first world with a voice and great telecommunications, fine. Although a big mouth certainly helps in Internet governance fora (and in other places), "great telecommunications" are not necessary. Actually, me reply was one of the smallest messages on this list in October. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 1 16:14:55 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:14:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits In-Reply-To: <773398.98942.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <773398.98942.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/07, David Goldstein wrote: > Stephane, > > Your language is frankly rude. I thought there was a touch of humor in it. We have been talking about IPv4 runout for many years. >Language such as this does nothing to encourage people to have a voice in internet governance other than current interested players. If you want to keep internet goverance in the hands of the first world with a voice and great telecommunications, fine. Why is one connected to the other? There are many Africans actively involved in these (IPv4 exhaustion/transition to IPv6) discussions. >But unless encouragement is given to a multitude of voices, then you might as well go live on the moon yourself. I don't think we should encourage the uses of the term "armageddon" regarding this topic. -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Nov 1 18:00:03 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits Message-ID: <357145.32220.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The issue is there are people on this list, and others, who would like to participate who feel intimidated by much of the language here. Yes, it's all about context, and obviously we read Stephane's words somewhat differently. A problem with email. So how about not appear to be shouting down someone who wants to get involved? And your mention of "many Africans", well, it depends I guess on what you call many. And it's not just Africans of course. It's about anyone who wants to get involved and currently feels intimidated. I know there are a few at least on this list in this situation. And it's not an issue unique to this list. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Cc: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Sent: Friday, 2 November, 2007 7:14:55 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits On 10/31/07, David Goldstein wrote: > Stephane, > > Your language is frankly rude. I thought there was a touch of humor in it. We have been talking about IPv4 runout for many years. >Language such as this does nothing to encourage people to have a voice in internet governance other than current interested players. If you want to keep internet goverance in the hands of the first world with a voice and great telecommunications, fine. Why is one connected to the other? There are many Africans actively involved in these (IPv4 exhaustion/transition to IPv6) discussions. >But unless encouragement is given to a multitude of voices, then you might as well go live on the moon yourself. I don't think we should encourage the uses of the term "armageddon" regarding this topic. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim Get the World's number 1 free email service. www.yahoo.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 1 18:48:45 2007 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:48:45 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits Message-ID: <8509112321F70CCE5CCFA94D@as-paul-l-7.local> >> the Internet technical community's biggest failure. > > I fail to see why it's the *technical* community failure. Technically, > IPv6 works and do so for a long time. Its non-deployment is purely the > result of economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of), > without any technical issue involved. Absolutely. It's like blaming the "scientific community" for global warming, because their solar panels and fuel cells haven't been taken up by industry and the community. IPv6 has been deployable for years, but the business case hasn't existed, just as it hasn't existed for hybrid cars until recently. Meanwhile IPv4 addresses keep getting allocated, and the earth gets hotter and hotter. I'm not defending that state of affairs (far from it) but it is the world we live in. So we can take a lesson from the climate issue, which is that progress may rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots level. It's not that Governments don't have a role, but that the real missing link here is demand from Internet users to get IPv6 services from their providers. If IPv6 has a problem, it is that there is no feature that will make any immediate difference to the users - on the contrary it is designed to behave exactly the same way as IPv4. Then again a Prius drives like any other car, but people are starting to buy it... Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 1 19:30:59 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:30:59 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits In-Reply-To: <20071101155014.GA1493@sources.org> Message-ID: <308701c81cdf$4c135800$8b00a8c0@IAN> -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] >I fail to see why it's the *technical* community failure. Technically, >IPv6 works and do so for a long time. Its non-deployment is purely the >result of economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of), >without any technical issue involved. Well there are a few technical issues, some of them raised here by Randy Bush http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf They mainly relate to co-existence with IPv4, implementation issues, and multi-homing. There are also some substantial technical issues in enterprise adoption. There are also incompatibilities with a lot of existing hardware and of course existing systems. If the upgrade was technically easy it might have been completed a decade ago! Sure, there are economic, financial and political factors at work as well, but... I described it as a technical community failure, not a technical failure. Vague term, I know, but the rollout has been a complete stuffup because the implementation factors weren't thought through carefully. A classic "build it and they will come" example. I take the point that blaming the technical community doesn't help. However, this does illustrate why the concept of technical only co-ordination is problematic and how in governance we need to develop structures that can assist in dealing with issues like this. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.18/1104 - Release Date: 01/11/2007 18:47 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 2 13:08:12 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:08:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Up dates on the situation of ICTRC - Dr. Sohrab Razzaghi arrested Message-ID: <200711021707.lA2H7O77008794@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is for a brief up date regarding the closure of the offices and training centres of the Iranian NGO ICTRC in Tehran. I've been informed a few days ago that Dr. Sohrab Razzaghi, Executive Director of the ICTRC, has been arrested. He has apparently been transferred to the Evin Prison. Members of the ICTRC team are also being interrogated these days in Tehran. The judiciary has apparently not circulated motivations for the closure of the ICTRC and the arrest of Dr. Razzaghi. A number of NGOs are now organising quick pressure and seeking international attention. See for example at http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/1199 and in Farsi http://freesohrab.wordpress.com . We'll keep you updated. Best regards, 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Fri Nov 2 13:43:21 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:43:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: [GAID Steering] Renewal of Membership in the GAID Strategy Counciland Steering Committee Message-ID: <200711021742.lA2HgWA3024677@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is the note of the GAID Secretariat regarding the renewal of membership of the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee. I also re-attached the recent e-mail I circulated in this regard a couple of days ago. As discussed, the deadline for nominations is 30 November 2007. As previously announced, we have not yet any idea of who, among the outgoing Strategy Council (see membership here) and Steering Committee members (see membership here ), will be maintained and which ones will go out. I’ll come back to you early next week with some proposals regarding a CS self nomination process (please send any comment on that matter). The timeline as confirmed by the GAID Secretariat note is as follows: GAID Steering Committee GAID Strategy Council Deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members 15 August 2007 30 November 2007 Deadline for new nominations for membership 30 November 2007 30 November 2007 Announcement of the Appointment of new members End of December 2007 End of December 2007 Office taking of the new members 1 April 2008 1 April 2008 Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership May 2008 Kuala Lumpur May 2008 Kuala Lumpur Best regards, Philippe Dam _____ De : steering-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:steering-bounces at un-gaid.org] De la part de Sarbuland Khan Envoyé : lundi, 29. octobre 2007 15:38 À : steering at un-gaid.org Objet : [GAID Steering] Renewal of Membership in the GAID Strategy Counciland Steering Committee Dear Colleagues, To ensure continuity and renewal of membership in the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee, the GAID Secretariat initiated a nomination process last 31 July 2007 for membership in both bodies. It is envisioned that approximately one-third of the membership in the Strategy Council and Steering Committee should rotate. According to the Terms of Reference adopted at the 27 September 2006 meeting of the Steering Committee (see attached), the term of the members of the GAID Steering Committee was due to end in September 2007, and the term of members of the GAID Strategy Council will conclude before the next meeting of the Strategy Council on May 2008 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during the World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT)). However, as agreed by the Steering Committee in its meeting last 19 September 2007 in New York, more time is needed for the consultation process for nominations, particularly to membership in the Steering Committee. It has been agreed that the term of the present membership in the Steering Committee be continued through March 2008 and to extend the Steering Committee consultation process to align with the timeframe for the process of rotation in the Strategy Council. The terms of the next GAID Steering Committee and Strategy Council would, therefore, run as follows: Steering Committee (one year term) 1 April 2008 - 31 March 2009 Strategy Council (two year term) 1 April 2008 31 March 2010 RENEWAL OF MEMBERSHIP OF EXISTING MEMBERS The Secretariat kindly requests current members, who have not yet done so, to indicate whether they would be available and interested to be considered as a candidate for renewal. We would be grateful to receive this information (addressed to dejesus3 at un-gaid.org) no later than 30 November 2007, both for Steering Committee members and Strategy Council members. NOMINATIONS OF NEW CANDIDATES The Secretariat invites nominations for new candidatures for the Steering Committee for approximately 4 seats, and the Strategy Council for approximately 20 seats (1/3 of the membership of each stakeholder group) by 30 November 2007. (Please see http://www.un-gaid.org/en/about/howgaidworks for the list of current members.) As is established practice, nominations for Member States are being solicited through the United Nations regional groups. Civil society and trade organizations are being invited to identify nominations from among their constituencies. There is no limit to the number of nominations that may be submitted. Qualified organizations may also independently express interest in membership. Nominations should be submitted to the Secretariat by the appropriate deadline noted above through the email address nominate at un-gaid.org. APPOINTMENT The list of recommended candidates will be developed, following consultations with the Strategy Council and the Steering Committee, and approved on behalf of the Secretary-General by the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The appointment of new members is anticipated to be announced by the end of December 2007. With my best personal regards, Sincerely, Sarbuland Khan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TOR_strategycouncil_7sep2006.doc Type: application/msword Size: 48128 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TOR_steeringcommittee_14sep2006.doc Type: application/msword Size: 55808 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00048.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Up date on renewal of GAID structures (StrategyCouncil and Steering Committee) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:13:28 +0100 Size: 28913 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From puna_gb at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 01:59:04 2007 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 22:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Up dates on the situation of ICTRC - Dr. Sohrab Razzaghi arrested In-Reply-To: <200711021707.lA2H7O77008794@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <54348.31850.qm@web31503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We welcome the news and are happy, and let us hope that many more like that will be brought to justice! Gao Mosweu Botswana CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } Dear all, This is for a brief up date regarding the closure of the offices and training centres of the Iranian NGO ICTRC in Tehran. I’ve been informed a few days ago that Dr. Sohrab Razzaghi, Executive Director of the ICTRC, has been arrested. He has apparently been transferred to the Evin Prison. Members of the ICTRC team are also being interrogated these days in Tehran. The judiciary has apparently not circulated motivations for the closure of the ICTRC and the arrest of Dr. Razzaghi. A number of NGOs are now organising quick pressure and seeking international attention. See for example at http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/1199 and in Farsi http://freesohrab.wordpress.com. We’ll keep you updated. Best regards, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Sat Nov 3 15:31:22 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:31:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] Reporting from the IGF Message-ID: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> All, I was wondering whether we should try to get organized to prepare civil society reports about what happens at the IGF. It would be good to keep track of what is said in the main sessions and in as many workshops as possible, even if briefly, so that all our efforts in organizing workshops and pushing our themes do not get lost. So in the end we could produce a small "civil society IGF report" to use both to spread news to other CS groups that did not attend, and to provide a record of the discussions... and of the nice commitments by other stakeholders that then often vanish just after the meeting :) Would this be a good idea? Of course it would need to rely on many of us volunteering to produce reports, possibly avoiding to have people reporting on their own events, to make it more reliable. But I'm curious to see whether others find this a good idea. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sat Nov 3 16:32:01 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:32:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reporting from the IGF In-Reply-To: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> References: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20071103203206.163A4242783@mail.gn.apc.org> hi vittorio I'm ccing frederic dubois who is coordinating APC's media and content work at the IGF - we will be focussing on priority issues for APC i'm not offering the APC comms/media team to civil society in general ;) - but, it might be useful to coordinate efforts amongst those who are doing comms/media work from civil society karen >I was wondering whether we should try to get organized to prepare >civil society reports about what happens at the IGF. It would be >good to keep track of what is said in the main sessions and in as >many workshops as possible, even if briefly, so that all our efforts >in organizing workshops and pushing our themes do not get lost. So >in the end we could produce a small "civil society IGF report" to >use both to spread news to other CS groups that did not attend, and >to provide a record of the discussions... and of the nice >commitments by other stakeholders that then often vanish just after >the meeting :) > >Would this be a good idea? Of course it would need to rely on many >of us volunteering to produce reports, possibly avoiding to have >people reporting on their own events, to make it more reliable. But >I'm curious to see whether others find this a good idea. > >Regards, >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- 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 Nov 4 01:25:45 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 11:55:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reporting from the IGF In-Reply-To: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20071104062554.A8D65A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Getting a civil society IGF report out is a valuable thing, but quite ambitious as well. We need to really coordinate well for it and some of us to work hard. But I am for doing it. Ideally. We need to have worked in advance to delineate the manner in which this report should be made, and the overall civil society issues and principles that it focuses on. Free hand reporting by a number of us is quite a different matter, and no doubt shall go on. We will like to hear views of members on this. The feasibility of the idea, and how to take it forward. In any case, we should start preparing for such a report much earlier for the next IGF. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:01 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Reporting from the IGF All, I was wondering whether we should try to get organized to prepare civil society reports about what happens at the IGF. It would be good to keep track of what is said in the main sessions and in as many workshops as possible, even if briefly, so that all our efforts in organizing workshops and pushing our themes do not get lost. So in the end we could produce a small "civil society IGF report" to use both to spread news to other CS groups that did not attend, and to provide a record of the discussions... and of the nice commitments by other stakeholders that then often vanish just after the meeting :) Would this be a good idea? Of course it would need to rely on many of us volunteering to produce reports, possibly avoiding to have people reporting on their own events, to make it more reliable. But I'm curious to see whether others find this a good idea. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 4 01:47:25 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:17:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM Message-ID: <20071104064732.3A416E1C13@smtp3.electricembers.net> This is also to reconfirm that IG Caucus will meet at 6 PM after the GigaNet meeting on the 11th. The place of the meeting will be announces soon. Markus has indicated that he is available to step into the meeting if IGC so desires. I think we should take the offer. It helps keep a close liaison with the IGF secretariat, and we can clarify substantive issues that we may have with him. 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 guru at itforchange.net Sun Nov 4 01:54:28 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:24:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' Message-ID: <20071104065415.6339BA6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> Not very long back, the thrust of quite a few discussions and submissions on ig was "... Ig issues are really technical in nature and should be left to 'neutral' technical bodies and experts to decide ... And should not be 'politicised' or become a playground for non-experts, including Governments to influence or participate in decision making ...." So here we seem to have moved 180 degree to assert that the (non) move to IPv6 is really a political and policy failure than a technical one. I agree, for how can the technical community make a move happen or not happen, they can only provide (valuable) substantive inputs on the need for the move and the pros and cons ... And people / institutions who govern / play a role in governance need to make the larger decisions of movement An element of policy or politics is inherent in such movements, since invariably they have pros and cons and affect different sections differently ... For e.g. one perspective could be that the move to IPv6 is critical for nations as India or China that will need significant 'quantity' of these resources in the days to come ... While the move involves costs (of migration) for the current players, without commensurate benefits to them. So are we also saying that the original wisdom of internet being ideally "self-regulated" by an "internal / trade-association" is not really valid.... And we need to explore governance structures and processes that would do both - get the best of technical inputs in, as well as negotiate amongst multiple stakeholders to arrive at decisions that are both 'desirable' and 'implementable' .... ("War is too important to be left to the generals") I am also intrigued by Paul's assertion that "... which is that progress may rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots level". I am not able visualise a billion Indians standing up to demand IPv6 implementation ... Policy making perhaps is more complex than 'meeting the demand articulated by consumers', though the needs of individuals is indeed a critical input to policy. We hope to discuss some of these issues in a workshop at IGF workshop on "Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources" (see http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=37) on Nov 14. Speakers include Carlos Afonso, Milton Mueller, George Sadowsky .... This workshop will seek to explore the normative basis of present systems of governance of critical internet resources, and also alternative normative bases or frameworks - like ones based on 'commons' principle, public interest principle, or 'public-ness' of the Internet principle, and such. Obviously, such an exploration will also go into examining what constitutes public interest in IG, and which publics are involved here. While stability and security are obvious issues, other issues of public interest such as "development of the Internet" may require greater elaboration, and may also involve greater policy trade-offs. The IPv6 migration issue may be one such. Guru _____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities www.ITforChange.net Ps - this is ver 2.0 of a mail I sent couple of days earlier which has not reached the list... -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:19 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits >> the Internet technical community's biggest failure. > > I fail to see why it's the *technical* community failure. Technically, > IPv6 works and do so for a long time. Its non-deployment is purely the > result of economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of), > without any technical issue involved. Absolutely. It's like blaming the "scientific community" for global warming, because their solar panels and fuel cells haven't been taken up by industry and the community. IPv6 has been deployable for years, but the business case hasn't existed, just as it hasn't existed for hybrid cars until recently. Meanwhile IPv4 addresses keep getting allocated, and the earth gets hotter and hotter. I'm not defending that state of affairs (far from it) but it is the world we live in. So we can take a lesson from the climate issue, which is that progress may rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots level. It's not that Governments don't have a role, but that the real missing link here is demand from Internet users to get IPv6 services from their providers. If IPv6 has a problem, it is that there is no feature that will make any immediate difference to the users - on the contrary it is designed to behave exactly the same way as IPv4. Then again a Prius drives like any other car, but people are starting to buy it... Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Nov 4 05:40:37 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:40:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM In-Reply-To: <20071104064732.3A416E1C13@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, You might ask Markus if it¹d be convenient for him to come by around 6:30, in case the meeting is slow to come together and get focused with people milling around etc. Probably he¹ll be pretty busy so it wouldn¹t make sense for him to be spinning his wheels before we¹ve gotten it together. Best, Bill PS: The final Giga program is On 11/4/07 7:47 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > This is also to reconfirm that IG Caucus will meet at 6 PM after the GigaNet > meeting on the 11th. The place of the meeting will be announces soon. > > Markus has indicated that he is available to step into the meeting if IGC so > desires. I think we should take the offer. It helps keep a close liaison with > the IGF secretariat, and we can clarify substantive issues that we may have > with him. > > 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Sun Nov 4 05:54:21 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 08:54:21 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM In-Reply-To: References: <20071104064732.3A416E1C13@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20071104105452.39EB5242B2C@mail.gn.apc.org> hi >You might ask Markus if it'd be convenient for him to come by around >6:30, in case the meeting is slow to come together and get focused >with people milling around etc. Probably he'll be pretty busy so it >wouldn't make sense for him to be spinning his wheels before we've >gotten it together. key APC staff have a meeting at 7 (at least for myself, anriette and willie) - any chance the meeting could be a little earlier? karen >Best, > >Bill > >PS: The final Giga program is > >On 11/4/07 7:47 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > >This is also to reconfirm that IG Caucus will meet at 6 PM after the >GigaNet meeting on the 11th. The place of the meeting will be announces soon. > >Markus has indicated that he is available to step into the meeting >if IGC so desires. I think we should take the offer. It helps keep a >close liaison with the IGF secretariat, and we can clarify >substantive issues that we may have with him. > >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 -------------- 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 Nov 4 13:52:23 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 13:52:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reporting from the IGF In-Reply-To: <20071104062554.A8D65A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> <20071104062554.A8D65A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45ed74050711041052o1c0fb5cehc0cf076a98c78ade@mail.gmail.com> Dear Parminder and All: In response re discussion of reporting IGF-II, and in particular in the sense of individual sources of reporting, I plan coverage in person and/or by WEB from the *Respectful Interfaces* approach / platform, and if useful to others that will be great. In all forms of *people assembling* (verb) and toward broadening *Peoples Assemblies* (noun), there will doubtless emerge a pool of shared observations, to which we can look forward eagerly. Very best wishes and of course *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. For I.D. only here: Communications Coordination Committee For The United nations (NGO). On 11/4/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > Getting a civil society IGF report out is a valuable thing, but quite > ambitious as well. We need to really coordinate well for it and some of us > to work hard. But I am for doing it. > > Ideally. We need to have worked in advance to delineate the manner in > which > this report should be made, and the overall civil society issues and > principles that it focuses on. Free hand reporting by a number of us is > quite a different matter, and no doubt shall go on. > > We will like to hear views of members on this. The feasibility of the > idea, > and how to take it forward. > > In any case, we should start preparing for such a report much earlier for > the next IGF. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Reporting from the IGF > > All, > > I was wondering whether we should try to get organized to prepare civil > society reports about what happens at the IGF. It would be good to keep > track of what is said in the main sessions and in as many workshops as > possible, even if briefly, so that all our efforts in organizing > workshops and pushing our themes do not get lost. So in the end we could > produce a small "civil society IGF report" to use both to spread news to > other CS groups that did not attend, and to provide a record of the > discussions... and of the nice commitments by other stakeholders that > then often vanish just after the meeting :) > > Would this be a good idea? Of course it would need to rely on many of us > volunteering to produce reports, possibly avoiding to have people > reporting on their own events, to make it more reliable. But I'm curious > to see whether others find this a good idea. > > Regards, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > ). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From iza at anr.org Sun Nov 4 14:58:22 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 04:58:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits In-Reply-To: <308701c81cdf$4c135800$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <20071101155014.GA1493@sources.org> <308701c81cdf$4c135800$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: Hi, We are organizing the IPv4-v6 Workshop in Rio; *From IPv4 to IPv6: Challenges and Opportunities* so this discussion is very interesting. Please join this workshop on Nov 12 afternoon, right after the opening ceremony if you are coming to Rio. I am also a member of ICANN's AtLarge Advisory Committee, which is supposed to delivere the individual users' voices into ICANN process, and just came back from ICANN Los Angeles meeting. ALAC made the following statement at the Address Community's (or ASO's) workshop. This is still a "draft", pending final edit and consensus, but gives you the basic view of, at least, At Large users community at present ICANN. It was also a part of the ALAC Chair's presentation at the public forum, the transcription of the entire forum can be seen here, (though it is quite lengthy). http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/LA-PublicForum2-1NOV07.txt I think rather than finding who WAS responsible, etc, it is much more constructive and important to find ways for solution for this challenge - and it is I believe the job of ALL stakeholders, not just one or the other. Thanks and see you in Rio! izumi --------- We are aware that sometime within a few years the current pool of IPv4 addresses will expire, which may have a significant impact on the use of Internet by broad public. We ask the global address allocation registries to make sure that the allocation of the remaining pool of IPv4 addresses be done in a fair and equitable manner. The challenge here is what exactly we mean by "fair and equitable" – and we understand that this requires an open and inclusive policy development process. We respect the work done by the RIRs so far and we are willing to actively participate more. We are concerned about the potential creation of a "black market" of the IPv4 addresses and call for a rational way to make a secondary market a reality. We also call for a reasonable way of recollecting the unused IPv4 address blocks. We also like to call for more outreach work initiated by the address community to make sure that the issues are understood clearly and the solutions are communicated openly. We understand that the best solution to this challenge is to make a smooth and orderly transition to the broad use of IPv6. There are several challenges and tasks to make that to happen: - Organize awareness campaign for the need for timely transition - Avoid media scares by providing accurate information to wider public - Make sure all "public sites" by governments and commercial service providers implement IPv4-v6 dual capacity in a timely manner - That measures be taken to help developing countries to prepare for the transition in a timely and affordable manner - Prepare a timeline under which we can operate the transition program, such as outreach, technical assistance and other preparation in a timely manner so that suitable, reliable and effective planning can be made 2007/11/2, Ian Peter : > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] > > > >I fail to see why it's the *technical* community failure. Technically, > >IPv6 works and do so for a long time. Its non-deployment is purely the > >result of economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of), > >without any technical issue involved. > > Well there are a few technical issues, some of them raised here by Randy > Bush > > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf > > They mainly relate to co-existence with IPv4, implementation issues, and > multi-homing. There are also some substantial technical issues in > enterprise > adoption. There are also incompatibilities with a lot of existing hardware > and of course existing systems. > > If the upgrade was technically easy it might have been completed a decade > ago! Sure, there are economic, financial and political factors at work as > well, but... > > I described it as a technical community failure, not a technical failure. > Vague term, I know, but the rollout has been a complete stuffup because > the > implementation factors weren't thought through carefully. A classic "build > it and they will come" example. > > I take the point that blaming the technical community doesn't help. > However, > this does illustrate why the concept of technical only co-ordination is > problematic and how in governance we need to develop structures that can > assist in dealing with issues like this. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.18/1104 - Release Date: > 01/11/2007 > 18:47 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Mon Nov 5 02:54:05 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:54:05 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Reporting from the IGF In-Reply-To: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> References: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01DA8C8F@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Vittorio, For me who can not be present and wish to follow what have happen, I find your proposal a very good one! Hope it will become a reality! 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: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] Skickat: den 3 november 2007 21:31 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Reporting from the IGF All, I was wondering whether we should try to get organized to prepare civil society reports about what happens at the IGF. It would be good to keep track of what is said in the main sessions and in as many workshops as possible, even if briefly, so that all our efforts in organizing workshops and pushing our themes do not get lost. So in the end we could produce a small "civil society IGF report" to use both to spread news to other CS groups that did not attend, and to provide a record of the discussions... and of the nice commitments by other stakeholders that then often vanish just after the meeting :) Would this be a good idea? Of course it would need to rely on many of us volunteering to produce reports, possibly avoiding to have people reporting on their own events, to make it more reliable. But I'm curious to see whether others find this a good idea. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Nov 5 05:55:35 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:55:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <20071104065415.6339BA6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20071104065415.6339BA6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20071105105535.GB20021@nic.fr> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 12:24:28PM +0530, Guru at ITfC wrote a message of 116 lines which said: > Not very long back, the thrust of quite a few discussions and > submissions on ig was "... Ig issues are really technical in nature > and should be left to 'neutral' technical bodies and experts to > decide ... And should not be 'politicised' or become a playground > for non-experts, including Governments to influence or participate > in decision making ...." I disagree that it was "the thrust". *Some* persons or organizations used a reasoning like this one. For instance, ICANN always says that it performs a "narrow technical function" when it wants to escape responsability. (We all know that it is a lie.) Also, *some* persons in the "technical community" said similar things (I heard it at the IETF or in RIR meetings). But they are not the majority. > So here we seem to have moved 180 degree to assert that the (non) > move to IPv6 is really a political and policy failure than a > technical one. No, the people you mention above still want the Internet issues to escape the political process. The people who claimed that technical issues are often political issues in disguise, or that everything is political, still believe it. Nobody switched his mind. > For e.g. one perspective could be that the move to IPv6 is critical > for nations as India or China that will need significant 'quantity' > of these resources in the days to come ... While the move involves > costs (of migration) for the current players, without commensurate > benefits to them. Correct. > So are we also saying that the original wisdom of internet being > ideally "self-regulated" by an "internal / trade-association" is not > really valid. It never was. It has always been a legend. > And we need to explore governance structures and processes that > would do both - get the best of technical inputs in, as well as > negotiate amongst multiple stakeholders to arrive at decisions that > are both 'desirable' and 'implementable' And *the* big issue in Internet governance is to find such structures and processes while there is currently today zero model to be based on (UN organizations are typically an anti-model, ICANN is just a front, and a bad one, for the US government). Some organizations are better than others, typically because they are limited to a small role. IETF is quite good, because it is limited to standardization. If it were to be involved in other areas (such as deployment of the technologies it standardizes), its limits would become much clearer. > I am also intrigued by Paul's assertion that "... which is that > progress may rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots > level". I am not able visualise a billion Indians standing up to > demand IPv6 implementation ... Indeed. This is a very naive pro-market assertion, the sort of which was never backed by any example in the real world. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 5 08:29:13 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:29:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] ISOC - Bulgaria will have representative at the IGF In-Reply-To: <20071105105535.GB20021@nic.fr> References: <20071104065415.6339BA6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20071105105535.GB20021@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20071105132912.C88F3337D29@mxr.isoc.bg> Hi. I remember the discussion few months ago about sending new people to the IGF (I think Adam or Robert wrote on that?), and here's the name of the person who will represent Internet Society - Bulgaria in Rio: Ms. Dragoslava (Dessi) Pefeva Please, since this is her first WSIS/IGF - related activity, if you see her, keep her informed about Civil Society activities. I will send her a separate e-mail so that she can subscribe to this mailing list. Some of you may know her via the At Large, where she's representing ISOC.bg. Sincerely, Veni Markovski, President and Chairman of the Board Internet Society - Bulgaria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 5 10:23:07 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:53:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM In-Reply-To: <20071104105452.39EB5242B2C@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20071105152316.5BF28A6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> Karen, The meeting starts at 6 PM so as not to clash with GigaNet program. It will go on till 8 PM. If it is at all possible I will request APC to consider meeting after 8 PM. Presence of APC folks is important for the IGC. Bill, I will request Markus to come in at 630, he can be around till 7. From 6 to 630 and 7 to 8 IGC can take up its internal agenda. The agenda will be finalized in the next 3 days. Inputs for it are welcome. Parminder _____ From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM hi You might ask Markus if itd be convenient for him to come by around 6:30, in case the meeting is slow to come together and get focused with people milling around etc. Probably hell be pretty busy so it wouldnt make sense for him to be spinning his wheels before weve gotten it together. key APC staff have a meeting at 7 (at least for myself, anriette and willie) - any chance the meeting could be a little earlier? karen Best, Bill PS: The final Giga program is On 11/4/07 7:47 AM, "Parminder" wrote: This is also to reconfirm that IG Caucus will meet at 6 PM after the GigaNet meeting on the 11th. The place of the meeting will be announces soon. Markus has indicated that he is available to step into the meeting if IGC so desires. I think we should take the offer. It helps keep a close liaison with the IGF secretariat, and we can clarify substantive issues that we may have with him. 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 -------------- 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 Nov 5 11:25:12 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:25:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM In-Reply-To: <0JR1002DSHETA3K0@victor.unige.ch> Message-ID: Parminder, Actually, I went back and looked at the prior thread on this and believe we ended up saying that we¹d end the GigaNet biz meeting in time for the IGC to start at 5:30. Having a deadline might even be helpful to move that meeting along. So why don¹t we count on IGC at 5:30 (in the same room, Pardo 1, right? make sure it¹s reserved), ask Markus to pop in at 6:00, and APC folks can head off to their thing at 7:00. By that point I¹m sure that more than few of us, especially the exhausted GigaNauts, will be needing a few caiperinas anyway. Is the dynamic coalition meeting that Carlos was talking about still happening, and if so when/where? Best, Bill On 11/5/07 4:23 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > Karen, > > The meeting starts at 6 PM so as not to clash with GigaNet program. It will go > on till 8 PM. If it is at all possible I will request APC to consider meeting > after 8 PM. Presence of APC folks is important for the IGC. > > Bill, > > I will request Markus to come in at 630, he can be around till 7. > > From 6 to 630 and 7 to 8 IGC can take up its internal agenda. The agenda will > be finalized in the next 3 days. Inputs for it are welcome. > > Parminder > > > > From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:24 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM > > hi > > > > You might ask Markus if itd be convenient for him to come by around 6:30, in > case the meeting is slow to come together and get focused with people milling > around etc. Probably hell be pretty busy so it wouldnt make sense for him > to be spinning his wheels before weve gotten it together. > > key APC staff have a meeting at 7 (at least for myself, anriette and willie) - > any chance the meeting could be a little earlier? > > karen > > > > Best, > > Bill > > PS: The final Giga program is > > On 11/4/07 7:47 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > This is also to reconfirm that IG Caucus will meet at 6 PM after the GigaNet > meeting on the 11th. The place of the meeting will be announces soon. > > Markus has indicated that he is available to step into the meeting if IGC so > desires. I think we should take the offer. It helps keep a close liaison with > the IGF secretariat, and we can clarify substantive issues that we may have > with him. > > 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Nov 5 13:51:14 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:51:14 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM In-Reply-To: <20071105152317.6BEBD247135@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20071104105452.39EB5242B2C@mail.gn.apc.org> <20071105152317.6BEBD247135@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20071105185118.3C91A20521A@mail.gn.apc.org> hi bill >The meeting starts at 6 PM so as not to clash with GigaNet program. >It will go on till 8 PM. If it is at all possible I will request APC >to consider meeting after 8 PM. Presence of APC folks is important >for the IGC. i'm afraid we're committed from 7pm, for the evening.. karen > >Bill, > >I will request Markus to come in at 630, he can be around till 7. > > From 6 to 630 and 7 to 8 IGC can take up its internal agenda. The > agenda will be finalized in the next 3 days. Inputs for it are welcome. > >Parminder > > >---------- >From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] >Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:24 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Governance >Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM > >hi > > >You might ask Markus if itd be convenient for him to come by around >6:30, in case the meeting is slow to come together and get focused >with people milling around etc. Probably hell be pretty busy so it >wouldnt make sense for him to be spinning his wheels before weve >gotten it together. > >key APC staff have a meeting at 7 (at least for myself, anriette and >willie) - any chance the meeting could be a little earlier? > >karen > > >Best, > >Bill > >PS: The final Giga program is > >On 11/4/07 7:47 AM, "Parminder" wrote: >This is also to reconfirm that IG Caucus will meet at 6 PM after the >GigaNet meeting on the 11th. The place of the meeting will be announces soon. > >Markus has indicated that he is available to step into the meeting >if IGC so desires. I think we should take the offer. It helps keep a >close liaison with the IGF secretariat, and we can clarify >substantive issues that we may have with him. > >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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 5 13:54:35 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 05:54:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM In-Reply-To: <20071105152316.5BF28A6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <080d01c81fdd$57a2f530$310810ac@IAN> FYI ISOC is also meeting across this time frame (1700-1930) . Difficult all round. Ian Peter _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 06 November 2007 02:23 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'karen banks'; 'William Drake' Subject: RE: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM Karen, The meeting starts at 6 PM so as not to clash with GigaNet program. It will go on till 8 PM. If it is at all possible I will request APC to consider meeting after 8 PM. Presence of APC folks is important for the IGC. Bill, I will request Markus to come in at 630, he can be around till 7. From 6 to 630 and 7 to 8 IGC can take up its internal agenda. The agenda will be finalized in the next 3 days. Inputs for it are welcome. Parminder _____ From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM hi You might ask Markus if itd be convenient for him to come by around 6:30, in case the meeting is slow to come together and get focused with people milling around etc. Probably hell be pretty busy so it wouldnt make sense for him to be spinning his wheels before weve gotten it together. key APC staff have a meeting at 7 (at least for myself, anriette and willie) - any chance the meeting could be a little earlier? karen Best, Bill PS: The final Giga program is On 11/4/07 7:47 AM, "Parminder" wrote: This is also to reconfirm that IG Caucus will meet at 6 PM after the GigaNet meeting on the 11th. The place of the meeting will be announces soon. Markus has indicated that he is available to step into the meeting if IGC so desires. I think we should take the offer. It helps keep a close liaison with the IGF secretariat, and we can clarify substantive issues that we may have with him. 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: HYPERLINK "http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/inf o/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 04/11/2007 11:05 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 04/11/2007 11:05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From iza at anr.org Mon Nov 5 21:02:32 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:02:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reporting from the IGF In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01DA8C8F@ensms02.iris.se> References: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01DA8C8F@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: I also support the idea of CS reporting, and also understand the challenge to get organized. Is there any way to facilitate "self-organizing" - just send each piece into this list? Appoint coordinator(s) - Vittorio, could you take the lead as our co-cordinator, or have any candidate? I can volunteer to report one or two sessions, say I am on Security, perhaps, or IPv4-v6 workshop as I am the organizer and on the panel. izumi 2007/11/5, Kicki Nordström : > Dear Vittorio, > > For me who can not be present and wish to follow what have happen, I find your proposal a very good one! > > Hope it will become a reality! > 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: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Skickat: den 3 november 2007 21:31 > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Ämne: [governance] Reporting from the IGF > > All, > > I was wondering whether we should try to get organized to prepare civil society reports about what happens at the IGF. It would be good to keep track of what is said in the main sessions and in as many workshops as possible, even if briefly, so that all our efforts in organizing workshops and pushing our themes do not get lost. So in the end we could produce a small "civil society IGF report" to use both to spread news to other CS groups that did not attend, and to provide a record of the discussions... and of the nice commitments by other stakeholders that then often vanish just after the meeting :) > > Would this be a good idea? Of course it would need to rely on many of us volunteering to produce reports, possibly avoiding to have people reporting on their own events, to make it more reliable. But I'm curious to see whether others find this a good idea. > > Regards, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 5 23:08:35 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:38:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071106040843.6FE8EA6C4E@smtp2.electricembers.net> In that case, we can have the meeting from 530 to 730. I have written to Markus inviting him to come in at 630, and interact with IGC till 7. let us stick to that, and do other work before that. And we can fold the meeting up in half an hour after Markus's timeslot, ie the meeting can be over at 730 PM. Parminder _____ From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:55 PM To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Banks, Karen Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM Parminder, Actually, I went back and looked at the prior thread on this and believe we ended up saying that we'd end the GigaNet biz meeting in time for the IGC to start at 5:30. Having a deadline might even be helpful to move that meeting along. So why don't we count on IGC at 5:30 (in the same room, Pardo 1, right? make sure it's reserved), ask Markus to pop in at 6:00, and APC folks can head off to their thing at 7:00. By that point I'm sure that more than few of us, especially the exhausted GigaNauts, will be needing a few caiperinas anyway. Is the dynamic coalition meeting that Carlos was talking about still happening, and if so when/where? Best, Bill On 11/5/07 4:23 PM, "Parminder" wrote: Karen, The meeting starts at 6 PM so as not to clash with GigaNet program. It will go on till 8 PM. If it is at all possible I will request APC to consider meeting after 8 PM. Presence of APC folks is important for the IGC. Bill, I will request Markus to come in at 630, he can be around till 7. From 6 to 630 and 7 to 8 IGC can take up its internal agenda. The agenda will be finalized in the next 3 days. Inputs for it are welcome. Parminder _____ From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's meeting on 1th at 6 PM hi You might ask Markus if itd be convenient for him to come by around 6:30, in case the meeting is slow to come together and get focused with people milling around etc. Probably hell be pretty busy so it wouldnt make sense for him to be spinning his wheels before weve gotten it together. key APC staff have a meeting at 7 (at least for myself, anriette and willie) - any chance the meeting could be a little earlier? karen Best, Bill PS: The final Giga program is On 11/4/07 7:47 AM, "Parminder" wrote: This is also to reconfirm that IG Caucus will meet at 6 PM after the GigaNet meeting on the 11th. The place of the meeting will be announces soon. Markus has indicated that he is available to step into the meeting if IGC so desires. I think we should take the offer. It helps keep a close liaison with the IGF secretariat, and we can clarify substantive issues that we may have with him. 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Nov 6 09:18:03 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:18:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Intersession Panel - 28-30/11/07 Message-ID: <200711061417.lA6EHFLQ026145@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the very draft provisional programme of the Kuala Lumpur CSTD intersession Panel. In accordance with the multi-year programme of work adopted at the 10th session, the Panel will address: - Science, technology and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and research; - Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment (This is related to the WSIS follow up mandate of the CSTD). On each of the two themes, the discussion will be based on the issue papers prepared by the CSTD Secretariat - to be circulated shortly - and on one or two presentations, followed by an interactive discussion. The outcomes of this intersession panel will feed into the up coming 11th session of the CSTD. See on the CSTD website. We need to ensure that there would be good CS discussants participating in this Panel and good CS contributions. Let me remind you that an up-dated calendar of events related to post WSIS is available at http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. More information soon. Best regards, 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 09:20:49 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:20:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation to WS 27 on "Multi-Stakeholder Policy Development" Message-ID: <954259bd0711060620g7912dddse88dc5149536ce68@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Please find below an invitation to attend the IGF Workshop 27 on "Multi-Stakeholder Policy Development". A full presentation with panelists bios is attached. I know the schedule in Rio will be particularly busy for all of us but think the discussion will be very fruitful for those of you who are interested in process issues. The format will be very interactive and your participation will be highly appreciated. Looking forward to seeing you all in Rio. Best. Bertrand *INVITATION* ** *IGF Wokshop 27* *MULTI-STAKEHOLDER * *POLICY DEVELOPMENT* *Lessons from actors engaged in existing processes* *(see presentation and panelists bios attached) * ** *Wednesday 14 November 2007** **12:30 - 14:00** * *Workshop Room Pardo II** * * * *Internet Governance Forum (IGF) * *Windsor Barra, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil* ** *Please come and share * *your experiences * *in this interactive dialogue ! * ** ** ** -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Présentation IGF - RIO - WS27.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 220309 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 Tue Nov 6 09:51:43 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:51:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] thought you may enjoy this Message-ID: <20071106145304.EAD392BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> It mentions several people you know - Randy Bush, Geoff Huston, and it is relevant in the context of the coming Rio and the discussions around the IPv4/IPv6: http://blog.veni.com/?p=353 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Nov 6 10:16:07 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:16:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> New Paper Released / Rio Forum Workshops As a contribution to the 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), IGP has released a new paper showing how network neutrality can serve as a globally applicable principle to guide Internet governance. The paper defines network neutrality as the right of Internet users to access content, services and applications on the Internet without interference from network operators or overbearing governments. It also encompasses the right of network operators to be reasonably free of liability for transmitting content and applications deemed illegal or undesirable by third parties. Those aspects of net neutrality are relevant in a growing number of countries and situations, as both public and private actors attempt to subject the Internet to more control. An important part of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum is to develop globally applicable public policy principles for Internet governance. The paper contends that the principle of network neutrality combines and integrates concepts of universal access to the resources connected to the Internet, freedom of expression, economic innovation, and free trade in digital products and services. Read the paper: *** IGF WORKSHOPS *** IGP will be co-sponsoring two workshops at the IGF in Rio de Janerio. Mark your calendars because you can even participate online! "DNSSEC: Securing a Critical Internet Resource" 14 November, 2007 Meeting Room III, Hotel Windsor Barra Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 10:30 (Rio de Janeiro)/13:30 (Berlin)/7:30 (New York)/20:30 (Beijing) "Public Policy on the Internet" 14 November, 2007 Meeting Room VI, Hotel Windsor Barra Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 18:30 (Rio de Janeiro)/21:30 (Berlin)/15:30 (New York)/4:30 next day (Beijing) ========================= Subscription Information ========================= Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html =============== Privacy Policy =============== The IGP-Announce mailing list is used only to mail IGP news announcements. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1113 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 10:04 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Nov 6 11:24:13 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:24:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4730952D.8020200@rits.org.br> On the subject, here is an interesting article from... Business Week. --c.a. ==== Get Your Hands Off the Web http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/07_45/b4057090.... 1 of 2 04/11/2007 21:18 Close Window TECH & YOU PODCAST NOVEMBER 5, 2007 OPINION -- TECH & YOU Get Your Hands Off the Web Interference in Web content by AT&T and Verizon shows that more regulation is needed A bit over a year ago, I wrote a column arguing that innovation on the Internet would be best served if the government mostly kept its hands off. I've changed my mind. The behavior of the top telecommunications companies, especially Verizon Communications (VZ ) and AT&T (T ), has convinced me that more government involvement is needed to keep communications free of corporate interference. The incident that swayed me was a decision in September by Verizon Wireless, majority owned by Verizon Communications, to block Naral Pro-Choice America from using its system to send text-message alerts to supporters. Verizon, which had cited a policy barring distribution of content that "may be seen as controversial or unsavory," quickly backed down after a public outcry. But, a spokesperson says, Verizon "reserves the right to deny other programs in the future." Verizon has that right under current law. It may not interfere with voice messages, but "common carrier" requirements do not apply to any form of text or data transmission. They should. The fact is, the old Bell system that was broken up 25 years ago has reassembled itself into a duopoly that dominates the Internet backbone and both landline and wireless phone service. Verizon and AT&T are also among the largest Internet service providers. The old, overregulated AT&T was hostile to innovation, but as stodgy as it was, it saw itself as the steward of a public trust. The company's lightly regulated successors view the world quite differently. Until a recent change in the terms of its broadband service—again in response to a public flap—AT&T claimed the right to terminate the connection of customers for "conduct that...tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T." Verizon retains similar language in its terms of service. Then there's the push by phone companies, which long to get into the TV business, to ingratiate themselves with Hollywood. In defending a plan to block what AT&T believes to be pirated content on its network, its veteran lobbyist James Ciccone said: "AT&T has considered this whole problem of digital piracy, and we feel our interests are very much aligned with the content community's interests." I don't endorse illegal downloads, but it's hard to spot pirated content in transit, so the potential for mistakes is high. And shouldn't AT&T align with the interests of customers? Phone companies and their allies in the cable TV industry oppose rules that would bar Internet service providers like them from meddling with communications based on content. AT&T and others also say they must be allowed to charge companies such as Google (GOOG ) a premium to deliver high-quality video and other advanced services. Their opponents support a single-fee structure for all Internet users covering all types of traffic, be it voice, music, video, or data. There's a certain irony here. The carriers warn that without premiums to pay for advanced services, the U.S. risks falling behind other nations in broadband. But the U.S. is already losing ground to the rest of the industrialized world in broadband speed and percentage of homes served. Last year the U.S. fell from 12th to 15th in broadband penetration among 29 countries ranked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development. Most of those nations are enthusiastic regulators. (Verizon is rolling out a fast service of up to 50 megabits a second, but so far it reaches just 1 million homes.) The hands-off approach hasn't served consumers well. And the Web is far too important to entrust the free flow of information to the shifting whims of a few big companies. Government must step in and tell them to leave our content alone. ==== Milton L Mueller wrote: > New Paper Released / Rio Forum Workshops > > As a contribution to the 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), IGP has released a new paper showing how network neutrality can serve as a globally applicable principle to guide Internet governance. The paper defines network neutrality as the right of Internet users to access content, services and applications on the Internet without interference from network operators or overbearing governments. It also encompasses the right of network operators to be reasonably free of liability for transmitting content and applications deemed illegal or undesirable by third parties. Those aspects of net neutrality are relevant in a growing number of countries and situations, as both public and private actors attempt to subject the Internet to more control. > > An important part of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum is to develop globally applicable public policy principles for Internet governance. The paper contends that the principle of network neutrality combines and integrates concepts of universal access to the resources connected to the Internet, freedom of expression, economic innovation, and free trade in digital products and services. > > Read the paper: > > > *** IGF WORKSHOPS *** > > IGP will be co-sponsoring two workshops at the IGF in Rio > de Janerio. > > Mark your calendars because you can even participate > online! > > "DNSSEC: Securing a Critical Internet Resource" > 14 November, 2007 > Meeting Room III, Hotel Windsor Barra > Rio de Janeiro, Brazil > 10:30 (Rio de Janeiro)/13:30 (Berlin)/7:30 (New > York)/20:30 (Beijing) > > > "Public Policy on the Internet" > 14 November, 2007 > Meeting Room VI, Hotel Windsor Barra > Rio de Janeiro, Brazil > 18:30 (Rio de Janeiro)/21:30 (Berlin)/15:30 (New > York)/4:30 next day (Beijing) > > > ========================= > Subscription Information > ========================= > > Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web interface: > http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html > > =============== > Privacy Policy > =============== > > The IGP-Announce mailing list is used only to mail IGP news announcements. > We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. > > In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." > > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1113 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 10:04 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 6 10:21:15 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:21:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Intersession Panel - 28-30/11/07 Message-ID: <200711061520.lA6FKW8f009591@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> I actually forgot to attach the document. Here it is. Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mardi, 6. novembre 2007 15:18 À : 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'gov at wsis-gov.org' Cc : 'rbloem at ngocongo.org'; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : CSTD Intersession Panel - 28-30/11/07 Importance : Haute Dear all, Find attached the very draft provisional programme of the Kuala Lumpur CSTD intersession Panel. In accordance with the multi-year programme of work adopted at the 10th session, the Panel will address: - Science, technology and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and research; - Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment (This is related to the WSIS follow up mandate of the CSTD). On each of the two themes, the discussion will be based on the issue papers prepared by the CSTD Secretariat – to be circulated shortly – and on one or two presentations, followed by an interactive discussion. The outcomes of this intersession panel will feed into the up coming 11th session of the CSTD. See on the CSTD website. We need to ensure that there would be good CS discussants participating in this Panel and good CS contributions. Let me remind you that an up-dated calendar of events related to post WSIS is available at http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. More information soon. Best regards, 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: agenda5nov.doc Type: application/msword Size: 104448 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 Tue Nov 6 11:50:39 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:50:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730952D.8020200@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DCD7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list members attached is an invitation to join the CIR Workshop on QWBroadening the Domain Name Space: TLDs for Cities, Regions and Continents? The workshops takes place oin Wednesday, November 14, 14.00 - 16.00 in the Windsor Barra Hotel. Regards Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Gesendet: Di 06.11.2007 17:24 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Betreff: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" On the subject, here is an interesting article from... Business Week. --c.a. ==== Get Your Hands Off the Web http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/07_45/b4057090.... 1 of 2 04/11/2007 21:18 Close Window TECH & YOU PODCAST NOVEMBER 5, 2007 OPINION -- TECH & YOU Get Your Hands Off the Web Interference in Web content by AT&T and Verizon shows that more regulation is needed A bit over a year ago, I wrote a column arguing that innovation on the Internet would be best served if the government mostly kept its hands off. I've changed my mind. The behavior of the top telecommunications companies, especially Verizon Communications (VZ ) and AT&T (T ), has convinced me that more government involvement is needed to keep communications free of corporate interference. The incident that swayed me was a decision in September by Verizon Wireless, majority owned by Verizon Communications, to block Naral Pro-Choice America from using its system to send text-message alerts to supporters. Verizon, which had cited a policy barring distribution of content that "may be seen as controversial or unsavory," quickly backed down after a public outcry. But, a spokesperson says, Verizon "reserves the right to deny other programs in the future." Verizon has that right under current law. It may not interfere with voice messages, but "common carrier" requirements do not apply to any form of text or data transmission. They should. The fact is, the old Bell system that was broken up 25 years ago has reassembled itself into a duopoly that dominates the Internet backbone and both landline and wireless phone service. Verizon and AT&T are also among the largest Internet service providers. The old, overregulated AT&T was hostile to innovation, but as stodgy as it was, it saw itself as the steward of a public trust. The company's lightly regulated successors view the world quite differently. Until a recent change in the terms of its broadband service-again in response to a public flap-AT&T claimed the right to terminate the connection of customers for "conduct that...tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T." Verizon retains similar language in its terms of service. Then there's the push by phone companies, which long to get into the TV business, to ingratiate themselves with Hollywood. In defending a plan to block what AT&T believes to be pirated content on its network, its veteran lobbyist James Ciccone said: "AT&T has considered this whole problem of digital piracy, and we feel our interests are very much aligned with the content community's interests." I don't endorse illegal downloads, but it's hard to spot pirated content in transit, so the potential for mistakes is high. And shouldn't AT&T align with the interests of customers? Phone companies and their allies in the cable TV industry oppose rules that would bar Internet service providers like them from meddling with communications based on content. AT&T and others also say they must be allowed to charge companies such as Google (GOOG ) a premium to deliver high-quality video and other advanced services. Their opponents support a single-fee structure for all Internet users covering all types of traffic, be it voice, music, video, or data. There's a certain irony here. The carriers warn that without premiums to pay for advanced services, the U.S. risks falling behind other nations in broadband. But the U.S. is already losing ground to the rest of the industrialized world in broadband speed and percentage of homes served. Last year the U.S. fell from 12th to 15th in broadband penetration among 29 countries ranked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development. Most of those nations are enthusiastic regulators. (Verizon is rolling out a fast service of up to 50 megabits a second, but so far it reaches just 1 million homes.) The hands-off approach hasn't served consumers well. And the Web is far too important to entrust the free flow of information to the shifting whims of a few big companies. Government must step in and tell them to leave our content alone. ==== Milton L Mueller wrote: > New Paper Released / Rio Forum Workshops > > As a contribution to the 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), IGP has released a new paper showing how network neutrality can serve as a globally applicable principle to guide Internet governance. The paper defines network neutrality as the right of Internet users to access content, services and applications on the Internet without interference from network operators or overbearing governments. It also encompasses the right of network operators to be reasonably free of liability for transmitting content and applications deemed illegal or undesirable by third parties. Those aspects of net neutrality are relevant in a growing number of countries and situations, as both public and private actors attempt to subject the Internet to more control. > > An important part of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum is to develop globally applicable public policy principles for Internet governance. The paper contends that the principle of network neutrality combines and integrates concepts of universal access to the resources connected to the Internet, freedom of expression, economic innovation, and free trade in digital products and services. > > Read the paper: > > > *** IGF WORKSHOPS *** > > IGP will be co-sponsoring two workshops at the IGF in Rio > de Janerio. > > Mark your calendars because you can even participate > online! > > "DNSSEC: Securing a Critical Internet Resource" > 14 November, 2007 > Meeting Room III, Hotel Windsor Barra > Rio de Janeiro, Brazil > 10:30 (Rio de Janeiro)/13:30 (Berlin)/7:30 (New > York)/20:30 (Beijing) > > > "Public Policy on the Internet" > 14 November, 2007 > Meeting Room VI, Hotel Windsor Barra > Rio de Janeiro, Brazil > 18:30 (Rio de Janeiro)/21:30 (Berlin)/15:30 (New > York)/4:30 next day (Beijing) > > > ========================= > Subscription Information > ========================= > > Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web interface: > http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html > > =============== > Privacy Policy > =============== > > The IGP-Announce mailing list is used only to mail IGP news announcements. > We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. > > In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." > > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1113 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 10:04 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Programme.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 33792 bytes Desc: Programme.doc URL: From vb at bertola.eu Tue Nov 6 12:20:19 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:20:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > New Paper Released / Rio Forum Workshops > > As a contribution to the 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), IGP > has released a new paper showing how network neutrality can serve as > a globally applicable principle to guide Internet governance. And this seems to be emerging consensus, I heard the same idea several times at the Internet Rights conference in Rome, and I actually agree - network neutrality is one of the "new principles" that should be part of an Internet rights framework. > The > paper defines network neutrality as the right of Internet users to > access content, services and applications on the Internet without > interference from network operators or overbearing governments. Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual Question: let's say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to child pornography content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your definition of network neutrality? Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Nov 6 13:06:15 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:06:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership Message-ID: <200711061805.lA6I5RCn015077@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to suggest that we go into CS self-nomination through a NomCom process for the membership of the GAID Strategy Council (reminder: see GAID Secretariat note attached). As you know, 3-4 CS position of this structure might be open for rotation. Nomination are open until 30 November 2007, so that a CS self-nomination process should be finalized by that time (some flexibility might allow us to finish it in the early days of December). Please start volunteering to the NomCom according to the proposed guidelines below. I'll inform you about the webpage in which the names will be published. Depending on when the seeds for the randomization process in selecting NomCom members would be drawn (I will have more information about that very shortly), the various deadlines could be slightly adjusted, but the process could remain unchanged. Selection of a CS Nomination Committee The Nom Com will be composed of 5 CS representatives, acting in their personal capacity and randomly selected among those who would volunteer. For the selection of 5 names to be random, we should try to have 5 times as many volunteers (25) for the volunteer pool as we want Nom Com members. Volunteers for serving in the Nomination Committee should announce themselves no later than 20 November 2007 (stating its name and CS affiliation at wsis at ngocongo.org). The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, will be published online. The Nom Com would be selected through a random selection process on 21 November 2007. * Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. * Volunteering for the pool does NOT disqualify anyone from selection for the Strategic Council, BUT serving on the Nom Com (that is, if you are randomly selected) does. * The more people who volunteer the better chance we have to get a representative selection in the Nom Com. * There will not be two persons from the same organisation in the Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee would start working on line fairly intensively on 21 November 2007 until 30 November 2005. Its work will be facilitated by a non voting facilitator (if nobody volunteers to do so, and if nobody objects, I would be happy to serve in this position). If the number of volunteers to serve in the NomCom does not reach 25 persons by 19 November, we would have to consider that there is no interest among this group to go into a self-nomination process for the Steering Committee CS membership. We would leave it completely to the GAID Secretariat to identify such membership. Candidates for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council Candidatures for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council is open to all representatives from civil society, including CS entities accredited to WSIS, NGOs with ECOSOC status and all other CS actors interested in ICT for Development and involved in the UN development agenda towards achieving the MDGs. Nominations (including self-nominations) and all relevant information must be sent to the NomCom facilitator NO LATER THAN 25 NOVEMBER 2007, 22:00 p.m. GMT / 24:00 p.m. Geneva Time with the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: The members of the NomCom will determine in due time their guidelines and criteria. They will be requested to come out with a recommendation to be forwarded to the GAID Secretariat on 1 December 2007. Since there would be 3 or 4 seats to be opened to rotation, it is expected that the NomCom recommends 4 to 6 names to the GAID Secretariat, to allow for some flexibility in the final membership of the Strategy Council. As a matter of principle, I strongly encourage you to contribute to this CS self-nomination process and to make it successful. Looking forward to reading you in this regard. Best regards, 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: NomCom process description - Nov. 2007.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39936 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] TR: [GAID Steering] Renewal of Membership in theGAID Strategy Counciland Steering Committee Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:43:21 +0100 Size: 198877 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From plzak at arin.net Tue Nov 6 14:30:15 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:30:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <20071104065415.6339BA6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20071104065415.6339BA6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I have been saying this as well. It is not a billion Indians standing up to demand IPv6 implementation, but it is consumers demanding Internet services. Services such as interactive chat and webcam with family and friends, voice over IP, interactive sessions to buy or sell something, interactive sessions with consumer helpdesks, interactive sessions with healthcare providers, etc. The list is endless and grows as more people discover what they can provide over the Internet and what can be provided over the Internet. Ray > I am also intrigued by Paul's assertion that "... which is that > progress may > rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots level". I am not > able > visualise a billion Indians standing up to demand IPv6 implementation > ... > Policy making perhaps is more complex than 'meeting the demand > articulated > by consumers', though the needs of individuals is indeed a critical > input to > policy. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 6 14:43:16 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:43:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F17@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual >Question: let's say that the government of XYZland wants >to prohibit access to child pornography content to its >citizens, would that be inhibited by your >definition of network neutrality? XYZLand can make production, possession, downloading and hosting of such content illegal in its jurisdicton. If the source (production, publising, hosting) is outside its jurisdiction it can cooperate with other jurisdictions to enforce internationally accepted prohibitions. The NN principle would, however, oppose governments' attempts to reach into the network and block URLs, or perform deep packet inspection (DPI) intended to recognize and intercept it, etc. The blocking remedy is often only temporarily effective and overly inclusive, where as DPI is overly intrusive for all users. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Nov 6 14:43:55 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:43:55 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership References: <200711061805.lA6I5RCn015077@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DCDA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I volonteer for the CS NomCom Pool. w ________________________________ Von: CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Gesendet: Di 06.11.2007 19:06 An: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; rbloem at ngocongo.org Betreff: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership Dear all, This is to suggest that we go into CS self-nomination through a NomCom process for the membership of the GAID Strategy Council (reminder: see GAID Secretariat note attached). As you know, 3-4 CS position of this structure might be open for rotation. Nomination are open until 30 November 2007, so that a CS self-nomination process should be finalized by that time (some flexibility might allow us to finish it in the early days of December). Please start volunteering to the NomCom according to the proposed guidelines below. I'll inform you about the webpage in which the names will be published. Depending on when the seeds for the randomization process in selecting NomCom members would be drawn (I will have more information about that very shortly), the various deadlines could be slightly adjusted, but the process could remain unchanged. Selection of a CS Nomination Committee The Nom Com will be composed of 5 CS representatives, acting in their personal capacity and randomly selected among those who would volunteer. For the selection of 5 names to be random, we should try to have 5 times as many volunteers (25) for the volunteer pool as we want Nom Com members. Volunteers for serving in the Nomination Committee should announce themselves no later than 20 November 2007 (stating its name and CS affiliation at wsis at ngocongo.org). The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, will be published online. The Nom Com would be selected through a random selection process on 21 November 2007. * Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. * Volunteering for the pool does NOT disqualify anyone from selection for the Strategic Council, BUT serving on the Nom Com (that is, if you are randomly selected) does. * The more people who volunteer the better chance we have to get a representative selection in the Nom Com. * There will not be two persons from the same organisation in the Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee would start working on line fairly intensively on 21 November 2007 until 30 November 2005. Its work will be facilitated by a non voting facilitator (if nobody volunteers to do so, and if nobody objects, I would be happy to serve in this position). If the number of volunteers to serve in the NomCom does not reach 25 persons by 19 November, we would have to consider that there is no interest among this group to go into a self-nomination process for the Steering Committee CS membership. We would leave it completely to the GAID Secretariat to identify such membership. Candidates for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council Candidatures for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council is open to all representatives from civil society, including CS entities accredited to WSIS, NGOs with ECOSOC status and all other CS actors interested in ICT for Development and involved in the UN development agenda towards achieving the MDGs. Nominations (including self-nominations) and all relevant information must be sent to the NomCom facilitator NO LATER THAN 25 NOVEMBER 2007, 22:00 p.m. GMT / 24:00 p.m. Geneva Time with the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: The members of the NomCom will determine in due time their guidelines and criteria. They will be requested to come out with a recommendation to be forwarded to the GAID Secretariat on 1 December 2007. Since there would be 3 or 4 seats to be opened to rotation, it is expected that the NomCom recommends 4 to 6 names to the GAID Secretariat, to allow for some flexibility in the final membership of the Strategy Council. As a matter of principle, I strongly encourage you to contribute to this CS self-nomination process and to make it successful. Looking forward to reading you in this regard. Best regards, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Nov 6 14:30:31 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:30:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: I'll bite, Vittorio. :-) First, the principle of "net neutrality" has deep roots, emerging out of British Common Law: it was originally called "common carriage" and it applies to all sorts of transport systems with network topology that creates gatekeeper bottlenecks (originally, ferries over rivers, extended to toll bridges, then to telecommunications, etc.). The idea was that it was unfair (and bad for the economy) for gatekeepers to leverage their monopoly control over constrained points of public transit in any way that involves discrimination between different people who need transit. In cases where the Internet rises to the level of "public utility" in its importance to society, these principles apply to the Internet. There are different policy strategies to accomplish this goal, but the goal is fairly well defined in principle, though translating the principle to a specific platform takes some careful thought, as we've seen with the Comcast/BitTorrent debacle, and the tradeoff between "network management" and "overbuilding" (I would personally object to the term "overbuilding" since my idea of a properly built system is one that can handle peak traffic load without congestion). Okay, on to your "usual question" quoted below (note: I haven't read the paper yet either): At 6:20 PM +0100 11/6/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> The >> paper defines network neutrality as the right of Internet users to >> access content, services and applications on the Internet without >> interference from network operators or overbearing governments. > >Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual Question: let's >say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to child >pornography content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your >definition of network neutrality? If a given nation can arrive at a political consensus that it is proper policy to prohibit "child pornography" (doesn't seem too difficult, though drawing the line between what is and isn't "child pornography" may be trickier than you think -- it's not a well-defined technical problem with a quantitative, structural definition), then that sovereign nation has the legal right to do so and that decision will have a lot to do with that nation's cultural norms about morality vs. freedom of expression. The point of prohibiting child pornography is not so much the "information content" that is created and distributed, but rather the abject demonstration of child abuse involved in producing that content, and so what such laws really are getting at is prohibiting that child abuse. Secondarily they are about establishing social norms that prevent encouragement of child abuse, but what do you do about "simulated" child porn that does not involve the actual abuse of real children? It's a fuzzier argument, now... Anyway, see how we've gotten into subjective matters of politics and public policy? It's no longer a technical issue. In any case, making a law to prohibit something doesn't necessarily determine what is the best *method* to enforce such a prohibition. Do you do it via *prior restraint*, or *ex post enforcement* and under what standard of *proof*, what standard of *harm*, what standard of *public versus private* access, and what definition of *classification*? In the US, just as an example (though UDHR Article 19 is a globally agreed principle), the First Amendment has a certain priority over other laws in the Constitution. In short, free expression is given a *default* standing, and in situations where freedom of expression is abused and creates conflict with other laws, there is a much higher judicial standard that an opposing argument must rise to in order to carve-out from the F.A. in a specific case (it still doesn't create judicial precedents for cases that are not *very* similar). So in general, ex post enforcement is better than prior restraint, because it really isn't possible to pre-determine all of the parameters of any and all possible "use cases" when it comes to abusive expression. In the US, prior restraint is a no-no, except for some really contentious situations that remain controversial within the US, even though some case law has been established as fairly long-standing precedent (the George Carlin "7 dirty words you can't say on the radio" case is one example). So, to get back to your question, it's better to have this stuff enforced on an ex post basis rather than via some form of prior restraint, because we will likely never be able to draw clear lines that can cover all possible cases. So, then how does this relate to net neutrality? Prior restraint by networks would violate net neutrality. Net neutrality properly opposes prior restraint by network operators, but does not inhibit ex post enforcement of content creators. People who say that there should be prior restraint of expression on the Internet are ignoring these very difficult, subjective, and persistent public policy issues that cannot be pre-determined in the same way that objective technical problems can be more well-defined in advance. And in all such cases of specific, narrow carve-outs from the default position of freedom of expression, since each nation is likely to draw the lines slightly differently from others, having individual nations do it for themselves is a lesser of evils compared to having some unified global authority make such decisions for the whole world at once. (If there is any controversy in a single nation about drawing the lines, then that nation may indeed be oppressing part of its own population, and an even better result might be found by allowing local communities to define these standards for themselves. In general, it's better to localize these decisions as much as possible. Power to the edges, like TCP/IP itself.) I'm sorry, I suppose you thought you were asking a simple question. :-) The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution") would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for distribution of unlawful content over their platforms. This is critical. You wouldn't want the phone company to be liable for criminal conversations conducted on its voice network, would you? That would require the phone company to listen in to all of your private conversations, and to prohibit you from conducting any conversations that were deemed to address illegal subjects. Pretty frightening. Net neutrality (common carriage) is basically the same policy principle subsequently applied to the data network. Punish the content provider, not the network operator, and don't impose pre-filtering on the network itself, except perhaps at the edges (not on the pipes). Dan PS -- The US ran into some dangerous policy in the last few years when the FCC designated broadband ISPs as "information services" (i.e., content providers like cable TV systems) rather than "telecommunications services" (i.e., network operators like telephone systems). The Supreme Court (in the "Brand X" case in 2005) used a procedural precedent (i.e., a technical judicial jurisdiction argument) to say "it's not our job" to decide this (basically they said the FCC gave a "rational basis" for their ruling -- a very low standard of justification), and punted it back to legislature, which is why it's such a hot-button political issue in the US these days. Bottom line: net neutrality is not just a technical issue, although its implementation has technical parameters. It is a full-fledged public policy issue of great general importance, based on the general principle of common carriage, which is a fundamental principle of fairness and nondiscrimination in society at large. Without common carriage in the information market, it will be difficult to protect competition in the information market. And without competition in the information market, the Information Society is lost as a force for democracy and becomes a tool for oppression by elite powers. There may not be a more important or fundamental principle addressing 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 dan at musicunbound.com Tue Nov 6 15:39:34 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:39:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Interesting, I have not directly received the email response I sent out at 13:30 pm PST, though I see from the web interface that it has been posted to the list, and I see Milton's later response. Apparently some algorithm running between the listserv and my email server decided that this conversation was to be filtered out (presumably as "spam"). Too many references to a certain "offensive" subject matter, I guess. I don't know how many people received it. Or maybe I was just too long-winded... ;-) So, with respect to: >Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual Question: let's >say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to [certain] >content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your >definition of network neutrality? Bottom line: what Milton said. In my own words: "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution") would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for distribution of unlawful content over their platforms." [And to be clear, net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep roots in English Common Law.] And: "Punish the content provider, not the network operator, and don't impose pre-filtering on the network itself, except perhaps at the edges (not on the pipes)." 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 garth.graham at telus.net Tue Nov 6 18:42:30 2007 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:42:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: On 6-Nov-07, at 11:30 AM, Dan Krimm wrote: > First, the principle of "net neutrality" has deep roots, emerging > out of > British Common Law: it was originally called "common carriage" and it > applies to all sorts of transport systems with network topology that > creates gatekeeper bottlenecks (originally, ferries over rivers, > extended > to toll bridges, then to telecommunications, etc.). The idea was > that it > was unfair (and bad for the economy) for gatekeepers to leverage their > monopoly control over constrained points of public transit in any > way that > involves discrimination between different people who need transit. > > In cases where the Internet rises to the level of "public utility" > in its > importance to society, these principles apply to the Internet. On a historical note, the Judge in the Vancouver Community Network's case on it's charitable status made reference to that principle of Common Law in describing the nature of the Internet. Excerpts from the Reasons for Judgment of Hugesson, J.A., Pratte, J.A., concurring, in the case of Vancouver Regional FreeNet Association (appellant) v. Minister of National Revenue (respondent), Federal Court of Appeal, A-413-94, Heard at Vancouver (B.C.) on Monday, June 10, 1996. Judgment rendered at Ottawa (Ontario) on Monday, July 8, 1996. http://www2.vcn.bc.ca/excerpts GG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 6 20:05:04 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 04:05:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <20071104065415.6339BA6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20071104065415.6339BA6C30@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Guru, On 11/4/07, Guru at ITfC wrote: > Not very long back, the thrust of quite a few discussions and submissions on > ig was "... Ig issues are really technical in nature and should be left to > 'neutral' technical bodies and experts to decide ... And should not be > 'politicised' or become a playground for non-experts, including Governments > to influence or participate in decision making ...." Is this an actual quote?? I am guessing not. If you want to characterize the viewpoint more fairly, how about "IG issues are largely administrative in nature, and shouldn't be "left" to anyone, rather it's the province of those governments, CS actors and engineers who choose to participate in the bottom-up policy making processes of the existing neutral administrative bodies." > > So here we seem to have moved 180 degree to assert that the (non) move to > IPv6 is really a political and policy failure than a technical one. Who is we? Paul's mail, which said "economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of), without any technical issue involved." was spot on. The big drivers are economic and financial, with politics coming a distant third. For example, if you as a CS organisation or end-user demand that your ISP give you IPv6 connectivity, then you might get it, but until enough people demand the service, it won't be supplied. Since their is no "killer app" driving IPv6, very few are demanding it, hence the slow rollout. I agree, > for how can the technical community make a move happen or not happen, they > can only provide (valuable) substantive inputs on the need for the move and > the pros and cons ... And people / institutions who govern / play a role in > governance need to make the larger decisions of movement Well yes, and no. In the case of v6, it was the IETF who set the standard over 10 years ago, so they clearly made that "happen". In the few notable examples where people / institutions who govern have gotten involved (Japan/S. Korea and to a more limited extent the USA) in urging IPv6 deployment, governments have "decided" to make it national policy to push v6 usage, and these have been successful initiatives in promoting v6 deployments. Paul is entirely correct that in the absence of such initiatives, it's then left to the marketplace to drive IPv6 usage. In other words, it's largely ISPs who make these decisions based on the market, and it's largely up to the beancounters in these organizations, and NOT the propeller-heads. (If it were up to the engineers, I think we would all have IPv6 enabled toasters by now.) > > An element of policy or politics is inherent in such movements, since > invariably they have pros and cons and affect different sections differently > ... For e.g. one perspective could be that the move to IPv6 is critical for > nations as India or China that will need significant 'quantity' of these > resources in the days to come ... While the move involves costs (of > migration) for the current players, without commensurate benefits to them. Well, it will be critical for all network operators certainly at some point, and that point will be reached at the same time (roughly) for all network operators whether they are in the USA or in China. I think it's nonsensical to say that "country X consumes IP addresses", because it's actually organisations located in country X that do the consuming, but that same org may also be in country Y. LIR assignments and sub-allocations are made across borders. > > So are we also saying that the original wisdom of internet being ideally > "self-regulated" by an "internal / trade-association" is not really > valid.... No, WE are not saying that at all. First of all, the notion that IPv6 was designed by a "trade association" is misguided. Second, and most importantly, the bottom up nature of Internet policy making is "the best of all possible worlds" from a CS standpoint. It boggles my mind why CS actors would reject it. No other policy framework is going to give CS folk a voice as loud as the one they have now. And we need to explore governance structures and processes that > would do both - get the best of technical inputs in, as well as negotiate > amongst multiple stakeholders to arrive at decisions that are both > 'desirable' and 'implementable' .... ("War is too important to be left to > the generals") AFAIAC, we HAVE governance structures and processes that can do both. It's just that some stakeholders don't come to the table(s) where these decisions are made. > > I am also intrigued by Paul's assertion that "... which is that progress may > rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots level". I am not able > visualise a billion Indians standing up to demand IPv6 implementation ... It will probably only take a critical mass of corporate IT folk in India demanding that their ISP give them native IPv6 connectivity. This may only happen once they are unable to get more IPv4 address space, which may make it harder for their customers to get the services that Ray is on about. Do you have IPv6 connectivity at your office? If not, ask your ISP if they can deliver it. If they can't, then shop for one who can. Your current ISP will get the message eventually. That's one way to drive IPv6 deployment. > Policy making perhaps is more complex than 'meeting the demand articulated > by consumers', though the needs of individuals is indeed a critical input to > policy. Well, as Janis Karklins said in LA, "Specifically, the GAC noted the important need for the continued good management of the IPv4 address space in light of the depletion of the free pool and urgent need for initiatives by all relevant stakeholders to ensure the acceleration of deployment and use of IPv6 addresses." In India, you have an active IPv6 body http://ipv6forum.in/, so perhaps you can work with them (if you are not already). -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 7 01:43:00 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:43:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [Gov 226] IGF draft speakers list / FGI Liste des orateurs Message-ID: Just sent the email below to the other CS governance list. Francis prepared speakers lists in various formats: PDF file ISO odt Adam >Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:38:59 +0900 >To: WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance >From: Adam Peake >Subject: Re: [Gov 226] IGF draft speakers list / FGI Liste des orateurs >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: :Macintosh HD:2:IGF_MainSessions_Guidelines.pdf: > >Francis, you're right, the speaker lists haven't >been posted. They are still draft and the >secretariat may have wanted to let the speakers >themselves know before going public (?) The >versions you have posted are the current drafts. >Attached, see guidelines sent to participants. > >Adam > > > > >> Chers Amis >> >> La liste (draft) ci-dessous est actuellement en circulation en >> provenance de diverses sources. Il n'y aucune garantie qu'elle >> soit exacte ou mise à jour, dans le cadre du processus opaque en >> cours. >> >> Je la poste sur la liste du groupe pour votre information >> inclusive, mais sous toutes reserves. >> >> Que les nominés du groupe WSIS-GOV, et dont la participation a >> été confirmée d'une manière individuelle par >> le secrétariat du FGI, contacte Louis pour plus amples >> verifications. >> >> Merci >> >> Francis >> >> ------------------------------- >> Dear Friends >> >> The draft list below is currently circulating coming from a >> variety of sources. There is no >>guarentee that it is accurate or up to >>date, within the current non-tranparent process. >> >> I am posting it on the group list for your inclusive >> information, but with reservations. >> >> It would be usefull if people nominated by the WSIS-GOV group >> and who bas been confirmed >> invidually by the IGF secretariat, contact Louis for further >> verification. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Francis >> * >> * >> >> * >> * >> >> * >> Second IGF Meeting* >> >> *Rio de Janeiro, 12-15 November 2007^1 >> >>* >> >> >> (2 November 2007) >> >> >> *Chairman:* >> >> *Sérgio Machado Rezende*, Minister of Science and Technology >> >> >> >> 12 November, 1500-1700 >> >> *Critical Internet Resources* >> >> *Session Chairman:* >> >> *Ronaldo Sardenberg*, President, ANATEL >> >> *Moderator:* >> >> Ulysse Gosset*, *France 24 (tbc) >> >> *Panellists:* >> >> *Carlos Afonso*, Planning Director, RITS, Rio de Janeiro >> >> *Alain P. Aina*, Founder Member, Africa Network Operators Group, >> Togo >> >> *Vint Cerf*, Chief Internet Evangelist, Google >> >> *Lesley Cowley*,* *CEO, Nominet (.uk) >> >> *Raul Echeberria*, CEO, LACNIC >> >> >> Tarek Kamel, Minister of Communications and Information >> Technology, Egypt [remote participation] >> >> *Milton Mueller*, Professor and Director of the >> Telecommunications Network Management Program, Syracuse >> University, Syracuse N.Y. >> >> *Discussants:* >> >> *Boubacar Barry*, West Africa Region Coordinator, ACSIS, Guinea >> >> *Juan Fernández González*, MIC, Cuba >> >> *Robert E. Kahn*, Chairman, Corporation for National Research >> Initiatives, USA >> >> *Rt Hon Alun Michael*, Member, United Kingdom Parliament >> >> E. C. A. Ndukwe, Communication Commission, Nigeria >> >> *Lynn St. Amour*, president/CEO, Internet Society >> >> >> *13 November, 1100-1300* >> >> *Access* >> >> *Session Chairman:* >> >> *Helio Costa*, Minister of Communications >> >> *Moderator:* >> >> *Richard Sambrook*, Director, Global News Division, British >> Broadcasting Corporation (BBC); Vice >> >> President, European Broadcasting Union (EBU) >> >> *Panellists:* >> >> *Sylvia Cadena*, wilac.net, Colombia >> >> *Valerie D'Costa*, The World Bank >> >> Mouhammet Diop, CEO, Next.sn, Senegal >> >> Roque Gagliano, Chair, Latin American IXPs and Interconnection >> Forum; ANTEL Uruguay >> >> *Anita Gurumurthy*, Executive Director, IT for Change, Bangalore >> >> *Mike Jensen*, Independent consultant, Johannesburg >> >> *Jacquelynn Ruff*, Vice President, International Public Policy >> and Regulatory Affairs, Verizon, Washington D.C. >> >> *Discussants:* >> >> *Rajesh Bansal*, Nokia Siemens Networks, Gurgaon, India >> >> *Hökmark Gunnar*, Member, European Parliament >> >> Radhika Lal, United Nations Development Program, New York City >> >> *Sam Paltridge*, OECD >> >> *Maui Sanford*, Pacific Islands Telecommunications Association >> President >> >> *Johan Wibergh, *President of Market Unit Brazil, Ericsson >> >> >> *13 November, 1600-1800* >> >> >> Diversity >> >> *Session Chairman:* >> >> *Gilberto Gil*, Minister of Culture >> >> *Moderator:* >> >> *Tbd* >> >> *Panellists:* >> >> *David Appasamy*, Chief Communication Officer, Sify Ltd., >> Chennai, India >> >> *Monthian Buntan*, Executive Director, Thailand Association of >> the Blind, Bangkok >> >> *David Dzumba*, Nokia, USA >> >> *Tatiana Ershova*, General Director, IIS, Russia >> >> *John Klensin*, independent consultant, IETF Liaison to ICANN Board >> >> *Adama Samassékou*, Président de l'Académie Africaine des >> Langues, fondateur du réseau MAAYA, Koulouba, Mali        >> >> *Ben Petrazzini*, Head, Institute for Connectivity in the >> Americas, Montevideo >> >> *Daniel Pimienta*, Director, Funredes, Santo Domingo >> >> *Discussants:* >> >> *Maria Badia*, Member, European Parliament >> >> *Divina Frau-Meigs*, Professor, Paris III, France >> >> *Pierre Ouédraogo*, Intergouvernementale de la Francophonie, >> Burkina Faso >> >> *Caio Tulio Vieira Costa*, President, iG, Brazil >> >> >> 14 November, 1100-1300 >> >> *Openness* >> >> *Session Chairman:* >> >> *Ronaldo Lemos*, Law professor, Center of Technology and Society >> (FGV-CTS), Rio de Janeiro >> >> *Moderator:* >> >> *Fabiana Scaranzi*, Rede Globo Television >> >> *Panellists:* >> >> *Nick Dearden*, Campaigns Manager, Amnesty International UK >> >> *Carlos Gregorio*, Expert in Privacy Rights, Montevideo >> >> *Amb. David Gross*, Coordinator for International Communications >> Policy, Department of State, Washington D.C. >> >> *Masanobu Katoh*, Corporate Vice President,FUJITSU LIMITED; >> Chairman, Sub-Committee on International Affairs, Japan Business >> Federation (Nippon Keidanren)       >> >> *Mark Kelly*, International human rights lawyer, Human Rights >> Consultants (HRC), Dublin >> >> *Catherine Trautmann*, Member, European Parliament >> >> *Discussants:* >> >> *Peng Hwa Ang*, Associate Professor and Chair - SCI, Nanyang >> Technological University, Singapore >> >> *Sally Burch*, ALAI, Ecuador >> >> *Pierre Dandjinou*, CT Policy Advisor, United Nations >> Development Program, Benin >> >> *Michael Geist*, Law Professor, University of Ottawa >> >> Miklós Haraszti, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Paris >> >> *Claudio Lins de Vasconcelos*, Legal Manager of Fundação Roberto >> Marinho, Rio de Janeiro >> >> *Benoît Müller*, Director, Software Policy, Business Software >> Alliance >> >> *Nnenna Nwakanma*, Independent Consultant, Abidjan >> >> >> *14 November, 1600-1800* >> >> *Security* >> >> *Session Chairman:* >> >> *tbd* >> >> *Moderator:* >> >> *Yoshinori Imai*, The Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) >> >> *Panellists:* >> >> *Ralf Bendrath*, Research Fellow, University of Bremen >> >> Lamia Chaffai, Director, Agence Tunisienne d'Internet, Tunisia >> >> *Huang Chengqing*, Secretary-General, Internet Society of China, >> Beijing >> >> *Patrik Faltström*, Consultant, Cisco Systems, Sweden >> >> *Marco Gercke*, Professor of Criminal Law, University of Cologne >> >> *Cristine Hoepers*, Leader, Brazilian CERT >> >> *[Zahid Jamil*, Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-Law] >> >> *Discussants:* >> >> *Izumi Aizu*, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for >> InfoSocinomics (IIS), Kumon Center, Tama University >> >> *Anne Carblanc*, Principal Administrator, Information Computer >> and Communications Policy Division, OECD, Paris >> >> *Georg Greve*, President, Free Software Foundation Europe, Zurich >> >> *Malcolm Harbour*, Member, European Parliament >> >> Aloysio Maggesi, CID IT Embratel, Brazil >> >> *Katitza Rodriguez Pereda*, International Policy Fellow, >> Electronic Privacy Information Center >> >> *Robert Shaw*, Head, ICT Applications and Cybersecurity >> Division, ITU >> >> >> *15 November, 1030-1300* >> >> *Taking stock and the way forward* >> >> *Session Chairmen: * >> >> *Nitin Desai*, the United Nations Secretary-General's Special >> Adviser for Internet Governance >> >> *Hadil da Rocha Vianna*, Minister, Director for Scientific and >> Technological Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs >> >> *Panellist: * >> >> *tbd* >> >> *Discussant: * >> >> >> tbd >> >> >> *15 November, 1400-1600* >> >> *Emerging Issues* >> >> *Session Chairman: * >> >> *Augusto Gadelha Vieira, *Coordinator, CGI.br -- Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee >> >> *Moderator: * >> >> *Nik Gowing, *Main Presenter, BBC World >> >> *Panellists: * >> >> *Robert E. Kahn*, Chairman, Corporation for National Research >> Initiatives, Reston, VA >> >> *Andrew Keen*, Author of The Cult of the Amateur, London >> >> *Robert Pepper*, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Cisco >> Systems, Washington D.C. >> >> *Nii Quaynor,* Chairman, Network Computer Systems, Accra >> >> *Discussants: * >> >> *Fred Baker*, Cisco Fellow, Cisco Systems, former IETF Chair >> >> *Vittorio Bertola*, Independent Consultant, Italy >> >> *Vint Cerf*, Chief Internet Evangelist, Google >> >> *Demi Getschko*, Director, NIC.br, Sao Paulo >> >> >> 1 >> >> >> Names in bold: confirmed participation/remote participation >> >> versions : - PDF file >> - >> ISO odt >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: IGF_MainSessions_Guidelines.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 99845 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 7 02:17:45 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:47:45 +0530 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] AW: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DCDA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20071107071755.59C8CA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> I do as well. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 1:14 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam; Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: CONGO - Philippe Dam; rbloem at ngocongo.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] AW: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership [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! _______________________________________ I volonteer for the CS NomCom Pool. w ________________________________ Von: CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Gesendet: Di 06.11.2007 19:06 An: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; rbloem at ngocongo.org Betreff: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership Dear all, This is to suggest that we go into CS self-nomination through a NomCom process for the membership of the GAID Strategy Council (reminder: see GAID Secretariat note attached). As you know, 3-4 CS position of this structure might be open for rotation. Nomination are open until 30 November 2007, so that a CS self-nomination process should be finalized by that time (some flexibility might allow us to finish it in the early days of December). Please start volunteering to the NomCom according to the proposed guidelines below. I'll inform you about the webpage in which the names will be published. Depending on when the seeds for the randomization process in selecting NomCom members would be drawn (I will have more information about that very shortly), the various deadlines could be slightly adjusted, but the process could remain unchanged. Selection of a CS Nomination Committee The Nom Com will be composed of 5 CS representatives, acting in their personal capacity and randomly selected among those who would volunteer. For the selection of 5 names to be random, we should try to have 5 times as many volunteers (25) for the volunteer pool as we want Nom Com members. Volunteers for serving in the Nomination Committee should announce themselves no later than 20 November 2007 (stating its name and CS affiliation at wsis at ngocongo.org). The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, will be published online. The Nom Com would be selected through a random selection process on 21 November 2007. * Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. * Volunteering for the pool does NOT disqualify anyone from selection for the Strategic Council, BUT serving on the Nom Com (that is, if you are randomly selected) does. * The more people who volunteer the better chance we have to get a representative selection in the Nom Com. * There will not be two persons from the same organisation in the Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee would start working on line fairly intensively on 21 November 2007 until 30 November 2005. Its work will be facilitated by a non voting facilitator (if nobody volunteers to do so, and if nobody objects, I would be happy to serve in this position). If the number of volunteers to serve in the NomCom does not reach 25 persons by 19 November, we would have to consider that there is no interest among this group to go into a self-nomination process for the Steering Committee CS membership. We would leave it completely to the GAID Secretariat to identify such membership. Candidates for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council Candidatures for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council is open to all representatives from civil society, including CS entities accredited to WSIS, NGOs with ECOSOC status and all other CS actors interested in ICT for Development and involved in the UN development agenda towards achieving the MDGs. Nominations (including self-nominations) and all relevant information must be sent to the NomCom facilitator NO LATER THAN 25 NOVEMBER 2007, 22:00 p.m. GMT / 24:00 p.m. Geneva Time with the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: The members of the NomCom will determine in due time their guidelines and criteria. They will be requested to come out with a recommendation to be forwarded to the GAID Secretariat on 1 December 2007. Since there would be 3 or 4 seats to be opened to rotation, it is expected that the NomCom recommends 4 to 6 names to the GAID Secretariat, to allow for some flexibility in the final membership of the Strategy Council. As a matter of principle, I strongly encourage you to contribute to this CS self-nomination process and to make it successful. Looking forward to reading you in this regard. Best regards, 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 _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 7 04:03:12 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:03:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF contributions synthesis paper Message-ID: Hi, Final version of a synthesis paper that summarizes the content of contributions received as well as the discussions of the open consultations is now available in all UN languages from the IGF website 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 puna_gb at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 04:14:34 2007 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:14:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <335756.86656.qm@web31512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dan and Garth, Thanks for explaining this in such a simple and practical manner! The concept of "common carriage" and "public utility" enable one to look at this practically and to appreciate it more. Thank you very much once again for the enlightenment. Regards, Gao Mosweu Verdure (Pty) Ltd Botswana Garth Graham wrote: On 6-Nov-07, at 11:30 AM, Dan Krimm wrote: > First, the principle of "net neutrality" has deep roots, emerging > out of > British Common Law: it was originally called "common carriage" and it > applies to all sorts of transport systems with network topology that > creates gatekeeper bottlenecks (originally, ferries over rivers, > extended > to toll bridges, then to telecommunications, etc.). The idea was > that it > was unfair (and bad for the economy) for gatekeepers to leverage their > monopoly control over constrained points of public transit in any > way that > involves discrimination between different people who need transit. > > In cases where the Internet rises to the level of "public utility" > in its > importance to society, these principles apply to the Internet. On a historical note, the Judge in the Vancouver Community Network's case on it's charitable status made reference to that principle of Common Law in describing the nature of the Internet. Excerpts from the Reasons for Judgment of Hugesson, J.A., Pratte, J.A., concurring, in the case of Vancouver Regional FreeNet Association (appellant) v. Minister of National Revenue (respondent), Federal Court of Appeal, A-413-94, Heard at Vancouver (B.C.) on Monday, June 10, 1996. Judgment rendered at Ottawa (Ontario) on Monday, July 8, 1996. http://www2.vcn.bc.ca/excerpts GG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 7 04:18:45 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:18:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reporting from the IGF In-Reply-To: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> References: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> Message-ID: I think it would be great of we could have civil society reports of each of the main sessions. Perhaps a couple of people could volunteer to work on each session? Just a couple of pages would be ideal. Anyone organizing a workshop *must* produce a summary. Part of the deal! But these session reports would be separate, but equally useful. Best, Adam At 12:31 PM -0700 11/3/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >All, > >I was wondering whether we should try to get organized to prepare >civil society reports about what happens at the IGF. It would be >good to keep track of what is said in the main sessions and in as >many workshops as possible, even if briefly, so that all our efforts >in organizing workshops and pushing our themes do not get lost. So >in the end we could produce a small "civil society IGF report" to >use both to spread news to other CS groups that did not attend, and >to provide a record of the discussions... and of the nice >commitments by other stakeholders that then often vanish just after >the meeting :) > >Would this be a good idea? Of course it would need to rely on many >of us volunteering to produce reports, possibly avoiding to have >people reporting on their own events, to make it more reliable. But >I'm curious to see whether others find this a good idea. > >Regards, >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed Nov 7 04:28:12 2007 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:28:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership References: <200711061805.lA6I5RCn015077@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <003901c82120$8472b840$5a12a8c0@acerb8600603ec> Thank you Philippe for this initiative, If the number of volunteers does'n reach 25, I don't think it would be good to give up and let the GAID secretariat to do the selection. I think even if we have twice the number of the nom com members, we have to go ahead and select randomly 5 among 10. But under 10, I agree with you that we have to let the GAID secretariat do it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Member of the Tunisian Engineers' Order Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam To: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space' ; governance at lists.cpsr.org ; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' ; rbloem at ngocongo.org Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:06 PM Subject: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership Dear all, This is to suggest that we go into CS self-nomination through a NomCom process for the membership of the GAID Strategy Council (reminder: see GAID Secretariat note attached). As you know, 3-4 CS position of this structure might be open for rotation. Nomination are open until 30 November 2007, so that a CS self-nomination process should be finalized by that time (some flexibility might allow us to finish it in the early days of December). Please start volunteering to the NomCom according to the proposed guidelines below. I'll inform you about the webpage in which the names will be published. Depending on when the seeds for the randomization process in selecting NomCom members would be drawn (I will have more information about that very shortly), the various deadlines could be slightly adjusted, but the process could remain unchanged. Selection of a CS Nomination Committee The Nom Com will be composed of 5 CS representatives, acting in their personal capacity and randomly selected among those who would volunteer. For the selection of 5 names to be random, we should try to have 5 times as many volunteers (25) for the volunteer pool as we want Nom Com members. Volunteers for serving in the Nomination Committee should announce themselves no later than 20 November 2007 (stating its name and CS affiliation at wsis at ngocongo.org). The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, will be published online. The Nom Com would be selected through a random selection process on 21 November 2007. · Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. · Volunteering for the pool does NOT disqualify anyone from selection for the Strategic Council, BUT serving on the Nom Com (that is, if you are randomly selected) does. · The more people who volunteer the better chance we have to get a representative selection in the Nom Com. · There will not be two persons from the same organisation in the Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee would start working on line fairly intensively on 21 November 2007 until 30 November 2005. Its work will be facilitated by a non voting facilitator (if nobody volunteers to do so, and if nobody objects, I would be happy to serve in this position). If the number of volunteers to serve in the NomCom does not reach 25 persons by 19 November, we would have to consider that there is no interest among this group to go into a self-nomination process for the Steering Committee CS membership. We would leave it completely to the GAID Secretariat to identify such membership. Candidates for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council Candidatures for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council is open to all representatives from civil society, including CS entities accredited to WSIS, NGOs with ECOSOC status and all other CS actors interested in ICT for Development and involved in the UN development agenda towards achieving the MDGs. Nominations (including self-nominations) and all relevant information must be sent to the NomCom facilitator NO LATER THAN 25 NOVEMBER 2007, 22:00 p.m. GMT / 24:00 p.m. Geneva Time with the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: The members of the NomCom will determine in due time their guidelines and criteria. They will be requested to come out with a recommendation to be forwarded to the GAID Secretariat on 1 December 2007. Since there would be 3 or 4 seats to be opened to rotation, it is expected that the NomCom recommends 4 to 6 names to the GAID Secretariat, to allow for some flexibility in the final membership of the Strategy Council. As a matter of principle, I strongly encourage you to contribute to this CS self-nomination process and to make it successful. Looking forward to reading you in this regard. Best regards, 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Wed Nov 7 05:15:37 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:15:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> Dan Krimm ha scritto: > Interesting, I have not directly received the email response I sent out at > 13:30 pm PST, though I see from the web interface that it has been posted > to the list, and I see Milton's later response. > > Apparently some algorithm running between the listserv and my email server > decided that this conversation was to be filtered out (presumably as > "spam"). Too many references to a certain "offensive" subject matter, I > guess. I don't know how many people received it. > > Or maybe I was just too long-winded... ;-) > > So, with respect to: > >> Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual Question: let's >> say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to [certain] >> content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your >> definition of network neutrality? > > Bottom line: what Milton said. > > In my own words: "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to > establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by > "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute > carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution") > would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for > distribution of unlawful content over their platforms." [And to be clear, > net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep roots in > English Common Law.] Would carriers be liable if they knew? For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to terminate the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't? And where do platform for user-generated content fit in your plan? Would Youtube be responsible for illegal videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, rather of racist videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting proper notice? From which authority? From one point of view I totally agree with you, ex post enforcement is the way to go, ex ante censorship - even when required by law - is prone to terrible misuse. However I wouldn't want to get to the extreme of "irresponsible carriers", who refuse to cooperate in shutting down malicious services. Of course you would need some due process, but spam and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on irresponsible carriers who do not feel the need to abide by their duty of good netizens. In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment and doesn't appear to want one - actually, many citizens scream and ask their governments for more ex-ante censorship of the Internet. How to make the two visions coexist will be a challenge. -- 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 hkawa at attglobal.net Wed Nov 7 05:46:44 2007 From: hkawa at attglobal.net (Hiroshi Kawamura) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 19:46:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Workshop on Accessibility standards development and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Rio, 12 November 2007 Message-ID: <014b01c8212b$802d1e50$0a0ba8c0@X60120G> Announcement: Accessibility standards development and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Short Description: The thematic workshop on "Web Accessibility Guidelines Development and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" is designed to revisit internet accessibility guidelines and standards to meet the requirements of persons with disabilities in the light of the first human rights convention of the UN adopted in 21st Century to enrich the discussion of the main sessions on Diversity. Based on the Global Forum on Disability in the Information Society held in both WSIS in Geneva and Tunis, the workshop invites Mr. Buntan, President of Thailand Association of the Blind, who worked for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and WSIS process in collaboration with all those concerned around the world including Ms. Bieler, Director of the Inter-American Institute on Disability, and Ms. Caras, President of People Who. Those three speakers will address the requirements for the Internet Governance to comply with the Convention and WSIS Plan of Actions from the view point of persons with disabilities. Mr. Abou-Zahra, W3C web accessibility expert will talk about harmonization of web accessibility standards and W3C Web Accessibility Initiatives with special reference to best practices on national web accessibility guidelines development. Mr. Shore, Autism Society of America, and Ms. Osorno, National Association of the Deaf of Colombia, will address further challenges for the development of accessibility standards. The modertor will encourage interactive discussion for brain storming to generate a real multi-stakeholder participation. Practical approaches for the internet governance to promote Universal Design and Assistive Technologies will be the key focus. When and where: November 12th 15:00-16:30 at Windsor Barra Hotel (Alhambra II) Organizers: Hiroshi Kawamura, President, DAISY Consortium Judy Brewer, Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C Margita Lundman, Program Director, The Swedish Handicap Institute George Kerscher, Secretary General, DAISY Consortium Stephen Shore, Board, Autism Society of America Shadi Abou-Zahra, Web Accessibility Specialist, W3C Phill Jenkins, Accessibility Program Manager, IBM Deborah Kaplan, Deborah Kaplan Consulting Monthian Buntan, President, Thailand Association of the Blind Mary Frances Laughton, Director, Assistive Devices Industry Office, Canada Panellists: Monthian Buntan, President, Thailand Assoication of the Blind Shadi Abou-Zahra, Web Accessibility Specialist, W3C Stephen Shore, Board, Autism Society of America Rosangela Berman Bieler, Director, Inter-American Institute on Disability Martha Lucia Osorno Posada, Board, World Federation of the Deaf Sylvia Caras, President, People Who Moderator: Hiroshi Kawamura, President, DAISY Consortium Aditional Information: Colombian Sign Language interpretation will be provided during the workshop. For further information, please contact Hiroshi Kawamura, hkawa at attglobal.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 shahid_ictdpb at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 06:04:02 2007 From: shahid_ictdpb at yahoo.com (Shahid Uddin Akbar) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:04:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] AW: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership In-Reply-To: <20071107071755.59C8CA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <190602.63351.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I will be available too. Regards, Shahid ..................................... Md Shahid Uddin Akbar ICT Consultant KATALYST/SwissContact House 20, Road 6 Baridhara, Dhaka Bangladesh shahiduddin.akbar at swisscontact-bd.org Parminder wrote: I do as well. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 1:14 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam; Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: CONGO - Philippe Dam; rbloem at ngocongo.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] AW: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership [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! _______________________________________ I volonteer for the CS NomCom Pool. w ________________________________ Von: CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Gesendet: Di 06.11.2007 19:06 An: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; rbloem at ngocongo.org Betreff: [governance] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership Dear all, This is to suggest that we go into CS self-nomination through a NomCom process for the membership of the GAID Strategy Council (reminder: see GAID Secretariat note attached). As you know, 3-4 CS position of this structure might be open for rotation. Nomination are open until 30 November 2007, so that a CS self-nomination process should be finalized by that time (some flexibility might allow us to finish it in the early days of December). Please start volunteering to the NomCom according to the proposed guidelines below. I'll inform you about the webpage in which the names will be published. Depending on when the seeds for the randomization process in selecting NomCom members would be drawn (I will have more information about that very shortly), the various deadlines could be slightly adjusted, but the process could remain unchanged. Selection of a CS Nomination Committee The Nom Com will be composed of 5 CS representatives, acting in their personal capacity and randomly selected among those who would volunteer. For the selection of 5 names to be random, we should try to have 5 times as many volunteers (25) for the volunteer pool as we want Nom Com members. Volunteers for serving in the Nomination Committee should announce themselves no later than 20 November 2007 (stating its name and CS affiliation at wsis at ngocongo.org). The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, will be published online. The Nom Com would be selected through a random selection process on 21 November 2007. * Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. * Volunteering for the pool does NOT disqualify anyone from selection for the Strategic Council, BUT serving on the Nom Com (that is, if you are randomly selected) does. * The more people who volunteer the better chance we have to get a representative selection in the Nom Com. * There will not be two persons from the same organisation in the Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee would start working on line fairly intensively on 21 November 2007 until 30 November 2005. Its work will be facilitated by a non voting facilitator (if nobody volunteers to do so, and if nobody objects, I would be happy to serve in this position). If the number of volunteers to serve in the NomCom does not reach 25 persons by 19 November, we would have to consider that there is no interest among this group to go into a self-nomination process for the Steering Committee CS membership. We would leave it completely to the GAID Secretariat to identify such membership. Candidates for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council Candidatures for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council is open to all representatives from civil society, including CS entities accredited to WSIS, NGOs with ECOSOC status and all other CS actors interested in ICT for Development and involved in the UN development agenda towards achieving the MDGs. Nominations (including self-nominations) and all relevant information must be sent to the NomCom facilitator NO LATER THAN 25 NOVEMBER 2007, 22:00 p.m. GMT / 24:00 p.m. Geneva Time with the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: The members of the NomCom will determine in due time their guidelines and criteria. They will be requested to come out with a recommendation to be forwarded to the GAID Secretariat on 1 December 2007. Since there would be 3 or 4 seats to be opened to rotation, it is expected that the NomCom recommends 4 to 6 names to the GAID Secretariat, to allow for some flexibility in the final membership of the Strategy Council. As a matter of principle, I strongly encourage you to contribute to this CS self-nomination process and to make it successful. Looking forward to reading you in this regard. Best regards, 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 _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From db at dannybutt.net Wed Nov 7 06:30:07 2007 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 00:30:07 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <335756.86656.qm@web31512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <335756.86656.qm@web31512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64F58B2F-7C21-4BCB-A4B2-8526D1D5BAC2@dannybutt.net> While I support many aspects of Milton et. al's paper, just to add a different point of view - net neutrality draws upon the history of common carriage in transportation and interpersonal communication; while the dominant business model for financing next generation internet networks (e.g. not those funded by telcos with historically government supported investment) is that of audiovisual media, which is a different thing altogether. The reason for this shift is because the Internet now carries video traffic more than anything else. According to Cisco, Internet video traffic in 2006 was more than the amount of traffic crossing the U.S. Internet backbone in 2000. It's easy to clamour for Net Neutrality, but harder to think about what a sustainable ISP industry might look like in this environment. We already see ISPs (e.g. bigpond in Australia) setting data caps while hosting video from "content partners" which doesn't count against a cap. This is a form of discrimination, variations on which will only increase as carriers attempt to deal with a radically increased traffic load from audiovisual media for which a telco business model is not well aligned. In the media world, distributors fight for exclusive territorial rights for high-value content. It's on the basis of these pre-sales that the content gets funded in the first place. I don't think that the media companies are doing a great job of engaging with the Internet environment, but it's not likely that the entire business model for film production is going to change because technology policy analysts would like to see an open access model in place. When the paper says "Given the ease with which the Internet’s architecture facilitates global connectivity, there is no reason why a right to access Internet resources should end at a country’s borders" it is saying to the media and entertainment industries "Your business model has no reason to exist." That's an ideological debate that's not really worth getting into, but I'd just say that at a practical level it makes the paper's interest in "aligning the WTO regime with the global Internet governance regime" pretty unrealistic given that a key feature of the WTO has been mostly about developed nations ability to enforce Intellectual Property Regimes that support the ability of content owners to price and content discriminate among nation-state markets. This has little to do with local content exceptions anymore and everything to do with the basic business model of screen production which is based on territorial excludability. I really support the anti-censorship and access to content agenda the IGP paper attempts to articulate, but I'm not sure that doing it though an iconoclastic interpretation of the Network Neutrality discussion (which, like it or not, *is* dominated by US domestic policy analysis) is really the best way to do that. I also tire of the distinctly U.S. anti-governmental rhetoric in the paper (governments are routinely "overbearing", interest in government intervention is "unfortunate") when the US is in the WTO pushing every nation to abandon government supported telecommunications and media infrastructure in order to smooth the access for its own industries, at the expense of industry development in the rest of the world. A more agnostic approach to the role of actors in Internet development would help a good deal. If we're interested in "the public", it's worth remembering that governments (despite their many flaws) have been the only mechanism that can be realistically be made subject to effective political influence in the public interest. Regards, Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net On 7/11/2007, at 10:14 PM, Gao Mosweu wrote: > Dan and Garth, > > Thanks for explaining this in such a simple and practical manner! > The concept of "common carriage" and "public utility" enable one to > look at this practically and to appreciate it more. > > Thank you very much once again for the enlightenment. > > Regards, > > Gao Mosweu > Verdure (Pty) Ltd > Botswana > > > > > Garth Graham wrote: > On 6-Nov-07, at 11:30 AM, Dan Krimm wrote: > >> First, the principle of "net neutrality" has deep roots, emerging >> out of >> British Common Law: it was originally called "common carriage" and it >> applies to all sorts of transport systems with network topology that >> creates gatekeeper bottlenecks (originally, ferries over rivers, >> extended >> to toll bridges, then to telecommunications, etc.). The idea was >> that it >> was unfair (and bad for the economy) for gatekeepers to leverage >> their >> monopoly control over constrained points of public transit in any >> way that >> involves discrimination between different people who need transit. >> >> In cases where the Internet rises to the level of "public utility" >> in its >> importance to society, these principles apply to the Internet. > > On a historical note, the Judge in the Vancouver Community Network's > case on it's charitable status made reference to that principle of > Common Law in describing the nature of the Internet. > > Excerpts from the Reasons for Judgment of Hugesson, J.A., Pratte, > J.A., concurring, in the case of Vancouver Regional FreeNet > Association (appellant) v. Minister of National Revenue (respondent), > Federal Court of Appeal, A-413-94, Heard at Vancouver (B.C.) on > Monday, June 10, 1996. Judgment rendered at Ottawa (Ontario) on > Monday, July 8, 1996. > > http://www2.vcn.bc.ca/excerpts > > GG > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 7 06:59:57 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:59:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <64F58B2F-7C21-4BCB-A4B2-8526D1D5BAC2@dannybutt.net> References: <335756.86656.qm@web31512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <64F58B2F-7C21-4BCB-A4B2-8526D1D5BAC2@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <20071107120211.4970D2BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> Danny and all, At 00:30 11/8/2007 +1300, Danny Butt wrote: >I really support the anti-censorship and access to content agenda the >IGP paper attempts to articulate, but I'm not sure that doing it >though an iconoclastic interpretation of the Network Neutrality >discussion (which, like it or not, *is* dominated by US domestic >policy analysis) is really the best way to do that. > >I also tire of the distinctly U.S. anti-governmental rhetoric in the >paper (governments are routinely "overbearing", interest in >government intervention is "unfortunate") when the US is in the WTO >pushing every nation to abandon government supported The problem about the Net Neutrality in the USA has its roots in the fact that there's no real competition in the USA. There are only a couple of providers - TimeWarner Cable, verizon and may be a third one (I say "may be", because I've seen for example advertisements for Earthlink, but on the TWC cables). Such a problem would not exist, if there was competition. But, then, it is easier to "fight" the government, than to actually promote competition on the market. The US market has to find a way to introduce real competition on the broadband market. Until it is done, there will always be possibilities to introduce ideas like charging the content providers. Similar ideas, btw, existed in Bulgaria 10 years ago, and were introduced by... the biggest at that time content provider, which wanted to charge the ISP (carriers) for the fact that it provide the ISP users with content, and if it wasn't for the content provider, the users would not use the Internet at all. The result was immediate introduction of hundreds of portals and web sites, and this portal is no longer the biggest. 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 10:06:38 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 07:06:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: IGF: Unable to proceed with sponsorship (Nnenna) Message-ID: <961389.42666.qm@web50209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thanks all the same, Stelios Nnenna ----- Original Message ---- From: "Stelios.Papadakis at itu.int" To: nne75 at yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:41:10 PM Subject: IGF: Unable to proceed with sponsorship Dear Nnenna, I thank you for your email. I am really sorry that I had to let you know that we were unable to proceed with the sponsorship as the time left to complete all the bureaucratic procedures was very short for us. In deciding to support your attendance to IGF, we thought that time was on our side but as we moved through completing the process it came up that it would be impossible to complete on time as there are various departments involved. I once again apologize and thank you for your understanding. With best regards, Stelios Papadakis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Nov 7 11:07:29 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:07:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <64F58B2F-7C21-4BCB-A4B2-8526D1D5BAC2@dannybutt.net> References: <335756.86656.qm@web31512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <64F58B2F-7C21-4BCB-A4B2-8526D1D5BAC2@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F27@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Danny: If I understand it, your argument is that if we rely on Net Neutrality we will not get any investment in broadband networks because broadband financing will come from content providers, who will build networks that will impose favorable treatment for their own content. This is a vertical integration argument. It is an argument worth considering seriously, although I usually hear it from cable companies not from civil society people. See below for more. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Butt [mailto:db at dannybutt.net] >while the dominant business model for financing >next generation internet networks (e.g. not >those funded by telcos with historically >government supported investment)is that of >audiovisual media, which is a different >thing altogether. I think the argument that networks need vertical integration into content has been demonstrated to be untrue in the last decade. The strong trend is for disintegrating network from content and applications, even in the historically integrated markets such as subscription TV and mobile. The Internet is emerging as the common platform for video distribution and anyone who attempts to impose some kind of exclusivity is learning that they are cutting themselves off from the bulk of the market. On the other hand I would have no objection if a separate, specialized network set itself up to distribute a specific kind of content and sold subscriptions separately. It just that I don't want major ISPs with market power doing that. Let's dispense with the label "next generation internet networks" because no one knows what "generation" you are talking about and stick with the more generic and accurate "broadband internet networks." There are four main sources of investment in broadband Internet: 1. Telephone companies (who have acquired many ISPs) 2. Cable and satellite subscription TV companies 3. Mobile telephone companies 4. Independent ISPs, who could be either wired, relying on telco infrastructure, or new networks using wireless There are also some additional, minor sources of investment: 5. Content providers such as google 6. Newly-digitized terrestrial broadcasters First point here is that infrastructure development by content providers is a tiny drop in the bucket in the relative scheme of things. Second, in each of these areas, you see a trend away from integrating network and content. Telcos tried to develop "interactive TV" in the early 1990s and were put to shame by the Internet -- all those experiments were failures. Cable operators are discovering that a great deal of their product mix is migrating to the internet. In the US, they stole market share from telcos by offering broadband internet faster and cheaper, apart from their TV offerings. Mobile operators used to be all walled gardens and special exclulsive deals but that is clearly breaking down. Google's entry is specifically as an open network. People initially claimed that voice over IP -- which is now routine -- would crash the internet's bandiwdth unless discriminatory measures were taken. That hasn't proved true. >It's easy to clamour for Net Neutrality, but harder to >think about what a sustainable ISP industry might look >like in this environment. We already see ISPs (e.g. bigpond >in Australia) setting data caps while hosting video from >"content partners" which doesn't count against a cap. This >is a form of discrimination, Yes, indeed, it is. Bad. >variations on which >will only increase as carriers attempt to deal with a radically >increased traffic load from audiovisual media for which a telco >business model is not well aligned. There are many other ways of handling that increased traffic load. >In the media world, distributors fight for exclusive territorial >rights for high-value content. That can easily be done via a neutral-Internet subscription model. For example, in the US I subscribe to MLB.TV, which allows me to see baseball games (a peculiar American sport in case you don't know) from any city. EXCEPT where there are local blackouts. If the MSG broadcast network is carrying a Yankees game, I cannot get it from MLB.TV, I have to watch the broadcast (which may or may not be available where I live). But still, I can access MLB.TV from anywhere. The point is, content owners can enforce exclusivity without vertically integrating with bandwidth owners and hard-wiring the discrimination into the network. My network operator should not block me from Yankees games because they are part owners of the Red Sox. >the paper says "Given the ease with which the Internet's >architecture facilitates global connectivity, there is >no reason why a right to access Internet resources should >end at a country's borders" it is saying to the media >and entertainment industries "Your business model has >no reason to exist." No, you are confusing access to copyrighted content with the universal connectivity of the network. This argument is completely off-base (to return to the baseball theme) >"aligning the WTO regime with the global Internet >governance regime" pretty unrealistic given that a >key feature of the WTO has been mostly about developed >nations ability to enforce Intellectual Property Regimes >that support the ability of content owners to price >and content discriminate among nation-state markets. Well, I confess I _am_ interested in undermining some of the more abusive manifestations of TRIPS. And it's interesting that you try to attack the USG's policy with one side of your mouth and defend the basis of that policy with the other. >the basic business model of screen production which >is based on territorial excludability. That basic business model may be obsolete. But anyway, NN does not mean that copyright owners can't decide who to sell their content to. It has nothing to do with that. >I also tire of the distinctly U.S. anti-governmental >rhetoric in the paper (governments are routinely I suggest you speak with RSF (based in Paris), the dissidents in Burma and China, or European HR activists. Anyone who doesn't see governments as an important and (in many parts of the world) main threat to Net neutrality is ideologically blinkered. I'm sorry we have ideological disagreement on the proper role of government, but try to deal with it honestly and not rely on cheap appeals to anti-US sentiment, particularly since the US is currently the pusher of some of the most intrusive and abusive forms of state internvetion in this sector. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 7 11:28:06 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:28:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F28@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> >Would carriers be liable if they knew? >For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi >stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. >Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to terminate >the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't? In other words, notice and takedown. That's a halfway house between neutrality/common carrier and non-neutrality. The benefit, as you note, is that it is ex post rather than ex ante. The downside is that you can get almost anything taken down, or impose major costs on those engaged in expression, simply by filing a complaint. And the carrier gets enmeshed in monitoring and surveillance of user content, and in passing judgment on it. I'd prefer to avoid that. NN and free expression purists would say, No, the carrier shouldn't be responsible for taking it down. If the nazi stuff is illegal at the home where it is hosted, then go prosecute the guy posting it. If it's not illegal where it's hosted, then leave it alone. >And where do platform for user-generated content fit >in your plan? Would Youtube be responsible for illegal >videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, rather of racist >videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting >proper notice? From which authority? YouTube is a web platform, not a network or carrier. We must be careful not to confuse the two, although maybe the line can blur in specific cases. As a private platform, YouTube can publish or not publish anything it wants, based on its own terms of service. It may indeed be wise to shield it from liability for things that it does not know about, and this is an environment in which the notice and takedown model makes a lot of sense, but that is a policy and legal issue that does not the same as the NN debate. Broadband network neutrality does not mean every publisher or forum on the internet has to be "neutral." IGP's web site can discriminate in favor of our own papers....we do not have to publish yours. That ability actually enhances free expression rather than limiting it. Note also how sticky the issues you pose are: what is "racist" or "violent" or "too sexual" is often highly contested and subjective. Do you want things to be yanked off the net whenever those charges are made? By whom? >spam and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on >irresponsible carriers who do not feel the need to abide >by their duty of good netizens. spam and cybercrime are....crimes, with a clear harm. As the paper notes, no problem taking strong action against those things, which actually attack others' rights to access things and express themselves or impose expression on people who don't want it. >In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment >and doesn't appear to want one - actually, many citizens >scream and ask their governments for more ex-ante censorship >of the Internet. How to make the >two visions coexist will be a challenge. But this is true of the USA as well. If you had a vote on whether we should have a First Amendment at all at any given moment, the outcome would be uncertain. If the public were lathered up about something they didn't like -- maybe it's communists in the 1950s or pornography or whatever, there is always political dedmand for suppression. That's why expression rights are enshrined in the constitution as a principle that is not subject to the vagaries of majority vote. That is what "rights" MEAN, Vittorio. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 7 11:46:49 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 01:46:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] speakers for the IGF opening ceremony Message-ID: Hi, It seems all stakeholders are to be invited to make suggestions for representatives who will speak during the opening ceremony in Rio next Monday (Opening Session from 1100 to 1300.) It is not clear how many people from each stakeholder group will be asked to speak, but the total number participating in the sessions seems to be around 20. As there now are two civil society Internet governance groups, perhaps it would be best if both recommended one. (if you're not subscribed to both lists, don't use reply to all :-) Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Nov 7 11:52:02 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:52:02 -0200 Subject: [governance] urgent: Accommodation available in rio In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F27@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed u> References: <335756.86656.qm@web31512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <64F58B2F-7C21-4BCB-A4B2-8526D1D5BAC2@dannybutt.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F27@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20071107165204.20EDB24D495@mail.gn.apc.org> dear all APC has two single rooms available in rio at US90 per night including breakfast up until Nov 18th.. please let me know urgently if anyone needs a room. we are staying here: Tropical Barra Hotel, by the beach in Barra da Tijuca, at the Western side of Rio. www.tropicalbarrahotel.com.br Av. Do Pepê, 500 - Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Ph: (+55) 21 2158 9292 Fax: (+55) 21 2494 2921 map of hotel location in relation to IGF venue: http://tinyurl.com/2go9qk and have arranged a twice daily shuttle to and from the IGF venue (which is just 1 1/2 km along the beach from our hotel) thanks karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From lists at privaterra.info Wed Nov 7 11:57:19 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:57:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] speakers for the IGF opening ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <442CD95E-3F65-4632-9111-DAE164DA5077@privaterra.info> Adam: I'd like to nominate Professor Michael Geist from Canada. He's one of our nation's leading academic , and an international expert on Privacy, Internet Governance, Intellectual Property and telecommunications Policy. He will be in Rio, and thus - submit his name as a possible representative of Civil Society to speak at the opening from north america. His details can be found on his blog site - http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 7-Nov-07, at 11:46 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > It seems all stakeholders are to be invited to make suggestions for > representatives who will speak during the opening ceremony in Rio > next Monday (Opening Session from 1100 to 1300.) > > It is not clear how many people from each stakeholder group will be > asked to speak, but the total number participating in the sessions > seems to be around 20. As there now are two civil society Internet > governance groups, perhaps it would be best if both recommended one. > > (if you're not subscribed to both lists, don't use reply to all :-) > > Adam > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Nov 7 13:14:45 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 19:14:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] On line information on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council Message-ID: <200711071813.lA7IDvhi028450@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Note that we created an information page on the CS Self Nomination process for the GAID Strategy Council Membership: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news &id=10462 The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, is published HERE . We have 6 volunteers so far (all men! Not gender balanced at all.), we would need 25 to make the selection process really random. Let me remind you the calendar of this process: 20 November 2006: deadline for volunteering to the Nomination Committee 21 November 2006: random selection of the Nom Com members 25 November 2006: deadline for candidatures to the CS NomCom for membership to the GA Strategy Council 25-30 November 2006: on-line work on the nomination committee 30 November 2006: submission on the CS Nom Com recommendation the GAID Secretariat Best, Ph Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" Subject: Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination process for GAID Strategic Council membership Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:06:15 +0100 Size: 281259 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Nov 7 13:15:35 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:15:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] urgent: Accommodation available in rio Message-ID: Karen, OK, you got a taker, I'm as usual late to book. But I just need a room Nov. 11-13....you got someone else in need for the full period? Let me know, I can stay with a friend or find something else tomorrow/last minute as usual... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> karenb at gn.apc.org 11/07/07 11:52 AM >>> dear all APC has two single rooms available in rio at US90 per night including breakfast up until Nov 18th.. please let me know urgently if anyone needs a room. we are staying here: Tropical Barra Hotel, by the beach in Barra da Tijuca, at the Western side of Rio. www.tropicalbarrahotel.com.br Av. Do Pepê, 500 - Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Ph: (+55) 21 2158 9292 Fax: (+55) 21 2494 2921 map of hotel location in relation to IGF venue: http://tinyurl.com/2go9qk and have arranged a twice daily shuttle to and from the IGF venue (which is just 1 1/2 km along the beach from our hotel) thanks 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 tvetter at iisd.ca Wed Nov 7 13:27:43 2007 From: tvetter at iisd.ca (Tony Vetter) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:27:43 -0600 Subject: [governance] Invitation to IISD book launch Message-ID: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD0360F7FC@proton.iisd.ca> > INVITATION > > Please join us at a book launch organized by Canada's International > Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). > > Internet Governance and Sustainable Development: Towards a Common > Agenda > > Keynote speakers from InfoDev, IDRC and IISD > > (see attached flyer) > <> > Wednesday 14 November 2007 > 17:00 - 18:00 > > Workshop Room Pardo II > > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > Windsor Barra, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil > > > RSVP would be helpful if you plan on attending however drop-ins will > be welcomed: tvetter at iisd.ca > > Tony Vetter > Project Officer, Knowledge Communications > International Institute for Sustainable Development, Ottawa, Canada > 1-613-288-2024 > http://www.iisd.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: IISD Book Launch - IGF.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 214767 bytes Desc: IISD Book Launch - IGF.pdf URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Nov 7 13:30:16 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] sorry for reply all... Message-ID: oops Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> lmcknigh at syr.edu 11/07/07 1:15 PM >>> Karen, OK, you got a taker, I'm as usual late to book. But I just need a room Nov. 11-13....you got someone else in need for the full period? Let me know, I can stay with a friend or find something else tomorrow/last minute as usual... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> karenb at gn.apc.org 11/07/07 11:52 AM >>> dear all APC has two single rooms available in rio at US90 per night including breakfast up until Nov 18th.. please let me know urgently if anyone needs a room. we are staying here: Tropical Barra Hotel, by the beach in Barra da Tijuca, at the Western side of Rio. www.tropicalbarrahotel.com.br Av. Do Pepê, 500 - Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Ph: (+55) 21 2158 9292 Fax: (+55) 21 2494 2921 map of hotel location in relation to IGF venue: http://tinyurl.com/2go9qk and have arranged a twice daily shuttle to and from the IGF venue (which is just 1 1/2 km along the beach from our hotel) thanks 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 7 15:00:31 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:00:31 +1100 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> Well, let me be radical about this and suggest that IPv6 has already failed and will never be rolled out. What's more, it won't really matter (except to a few embarrassed people and organizations). IPv6 belongs to the year 1995. That’s the year that a piece of software called Windows 1995 was rolled out. It didn't even include a browser because Microsoft hadn't released Internet Explorer yet. The web probably had only about one million users. The world has changed since then and it's just possible that a more creative way of expanding the number pool might be available to us now that wasn't thought about then. It is also possible that we are dealing with an adoption problem of a scale not anticipated at the time (particularly given the long unanticipated lead time in rollout). If it's consumers who are supposed to lead the adoption of IPv6, I suggest it will never succeed. As everyone agrees, there is no business case. NO business case, no rollout, no IPv6. That's the laws of the universe. I will also say it doesn’t matter - because the problem is not non-adoption of IPv6, as we have begun to believe - it's that numbers are supposed to run out and probably will unless something changes. If we think through a decent mitigation strategy there are a number of things that can be done to ensure that doesn't happen for another 20 years or more. That gives time for a more elegant approach to number pool expansion than IPv6 to emerge. To their credit, both Geoff Huston and Randy Bush have begun to think about these alternative mitigation strategies - although both seem to still cling at times to the hope that the laws of markets and the laws of human behaviour will suddenly change and IPv6 will suddenly be adopted but a lot later than first expected. (That's sometimes called denial). The last great hope seems to be that when the last number runs out someone (probably in an underdeveloped country) will scream and we will all change. Yeah, right on.... Sorry to rain on the parade, but really the answer to the number pool expansion problem requires us to be realistic rather than hopeful, and to be prepared to be flexible with approaches rather than clinging to an approach that hasn't worked. So let me say it again - the problem is not that people are not adopting IPv6. The problem is that we have not yet arrived at a strategy for dealing with number pool expansion that is acceptable to all major stakeholders and is scaleable to future needs. We need a major rethink - and I really don't think it will be a difficult problem to solve if we put our efforts into alternative approaches rather than "flogging a dead horse". But back to Guru's question about what this has to do with governance. Quite a lot. Neither IGF in it's current state or current "governance" institutions of a technical nature are adequate as they exist now to deal with this problem without further levels of involvement (that's self-evident). Structural change is probably necessary to ensure the levels of talent and skills and political and business impact necessary to deal with this and a host of other (probably more pressing) issues. WSIS has given us some good principles but little in the way of suitable structural suggestions. It seems to me that a compelling question is how do we get some decent structural analysis underway leading to some recommendations for what might emerge from IGF. Ian Peter (Mar Ipanema Hotel and looking forward to a constructive dialogue at IGF!) -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 07 November 2007 12:05 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC Subject: Re: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' Guru, On 11/4/07, Guru at ITfC wrote: > Not very long back, the thrust of quite a few discussions and submissions on > ig was "... Ig issues are really technical in nature and should be left to > 'neutral' technical bodies and experts to decide ... And should not be > 'politicised' or become a playground for non-experts, including Governments > to influence or participate in decision making ...." Is this an actual quote?? I am guessing not. If you want to characterize the viewpoint more fairly, how about "IG issues are largely administrative in nature, and shouldn't be "left" to anyone, rather it's the province of those governments, CS actors and engineers who choose to participate in the bottom-up policy making processes of the existing neutral administrative bodies." > > So here we seem to have moved 180 degree to assert that the (non) move to > IPv6 is really a political and policy failure than a technical one. Who is we? Paul's mail, which said "economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of), without any technical issue involved." was spot on. The big drivers are economic and financial, with politics coming a distant third. For example, if you as a CS organisation or end-user demand that your ISP give you IPv6 connectivity, then you might get it, but until enough people demand the service, it won't be supplied. Since their is no "killer app" driving IPv6, very few are demanding it, hence the slow rollout. I agree, > for how can the technical community make a move happen or not happen, they > can only provide (valuable) substantive inputs on the need for the move and > the pros and cons ... And people / institutions who govern / play a role in > governance need to make the larger decisions of movement Well yes, and no. In the case of v6, it was the IETF who set the standard over 10 years ago, so they clearly made that "happen". In the few notable examples where people / institutions who govern have gotten involved (Japan/S. Korea and to a more limited extent the USA) in urging IPv6 deployment, governments have "decided" to make it national policy to push v6 usage, and these have been successful initiatives in promoting v6 deployments. Paul is entirely correct that in the absence of such initiatives, it's then left to the marketplace to drive IPv6 usage. In other words, it's largely ISPs who make these decisions based on the market, and it's largely up to the beancounters in these organizations, and NOT the propeller-heads. (If it were up to the engineers, I think we would all have IPv6 enabled toasters by now.) > > An element of policy or politics is inherent in such movements, since > invariably they have pros and cons and affect different sections differently > ... For e.g. one perspective could be that the move to IPv6 is critical for > nations as India or China that will need significant 'quantity' of these > resources in the days to come ... While the move involves costs (of > migration) for the current players, without commensurate benefits to them. Well, it will be critical for all network operators certainly at some point, and that point will be reached at the same time (roughly) for all network operators whether they are in the USA or in China. I think it's nonsensical to say that "country X consumes IP addresses", because it's actually organisations located in country X that do the consuming, but that same org may also be in country Y. LIR assignments and sub-allocations are made across borders. > > So are we also saying that the original wisdom of internet being ideally > "self-regulated" by an "internal / trade-association" is not really > valid.... No, WE are not saying that at all. First of all, the notion that IPv6 was designed by a "trade association" is misguided. Second, and most importantly, the bottom up nature of Internet policy making is "the best of all possible worlds" from a CS standpoint. It boggles my mind why CS actors would reject it. No other policy framework is going to give CS folk a voice as loud as the one they have now. And we need to explore governance structures and processes that > would do both - get the best of technical inputs in, as well as negotiate > amongst multiple stakeholders to arrive at decisions that are both > 'desirable' and 'implementable' .... ("War is too important to be left to > the generals") AFAIAC, we HAVE governance structures and processes that can do both. It's just that some stakeholders don't come to the table(s) where these decisions are made. > > I am also intrigued by Paul's assertion that "... which is that progress may > rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots level". I am not able > visualise a billion Indians standing up to demand IPv6 implementation ... It will probably only take a critical mass of corporate IT folk in India demanding that their ISP give them native IPv6 connectivity. This may only happen once they are unable to get more IPv4 address space, which may make it harder for their customers to get the services that Ray is on about. Do you have IPv6 connectivity at your office? If not, ask your ISP if they can deliver it. If they can't, then shop for one who can. Your current ISP will get the message eventually. That's one way to drive IPv6 deployment. > Policy making perhaps is more complex than 'meeting the demand articulated > by consumers', though the needs of individuals is indeed a critical input to > policy. Well, as Janis Karklins said in LA, "Specifically, the GAC noted the important need for the continued good management of the IPv4 address space in light of the depletion of the free pool and urgent need for initiatives by all relevant stakeholders to ensure the acceleration of deployment and use of IPv6 addresses." In India, you have an active IPv6 body http://ipv6forum.in/, so perhaps you can work with them (if you are not already). -- 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 04/11/2007 11:05 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 04/11/2007 11:05 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 7 15:53:27 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:53:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Milton has already said a lot of what I would say. Inevitably I have additional thoughts building off of his earlier reply: At 11:15 AM +0100 11/7/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Dan Krimm ha scritto: >> Bottom line: what Milton said. >> >> In my own words: "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to >> establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by >> "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute >> carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution") >> would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for >> distribution of unlawful content over their platforms." [And to be clear, >> net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep roots in >> English Common Law.] > >Would carriers be liable if they knew? >For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi >stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. >Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to terminate >the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't? Common carriers are generally entirely free of any liability for carriage, and free of any responsibility to know what they are carrying, beyond a very minimal technical prerequisite (like: a car, or a data packet, to specification required for the transport platform). The quid-pro-quo here is that in return for being free of liability, a common carrier *absolutely must not discriminate* among those wishing to be carried. What you're talking about above is a different component of service: web hosting as opposed to data transport. While a single company may offer both services, many only offer one or the other, and the two services can and should still be distinguished by law and policy. Common carriage policy applies to services, not firms. Net neutrality is aimed mainly at data transport per se. Web hosting falls more into the category of publication support services (which, frankly, is a much more competitive market in the US than data transport, especially *last-mile* data transport), and publication support is more of a gray area. That gray area in web hosting should not dilute the common carriage principle as it applies to data transport services. >And where do platform for user-generated content fit in your plan? Would >Youtube be responsible for illegal videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, >rather of racist videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting >proper notice? From which authority? As you are no doubt aware, YouTube gets lots of takedown notices on the basis of IPR claims (and on occasion they get "put up" notices in return, claiming that the takedown notices were unwarranted -- the fight against the "chilling effects" goes on). As for "morality" based claims, you run directly into First Amendment precedents, and full-fledged lawsuits (I'm not aware of any notice-and-takedown provision for morality claims -- maybe Robin or Wendy would be more expert there). Notice-and-takedown is a low barrier (easier and less expensive) compared to filing and prosecuting a full-blown lawsuit, and there is a good deal of controversy about it even for IPR claims. Having a higher standard for morality claims seems a proper balance to me (if you're going to proscribe free speech, be *very* careful about how you do it -- don't do it casually by any means). In any case, I would presume that the policy for user-generated content platforms would be similar to content hosting services in many ways (it is for IPR in the US, because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has notice-and-takedown provisions for platforms such as these, and each platform type covered is listed explicitly in the statute). > From one point of view I totally agree with you, ex post enforcement is >the way to go, ex ante censorship - even when required by law - is prone >to terrible misuse. However I wouldn't want to get to the extreme of >"irresponsible carriers", who refuse to cooperate in shutting down >malicious services. Of course you would need some due process, but spam >and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on irresponsible carriers >who do not feel the need to abide by their duty of good netizens. See above with respect to web hosting and content publication. While there are some common-carriage-type principles that can apply in some cases (these services cannot reasonably be expected to know everything that is going on on their platforms in explicit detail, except in the most elementary technical sense, thus they should not be liable for preventing it ex ante), as Milton noted: where genuine crimes are being committed, ex post prosecution is entirely appropriate and desirable, and the platform operator must comply or be held liable itself as well. That said, this is not a perfect solution, due to the "transaction costs" of using the judicial system (that's economist jargon for things like the cost of lawyers, disruption of operational routine, allocation of management resources to deal with a legal case, etc.). Those powers with more wealth are at an advantage in dealing with such systems, and justice can be frightened away by unrecoverable costs of proving innocence, which is ultimately not entirely "fair" if one is in fact not guilty of a crime but cannot afford to defend oneself in the courts. >In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment and doesn't >appear to want one - actually, many citizens scream and ask their >governments for more ex-ante censorship of the Internet. How to make the >two visions coexist will be a challenge. In addition to Milton's comments about the nature of rights and ongoing controversies in the heat of evolving current events, we do indeed have UDHR Article 19, regardless of how much (or little) impact that has on actual national laws. As for navigating the political dynamics, there is no silver bullet to answer that question, no neat and clean solution that I know of. Politics is messy by nature (i.e., by nature of human diversity of opinion and self-interest). So you are *absolutely* correct: this is a profound challenge. Perhaps an eternal challenge. I certainly don't have any expectation of resolving this tension in my lifetime, or during the lifetime of many generations to come. That's what politics is all about: grappling with these difficult, even intractable, decisions of collective policy for an integrated commonwealth. What this demonstrates is that the Internet is becoming deeply immersed in matters of general public policy and politics, and that genuine political venues and jurisdictions (hopefully accountable to the general public in a structural manner, but in any case sovereign within their own political domains) must be the place to work on resolving those matters to the extent possible. Net neutrality is at root a political issue, and it is a principle that deserves active advocacy in the context of democratic systems of public governance. Frankly, I don't expect it to be accepted by all authoritarian regimes, but to the extent that "the free world" can establish it as a benchmark, I think the world will be better off. Again, I return to the deep roots of common carriage in Anglo-American common law (note: peculiarly enough, most individual states in the US have strong components of legal precedent beyond the bounds of federal law that still appeal explicitly to English Common Law, except for Louisiana which is derived from French/Norman law). Modern democratic governance emerged for the first time in the 1700s during the Enlightenment, and so one can reasonably claim that common carriage has been a founding principle of modern democratic systems from the beginning. IMHO, it ought to remain so. 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 17:35:49 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:35:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <954259bd0711071435p71ac084fvbf52fb3e48164472@mail.gmail.com> What Vittorio raises below is exactly what Google is facing in Brazil (of all places) with its Orkut social platform abused by some members for illegal postings (child porn and alia). See : http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003739 By the way, Orkut servers are hosted in the US, not Brazil. And Google finally complied, apparently after threats from the Brazilian authorities to close Google's activities. I suppose Rio will be an interesting place to discuss the issue and get the two sides of the story, for instance in the workshop on "Privacy in new internet services." Best B. On 11/7/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Dan Krimm ha scritto: > > Interesting, I have not directly received the email response I sent out > at > > 13:30 pm PST, though I see from the web interface that it has been > posted > > to the list, and I see Milton's later response. > > > > Apparently some algorithm running between the listserv and my email > server > > decided that this conversation was to be filtered out (presumably as > > "spam"). Too many references to a certain "offensive" subject matter, I > > guess. I don't know how many people received it. > > > > Or maybe I was just too long-winded... ;-) > > > > So, with respect to: > > > >> Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual Question: let's > >> say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to > [certain] > >> content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your > >> definition of network neutrality? > > > > Bottom line: what Milton said. > > > > In my own words: "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to > > establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by > > "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute > > carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution") > > would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for > > distribution of unlawful content over their platforms." [And to be > clear, > > net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep roots > in > > English Common Law.] > > Would carriers be liable if they knew? > For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi > stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. > Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to terminate > the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't? > > And where do platform for user-generated content fit in your plan? Would > Youtube be responsible for illegal videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, > rather of racist videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting > proper notice? From which authority? > > From one point of view I totally agree with you, ex post enforcement is > the way to go, ex ante censorship - even when required by law - is prone > to terrible misuse. However I wouldn't want to get to the extreme of > "irresponsible carriers", who refuse to cooperate in shutting down > malicious services. Of course you would need some due process, but spam > and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on irresponsible carriers > who do not feel the need to abide by their duty of good netizens. > > In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment and doesn't > appear to want one - actually, many citizens scream and ask their > governments for more ex-ante censorship of the Internet. How to make the > two visions coexist will be a challenge. > -- > 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 > -- ____________________ 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 cnd at knowprose.com Wed Nov 7 17:59:24 2007 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:59:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <954259bd0711071435p71ac084fvbf52fb3e48164472@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <954259bd0711071435p71ac084fvbf52fb3e48164472@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4732434C.70304@knowprose.com> This has been an issue with virtual worlds like Second Life as well. Technology is not waiting on bureaucracy to deal with internet governance issues. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > What Vittorio raises below is exactly what Google is facing in Brazil > (of all places) with its Orkut social platform abused by some members > for illegal postings (child porn and alia). > See : > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003739 > > By the way, Orkut servers are hosted in the US, not Brazil. And Google > finally complied, apparently after threats from the Brazilian > authorities to close Google's activities. I suppose Rio will be an > interesting place to discuss the issue and get the two sides of the > story, for instance in the workshop on "Privacy in new internet > services." > > Best > B. > On 11/7/07, *Vittorio Bertola* > > wrote: > > Dan Krimm ha scritto: > > Interesting, I have not directly received the email response I > sent out at > > 13:30 pm PST, though I see from the web interface that it has > been posted > > to the list, and I see Milton's later response. > > > > Apparently some algorithm running between the listserv and my > email server > > decided that this conversation was to be filtered out (presumably as > > "spam"). Too many references to a certain "offensive" subject > matter, I > > guess. I don't know how many people received it. > > > > Or maybe I was just too long-winded... ;-) > > > > So, with respect to: > > > >> Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual > Question: let's > >> say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to > [certain] > >> content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your > >> definition of network neutrality? > > > > Bottom line: what Milton said. > > > > In my own words: "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that > laws to > > establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you > mean by > > "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to > prosecute > > carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit > distribution") > > would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for > > distribution of unlawful content over their platforms." [And to > be clear, > > net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep > roots in > > English Common Law.] > > Would carriers be liable if they knew? > For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi > stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. > Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to > terminate > the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't? > > And where do platform for user-generated content fit in your plan? > Would > Youtube be responsible for illegal videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, > rather of racist videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting > proper notice? From which authority? > > From one point of view I totally agree with you, ex post > enforcement is > the way to go, ex ante censorship - even when required by law - is > prone > to terrible misuse. However I wouldn't want to get to the extreme of > "irresponsible carriers", who refuse to cooperate in shutting down > malicious services. Of course you would need some due process, but > spam > and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on irresponsible > carriers > who do not feel the need to abide by their duty of good netizens. > > In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment and > doesn't > appear to want one - actually, many citizens scream and ask their > governments for more ex-ante censorship of the Internet. How to > make the > two visions coexist will be a challenge. > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") -- Taran Rampersad http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com 'Making Your Mark in Second Life: Business, Land, and Money' http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514174/ Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 7 18:12:43 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:12:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45ed74050711071512v42afc513u159bb314f19a4704@mail.gmail.com> Such fluent discourse here - seems like published articles (the better ones). Such important issues. If someone has the venue, I would like to present some time on: *Experience with Judges in Cyberlibel Cases, in Especial Relation to Freedom of Speech and Jurisdictional Reach..* By the way, problems of take down or retraction after cyberspread - are indeed focal and awesome. Or aweing (wd?)... Say on. On 11/7/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > > Milton has already said a lot of what I would say. Inevitably I have > additional thoughts building off of his earlier reply: > > > At 11:15 AM +0100 11/7/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >Dan Krimm ha scritto: > > >> Bottom line: what Milton said. > >> > >> In my own words: "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to > >> establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by > >> "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute > >> carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution") > >> would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for > >> distribution of unlawful content over their platforms." [And to be > clear, > >> net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep roots > in > >> English Common Law.] > > > >Would carriers be liable if they knew? > >For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi > >stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. > >Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to terminate > >the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't? > > Common carriers are generally entirely free of any liability for carriage, > and free of any responsibility to know what they are carrying, beyond a > very minimal technical prerequisite (like: a car, or a data packet, to > specification required for the transport platform). The quid-pro-quo here > is that in return for being free of liability, a common carrier > *absolutely > must not discriminate* among those wishing to be carried. > > What you're talking about above is a different component of service: web > hosting as opposed to data transport. While a single company may offer > both services, many only offer one or the other, and the two services can > and should still be distinguished by law and policy. Common carriage > policy applies to services, not firms. > > Net neutrality is aimed mainly at data transport per se. Web hosting > falls > more into the category of publication support services (which, frankly, is > a much more competitive market in the US than data transport, especially > *last-mile* data transport), and publication support is more of a gray > area. That gray area in web hosting should not dilute the common carriage > principle as it applies to data transport services. > > > > >And where do platform for user-generated content fit in your plan? Would > >Youtube be responsible for illegal videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, > >rather of racist videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting > >proper notice? From which authority? > > As you are no doubt aware, YouTube gets lots of takedown notices on the > basis of IPR claims (and on occasion they get "put up" notices in return, > claiming that the takedown notices were unwarranted -- the fight against > the "chilling effects" goes on). As for "morality" based claims, you run > directly into First Amendment precedents, and full-fledged lawsuits (I'm > not aware of any notice-and-takedown provision for morality claims -- > maybe > Robin or Wendy would be more expert there). Notice-and-takedown is a low > barrier (easier and less expensive) compared to filing and prosecuting a > full-blown lawsuit, and there is a good deal of controversy about it even > for IPR claims. Having a higher standard for morality claims seems a > proper balance to me (if you're going to proscribe free speech, be *very* > careful about how you do it -- don't do it casually by any means). > > In any case, I would presume that the policy for user-generated content > platforms would be similar to content hosting services in many ways (it is > for IPR in the US, because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has > notice-and-takedown provisions for platforms such as these, and each > platform type covered is listed explicitly in the statute). > > > > > From one point of view I totally agree with you, ex post enforcement is > >the way to go, ex ante censorship - even when required by law - is prone > >to terrible misuse. However I wouldn't want to get to the extreme of > >"irresponsible carriers", who refuse to cooperate in shutting down > >malicious services. Of course you would need some due process, but spam > >and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on irresponsible carriers > >who do not feel the need to abide by their duty of good netizens. > > See above with respect to web hosting and content publication. While > there > are some common-carriage-type principles that can apply in some cases > (these services cannot reasonably be expected to know everything that is > going on on their platforms in explicit detail, except in the most > elementary technical sense, thus they should not be liable for preventing > it ex ante), as Milton noted: where genuine crimes are being committed, ex > post prosecution is entirely appropriate and desirable, and the platform > operator must comply or be held liable itself as well. > > That said, this is not a perfect solution, due to the "transaction costs" > of using the judicial system (that's economist jargon for things like the > cost of lawyers, disruption of operational routine, allocation of > management resources to deal with a legal case, etc.). Those powers with > more wealth are at an advantage in dealing with such systems, and justice > can be frightened away by unrecoverable costs of proving innocence, which > is ultimately not entirely "fair" if one is in fact not guilty of a crime > but cannot afford to defend oneself in the courts. > > > > >In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment and doesn't > >appear to want one - actually, many citizens scream and ask their > >governments for more ex-ante censorship of the Internet. How to make the > >two visions coexist will be a challenge. > > In addition to Milton's comments about the nature of rights and ongoing > controversies in the heat of evolving current events, we do indeed have > UDHR Article 19, regardless of how much (or little) impact that has on > actual national laws. > > As for navigating the political dynamics, there is no silver bullet to > answer that question, no neat and clean solution that I know of. Politics > is messy by nature (i.e., by nature of human diversity of opinion and > self-interest). So you are *absolutely* correct: this is a profound > challenge. Perhaps an eternal challenge. I certainly don't have any > expectation of resolving this tension in my lifetime, or during the > lifetime of many generations to come. > > That's what politics is all about: grappling with these difficult, even > intractable, decisions of collective policy for an integrated > commonwealth. > What this demonstrates is that the Internet is becoming deeply immersed in > matters of general public policy and politics, and that genuine political > venues and jurisdictions (hopefully accountable to the general public in a > structural manner, but in any case sovereign within their own political > domains) must be the place to work on resolving those matters to the > extent > possible. > > Net neutrality is at root a political issue, and it is a principle that > deserves active advocacy in the context of democratic systems of public > governance. Frankly, I don't expect it to be accepted by all > authoritarian > regimes, but to the extent that "the free world" can establish it as a > benchmark, I think the world will be better off. > > Again, I return to the deep roots of common carriage in Anglo-American > common law (note: peculiarly enough, most individual states in the US have > strong components of legal precedent beyond the bounds of federal law that > still appeal explicitly to English Common Law, except for Louisiana which > is derived from French/Norman law). Modern democratic governance emerged > for the first time in the 1700s during the Enlightenment, and so one can > reasonably claim that common carriage has been a founding principle of > modern democratic systems from the beginning. IMHO, it ought to remain > so. > > 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 > -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. Individual Post.. For I.D. only here: Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability (IDC Steering). Persons With Pain International. National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus. IDC-ICT Taskforce. Respectful Interfaces* - Communications Coordination Committee For The U.N. (Other Affiliations on Request). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Wed Nov 7 17:39:01 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:39:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <954259bd0711071435p71ac084fvbf52fb3e48164472@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <954259bd0711071435p71ac084fvbf52fb3e48164472@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: So, yes, Orkut is not a data transport service, and thus not the *primary* object of common carriage and network neutrality. That said, social networking platforms like Orkut are similar in many ways to other content-hosting platforms, such as individual web hosting and collective video hosting (YouTube). I'm not exactly sure if social networking platforms fall explicitly into one of the categories for DMCA ex ante safe harbor in the US, but a court case could well establish that if the issue arises in the US jurisdiction. But it seems that such ex post enforcement of legitimate criminal law is appropriate (at least it seems inevitable). I don't see this as being a violation of NN/CC principles. That would happen if Brazilian ISPs were being told to block Orkut's data transmissions, but I don't see that here. Since the Brazilian government was able to threaten abject closure of Google's local business in Brazil, it suggests that a sovereign nation has both the right and the ability to decide for itself how to handle such cases. That said, the fact that Google is now multi-national had a role in the legal leverage here, and one wonders whether it would have had a harder time dealing with Google had Google not had a local subsidiary. If Google had no local subsidiary to threaten directly, Brazil could have threatened to have its ISPs block Orkut data unless Google complied with their laws, and then we would have had a case of threat to violate NN/CC. In such cases, it's better for Brazil to work through international treaties to prosecute Google directly in the US, if possible. If no such agreements exist in the form of a treaty involving the two governments, then it must decide whether to set up data blocking and violate CC/NN principles at its borders. It would generally be better not to do this, so in such cases it may point to a legal frontier that warrants a new treaty for cross-prosecution in case of criminal violations in one country by entities in the other. But even if Brazil does decide to mandate Brazilian ISPs to block data from certain foreign entities that do not have local subsidiaries, there is still a good case to retain CC/NN for Brazilian ISPs for data originating *within* Brazil's borders and to only prosecute criminal violations ex post where it has direct internal jurisdiction. And, in cases where Brazil does decide to block specific data transmissions from outside the country, the foreign entity might still have a profit incentive to sign an agreement directly with the Brazilian government to comply with a particular Brazilian law, if it wants to conduct business in Brazil, even with all of the entity's facilities located outside of Brazil. In such cases, a sort of "private business treaty" would replace the need for explicit agreements between the governments, and then Brazil could unblock that entity's data transmissions into Brazil (unless there is any explicit prohibition by either government against such agreements -- then the governments need to work it out at the state level on both sides). How the Brazilian political process sorts out what is illegal and what is warranted or unwarranted censorship within Brazil is a separate question, and up to the Brazilians to sort out for themselves according to their own cultural norms. And there is certainly a place for advocacy for freedom of expression in that context, especially to keep freedom of expression as a default expectation, from which clear and narrow exceptions might be carved out in specific instances with high standards of cause and ex post processes of enforcement. But if Brazil as a nation decides this is too lenient, that is ultimately their own decision to make and enforce. Dan PS -- It would be good for Google to provide (ex ante) notice to Orkut users that if they violate laws in their own countries, they may be subject to (ex post) prosecution within their own countries, and that Google will comply with the laws of those countries according to international treaties and taking into account the business interests of Google's subsidiaries in those countries. Make sure that expectations are clear up front, as one endeavors to respect one's customers, which is only good business. At 11:35 PM +0100 11/7/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >What Vittorio raises below is exactly what Google is facing in Brazil (of >all places) with its Orkut social platform abused by some members for >illegal postings (child porn and alia). > >See : >http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003739 > >By the way, Orkut servers are hosted in the US, not Brazil. And Google >finally complied, apparently after threats from the Brazilian authorities >to close Google's activities. I suppose Rio will be an interesting place >to discuss the issue and get the two sides of the story, for instance in >the workshop on "Privacy in new internet services." > >Best > >B. > > >On 11/7/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> wrote: > >Dan Krimm ha scritto: >> Interesting, I have not directly received the email response I sent out at >> 13:30 pm PST, though I see from the web interface that it has been posted >> to the list, and I see Milton's later response. >> >> Apparently some algorithm running between the listserv and my email server >> decided that this conversation was to be filtered out (presumably as >> "spam"). Too many references to a certain "offensive" subject matter, I >> guess. I don't know how many people received it. >> >> Or maybe I was just too long-winded... ;-) >> >> So, with respect to: >> >>> Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual Question: let's >>> say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to [certain] >>> content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your >>> definition of network neutrality? >> >> Bottom line: what Milton said. >> >> In my own words: "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to >> establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by >> "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute >> carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution") >> would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for >> distribution of unlawful content over their platforms." [And to be clear, >> net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep roots in >> English Common Law.] > >Would carriers be liable if they knew? >For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi >stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. >Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to terminate >the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't? > >And where do platform for user-generated content fit in your plan? Would >Youtube be responsible for illegal videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, >rather of racist videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting >proper notice? From which authority? > >From one point of view I totally agree with you, ex post enforcement is >the way to go, ex ante censorship - even when required by law - is prone >to terrible misuse. However I wouldn't want to get to the extreme of >"irresponsible carriers", who refuse to cooperate in shutting down >malicious services. Of course you would need some due process, but spam >and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on irresponsible carriers >who do not feel the need to abide by their duty of good netizens. > >In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment and doesn't >appear to want one - actually, many citizens scream and ask their >governments for more ex-ante censorship of the Internet. How to make the >two visions coexist will be a challenge. >-- >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 > > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Wed Nov 7 18:39:59 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:39:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> Dan Krimm ha scritto: > Again, I return to the deep roots of common carriage in Anglo-American > common law (note: peculiarly enough, most individual states in the US have > strong components of legal precedent beyond the bounds of federal law that > still appeal explicitly to English Common Law, except for Louisiana which > is derived from French/Norman law). Modern democratic governance emerged > for the first time in the 1700s during the Enlightenment, and so one can > reasonably claim that common carriage has been a founding principle of > modern democratic systems from the beginning. IMHO, it ought to remain so. Quickly - because it's past midnight and I'm leaving tomorrow early. I think that the case for network neutrality is there, it has so many clear reasons in its favour, it should be possible to get it recognized and formalized and push countries to adopt it in national regulations, perhaps this could be a nice achievement for the IGF. I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for network neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first amendment" that says that nothing should be censored ever. It's not democracy versus authoritarianism; there are several very democratic countries (most of Europe, to bring my perspective) that think that, for one or another reason, some forms of speech must be prohibited. Actually, many think that prohibiting such speech is necessary to protect democracy - and I can tell you, when you have had grandmothers that told you how blowing on the fire led Europe to Hitler, Mussolini and the holocaust, the perspective on free speech changes significantly. Just 15 years ago, a few hundred kilometers from my home, people were practicing ethnic cleansing on mass scale. Inflammatory speech had a key part in this. Of course saying that there are words you can't pronounce isn't easy, is prone to anti-democratic misuse, it has all sorts of problems. But I don't think that an Internet where you are free to advocate for the reconstitution of the Nazi party, exploiting cross-boundary communications to bypass laws where that's illegal, would be a good prospect for our world. Maybe the only way to address that is by national (or at least regional) boundaries where content is filtered out, maybe there is no way to address it and we'll have to live with the consequences, who knows - I am pointing out the issue and the widespread sensitivities to it, I have no solution. But exactly for that reason, mixing network neutrality with a much more controversial and complex issue will just break the front. So I wanted to be sure that you're not trying to do that. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Wed Nov 7 17:59:06 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:59:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 12:39 AM +0100 11/8/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >I think that the case for network neutrality is there, it has so many >clear reasons in its favour, it should be possible to get it recognized >and formalized and push countries to adopt it in national regulations, >perhaps this could be a nice achievement for the IGF. > >I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for network >neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first amendment" >that says that nothing should be censored ever. ... Maybe the only way to address that is by >national (or at least regional) boundaries where content is filtered >out, maybe there is no way to address it and we'll have to live with the >consequences, who knows - I am pointing out the issue and the widespread >sensitivities to it, I have no solution. > >But exactly for that reason, mixing network neutrality with a much more >controversial and complex issue will just break the front. So I wanted >to be sure that you're not trying to do that. No one that I know of suggests that "nothing should be censored ever" -- there are clear carve-outs to free expression even in the US (the classic example is you can't "shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" because it causes abject harm and endangers other people -- in that case there is no political utility to the speech, and the tangible harm outweighs the default principle). Even the American Civil Liberties Union is not *absolutist* on free speech, though many opponents like to characterize them that way. The point is simply that free expression should be the *default*, and any exceptions should be clearly and narrowly defined as an opt-out from that default, with very high standards of justification. In any case, deciding where in the law to carve-out those exceptions should indeed be decided by a national political discussion within each sovereign jurisdiction. Network Neutrality and Common Carriage on telecommunications networks are all about preventing ex ante prior restraint of speech and discriminatory gatekeeper leverage in the market, and relegating prosecution of "illegal speech" to narrowly-defined ex post processes. That's really it in a nutshell. So, I've just responded to Bertrand's post about the Brazil/Orkut case, and I go into a bit more detail there about the logistics of how this might work itself out in the international legal arena. But basically, yes, I think if anything it comes down to border-crossing policies, which create incentives for international agreements or treaties to make sure ex post prosecution can be conducted in a reasonable manner that honors sovereign jurisdictions. Dan PS -- Enjoy Rio, I will envy the rest of you who are traveling there. Perhaps I will check in from afar along the way, if I can. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Nov 7 20:04:48 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:04:48 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <954259bd0711071435p71ac084fvbf52fb3e48164472@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <954259bd0711071435p71ac084fvbf52fb3e48164472@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <473260B0.3010501@rits.org.br> I certainly agree, and would add that, given the intense participation of Brazilians in orkut (it seems more than 70% of users now), mostly young people (prime target for predators), Google could move its orkut servers to Brazil. This would save us a lot of international bandwidth and let authorities like prosecutor Suiama (Google's nemesis in BR) enforce rulings against child abuse within orkut far more easily. :) --c.a. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > What Vittorio raises below is exactly what Google is facing in Brazil (of > all places) with its Orkut social platform abused by some members for > illegal postings (child porn and alia). > > See : > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003739 > > By the way, Orkut servers are hosted in the US, not Brazil. And Google > finally complied, apparently after threats from the Brazilian authorities to > close Google's activities. I suppose Rio will be an interesting place to > discuss the issue and get the two sides of the story, for instance in the > workshop on "Privacy in new internet services." > > Best > > B. > > > On 11/7/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> Dan Krimm ha scritto: >>> Interesting, I have not directly received the email response I sent out >> at >>> 13:30 pm PST, though I see from the web interface that it has been >> posted >>> to the list, and I see Milton's later response. >>> >>> Apparently some algorithm running between the listserv and my email >> server >>> decided that this conversation was to be filtered out (presumably as >>> "spam"). Too many references to a certain "offensive" subject matter, I >>> guess. I don't know how many people received it. >>> >>> Or maybe I was just too long-winded... ;-) >>> >>> So, with respect to: >>> >>>> Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual Question: let's >>>> say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to >> [certain] >>>> content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your >>>> definition of network neutrality? >>> Bottom line: what Milton said. >>> >>> In my own words: "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to >>> establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by >>> "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute >>> carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution") >>> would not. Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for >>> distribution of unlawful content over their platforms." [And to be >> clear, >>> net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep roots >> in >>> English Common Law.] >> Would carriers be liable if they knew? >> For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi >> stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. >> Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to terminate >> the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't? >> >> And where do platform for user-generated content fit in your plan? Would >> Youtube be responsible for illegal videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, >> rather of racist videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting >> proper notice? From which authority? >> >> From one point of view I totally agree with you, ex post enforcement is >> the way to go, ex ante censorship - even when required by law - is prone >> to terrible misuse. However I wouldn't want to get to the extreme of >> "irresponsible carriers", who refuse to cooperate in shutting down >> malicious services. Of course you would need some due process, but spam >> and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on irresponsible carriers >> who do not feel the need to abide by their duty of good netizens. >> >> In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment and doesn't >> appear to want one - actually, many citizens scream and ask their >> governments for more ex-ante censorship of the Internet. How to make the >> two visions coexist will be a challenge. >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 8 07:45:57 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 21:45:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] ENC: [Caucusigf-br] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Reuni=F3n?= lat inoamericana y =?ISO-8859-1?Q?caribe=F1a?= para el IGF Message-ID: Of interest. Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >From: "Vanda Scartezini UOL" >To: "'At-Large Global List'" , > "'alac-internal'" >Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:12:22 -0200 > >To all that will attend RIO IGF here a pre >meeting for Latin America & Caribean Region >Portuguese/Spanish& English will be welcome as far as I know. >I will be there. Safe trip to all. > > >Vanda Scartezini > At ­ Large ICANN >Tel - +55113266.6253 >Mob- +55118181.1464 >vanda at uol.com.br >vanda.scartezini at icann.org > > >De: caucusigf-br-bounces at listas.rits.org.br >[mailto:caucusigf-br-bounces at listas.rits.org.br] >Em nome de Graciela Selaimen >Enviada em: terça-feira, 6 de novembro de 2007 11:49 >Para: Caucus do Brasil no IGF >Assunto: [Caucusigf-br] Reunión latinoamericana y caribeña para el IGF > >Estimad at s, > >Sigue la confirmación del local y fecha de la >reunión de la sociedad civil latinoamericana y >caribeña pre-IGF, con la programación atual. Aún >tenemos espacio para facilitador/a en el tema >'Apertura'. Sugerencias son bienvenidas. > >Abrazos, >Graciela > >************ > >Reunión latinoamericana y caribeña 11/11/07, >09:00 - 14:00, hotel Windsor Plaza. Salão >Imperial. > >Tema: "Intercambio de informaciones/ideas sobre >el IGF e sus temas principales" > >Motivo: Nuestra región no ha tenido oportunidad >de reunirse para intercambio de ideas sobre el >Foro de Gobernanza de Internet, IGF (para que >sirve, que podría o debería hacer, cual su >futuro y sus implicaciones para nuestra región). >Los cinco temas principales de IGF tratan de >asuntos que tienen implicaciones importantes >para las políticas públicas de la región >relacionadas a impulsar las TICs para el >desarrollo humano en general, y para la >gobernanza de Internet a niveles regional y >nacional en particular. Temas como interconexión >y optimización de tráfego regional (bien así los >términos de intercambio de esa interconexión), >comparación de políticas públicas sobre derechos >e Internet, integración o coordinación de >iniciativas relativas a la seguridad y >utilización adecuada de la red, políticas >regulatorias de telecomunicaciones e Internet, >todos esos son temas del IGF y son temas >importantes para a la región. > >Objetivo: compartir informaciones sobre las >temáticas específicas en discusión en cada uno >de los principales tópicos; debatir las >temáticas y pensar una participación más fuerte >de la región en los procesos del IGF y afines. > >Formato: amplo debate, com 1-2 panelistas >motivadores para cada uno de los cinco tópicos, >buscando relacionarlos con la situación de la >región. > >Cerca de 45-50 minutos para cada tópico. > >Programa >======== > >09:00-09:15 -- Sesión rápida de apertura, presentaciones >Graciela Selaimen (Rits, Brasil) >Valeria Betancourt (APC, Ecuador) > >09:15-10:00 -- Tema: Acceso >Gustavo Gindre (Rits/Intervozes, Brasil) >Julian Casabuenas (Colnodo, Colombia) - (aguardamos confirmación) > >10:00 - 10:45 -- Tema: Diversidad >Daniel Pimienta (Funredes, Rep.Dominicana) >Ronaldo Lemos (CTS/FGV, Brasil) > >10:45-11:00 -- break > >11:00-11:45 -- Tema: Asuntos emergentes >Sebastián Bellagamba (Internet Society, Argentina) >Erick Iriarte Ahon (Alfa-Redi, Peru) > >11:45-12:30 -- Tema: Apertura >Sally Burch (ALAI, Ecuador) >???? (sugerencias??? ) > >12:30-13:15 -- Tema: Seguridad >Thiago Tavares (Safernet, Brasil) >Katitza Rodrigues (EPIC, Peru) > >13:15-14:00 -- Tema: Recursos críticos de Internet >Raul Echeberría (LACNIC, Uruguay) >Carlos Afonso (Rits, Brasil) > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org >ALAC Independent: http://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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Nov 8 11:09:48 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:09:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for network > neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first amendment" > that says that nothing should be censored ever. It's not democracy A "two-handed" answer for you, Vittorio. On the one hand a NN policy, as Dan and I have noted repeatedly, does not make it impossible to declare certain kinds of content illegal, and to prosecute those responsible for creating, publishing or using/possessing it. A NN policy also does not prevent families from installing filters on their own terminal devices and for private web sites to refuse to carry certain kinds of content. On the other hand NN does militate against systematic use of the network intermediary (either state-mandated blocking or private vertical integration) to implement content regulation goals. It also would shift the burden of proof against states that attempt to disguise trade discrimination in digital content as "public order" mandated censorship. In some cases it means that content people don't like will be accessible. (Not that it isn't already.) As for "breaking the front," I see no "front" to be broken. Free expression advocacy and NN advocacy are linked closely. No, a global NN principle does not necessarily mean a global US-style first amendment, but if you're not already pretty far along on the left side of the free expression spectrum it's hard to understand why you'd be interested in a NN policy. What does it accomplish for you If not a liberalization on the constraints on internet expression and interaction? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.25/1118 - Release Date: 11/8/2007 9:29 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 11:31:23 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:31:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> Educational. Query, on a third hand ... Do multiple spam filters on intermediary systems which whittle away at the corpus of delivered messages fall on the ok or not-ok side? (Please reconstrue in any more apt terms). Best wishes, Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces*. On 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for network > > neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first amendment" > > that says that nothing should be censored ever. It's not democracy > > A "two-handed" answer for you, Vittorio. > > On the one hand a NN policy, as Dan and I have noted repeatedly, does not > make it impossible to declare certain kinds of content illegal, and to > prosecute those responsible for creating, publishing or using/possessing it. > A NN policy also does not prevent families from installing filters on their > own terminal devices and for private web sites to refuse to carry certain > kinds of content. > > On the other hand NN does militate against systematic use of the network > intermediary (either state-mandated blocking or private vertical > integration) to implement content regulation goals. It also would shift the > burden of proof against states that attempt to disguise trade discrimination > in digital content as "public order" mandated censorship. In some cases it > means that content people don't like will be accessible. (Not that it isn't > already.) > > As for "breaking the front," I see no "front" to be broken. Free > expression advocacy and NN advocacy are linked closely. No, a global NN > principle does not necessarily mean a global US-style first amendment, but > if you're not already pretty far along on the left side of the free > expression spectrum it's hard to understand why you'd be interested in a NN > policy. What does it accomplish for you If not a liberalization on the > constraints on internet expression and interaction? > > > > -------------- 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 Nov 8 13:50:23 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:50:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Spam and virus filters implemented by ISPs are a necessary evil. In some sense they contradict the principle but in the case of viruses are clearly justified as crime protection and are not discriminatory; spam is more difficult issue in that there is always a risk of false positives and there is not always a clear definition of what is spam. Milton Mueller, Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ------------------------------ The Convergence Center: http://www.digitalconvergence.org ________________________________ From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:31 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" Educational. Query, on a third hand ... Do multiple spam filters on intermediary systems which whittle away at the corpus of delivered messages fall on the ok or not-ok side? (Please reconstrue in any more apt terms). Best wishes, Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces*. On 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto: vb at bertola.eu ] > I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for network > neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first amendment" > that says that nothing should be censored ever. It's not democracy A "two-handed" answer for you, Vittorio. On the one hand a NN policy, as Dan and I have noted repeatedly, does not make it impossible to declare certain kinds of content illegal, and to prosecute those responsible for creating, publishing or using/possessing it. A NN policy also does not prevent families from installing filters on their own terminal devices and for private web sites to refuse to carry certain kinds of content. On the other hand NN does militate against systematic use of the network intermediary (either state-mandated blocking or private vertical integration) to implement content regulation goals. It also would shift the burden of proof against states that attempt to disguise trade discrimination in digital content as "public order" mandated censorship. In some cases it means that content people don't like will be accessible. (Not that it isn't already.) As for "breaking the front," I see no "front" to be broken. Free expression advocacy and NN advocacy are linked closely. No, a global NN principle does not necessarily mean a global US-style first amendment, but if you're not already pretty far along on the left side of the free expression spectrum it's hard to understand why you'd be interested in a NN policy. What does it accomplish for you If not a liberalization on the constraints on internet expression and interaction? -------------- 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 Nov 8 14:34:27 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:34:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <45ed74050711081134r3560220ak514cc2ca3407d354@mail.gmail.com> Thank you and yes about the risks of censoring or not with auto filters wherever stationed and however purposed, which I probably am reading in here, but your post helps. Early in the days of automated concordance construction we had to decide whether to have "stop words," terms we wanted to not go forward to the next stage of processing. I guess they were 'kinda illegal' in some ontology. But that was not intended to stop the whole 'expurged' concordance from being delivered. Content analysis married with judgment especially when automated is a 'brave venture' under governance rubrics ; hope my "thanks" don't themselves halt delivery of this message! Though but a brief sidebar here, when you have inclination perhaps you can enlighten on technical and ethical standards for spam capture (perhaps you have written on same). I'm told there are some vendors who will sell "rights" of access to look-see what they trapped and one never did see. Could be from anywhere. On anything. And all that entailed. Are there presently regs so that spam catchers have to either preserve or delete what they catch? And either way then what, as to privacy, property, right to communicate? And access? For now, back to the education we appreciate having about Net Neutrality. Its various construances, its possible futures. LDMF. On 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Spam and virus filters implemented by ISPs are a necessary evil. > In some sense they contradict the principle but in the case of viruses > are clearly justified as crime protection and are not discriminatory; > spam is more difficult issue in that there is always a risk of false > positives and there is not always a clear definition of what is spam. > > Milton Mueller, Professor > Syracuse University > School of Information Studies > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > ------------------------------ > The Convergence Center: > http://www.digitalconvergence.org > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On > Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:31 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle > for Internet Governance" > > > Educational. Query, on a third hand ... > > Do multiple spam filters on intermediary systems which whittle away at > the corpus of delivered messages fall on the ok or not-ok side? > (Please reconstrue in any more apt terms). > > Best wishes, Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > *Respectful Interfaces*. > > > On 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto: vb at bertola.eu > ] > > I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for > network > > neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first > amendment" > > that says that nothing should be censored ever. It's not > democracy > > A "two-handed" answer for you, Vittorio. > > On the one hand a NN policy, as Dan and I have noted repeatedly, > does not make it impossible to declare certain kinds of content illegal, > and to prosecute those responsible for creating, publishing or > using/possessing it. A NN policy also does not prevent families from > installing filters on their own terminal devices and for private web > sites to refuse to carry certain kinds of content. > > On the other hand NN does militate against systematic use of the > network intermediary (either state-mandated blocking or private vertical > integration) to implement content regulation goals. It also would shift > the burden of proof against states that attempt to disguise trade > discrimination in digital content as "public order" mandated censorship. > In some cases it means that content people don't like will be > accessible. (Not that it isn't already.) > > As for "breaking the front," I see no "front" to be broken. Free > expression advocacy and NN advocacy are linked closely. No, a global NN > principle does not necessarily mean a global US-style first amendment, > but if you're not already pretty far along on the left side of the free > expression spectrum it's hard to understand why you'd be interested in a > NN policy. What does it accomplish for you If not a liberalization on > the constraints on internet expression and interaction? > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Nov 8 14:23:47 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:23:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end users being given maximum control over their settings. This places spam filtering as close to the "edges" as possible, in accordance with end-user URL-blocking utilities, for example. The point is that the closer to the edges you can bring any content control, the better (with allowances made for communities that have truly homogeneous cultural norms to create more centralized local control -- and indeed, some URL-blocking systems allow end users to choose from several centrally-maintained block lists, which can be seen as "virtual community norms" -- choose your cyber-tribe). In any such case, there are tradeoffs to be made because there is no such thing as a "perfectly targeted" content filter (as Milton notes). Those tradeoffs need to be judged as much as possible by the individuals affected by them (i.e., end users). Some users may require stronger filtering (to protect children), others may warrant more lenient filtering (not a problem to delete a few wayward messages that get through, to make sure that legitimate messages get through, especially discussions of political policy addressing the boundaries of cultural norms). (BTW, it turned out that my long message that I thought was blocked on Tuesday was only delayed due to a server-pool problem with my email hosting service. But, I *did* get a spam warning message returned to me associated with it (perhaps it was in the outgoing direction -- the hosting service has still not explained to me how their "antigen" setup is configured). In any case, an email that merely discussed a spam-ish topic (rather than advertising it or embodying it) was flagged if not blocked outright. I'm glad it let the message go through finally. Had there not been a considerable delay, the warning would have been merely annoying but not importantly interruptive. I blame Vittorio, since it was his example that engaged the spam SW. ;-) I will refrain from a direct mention here, as an act of personal prior restraint, but by now you all know what I'm talking about.) So, dealing with spam is not entirely unlike dealing with general laws that are necessarily imperfect, given the physical architecture of the world at large (and the impossibility of ensuring perfectly comprehensive factual knowledge in the judicial system). Given the specific context, one may make a judgment to err one way or another. But there is no option for perfection, which is why this judgment needs to be made on a case-by-case basis as much as feasible. Dan At 1:50 PM -0500 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C82238.380AB127" > >Spam and virus filters implemented by ISPs are a necessary evil. >In some sense they contradict the principle but in the case of viruses are >clearly justified as crime protection and are not discriminatory; spam is >more difficult issue in that there is always a risk of false positives and >there is not always a clear definition of what is spam. > >Milton Mueller, Professor >Syracuse University >School of Information Studies >------------------------------ >Internet Governance Project: >http://internetgovernance.org >------------------------------ >The Convergence Center: >http://www.digitalconvergence.org > > > > >From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On >Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff >Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:31 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller >Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle >for Internet Governance" > >Educational. Query, on a third hand ... > >Do multiple spam filters on intermediary systems which whittle away at the >corpus of delivered messages fall on the ok or not-ok side? (Please >reconstrue in any more apt terms). > >Best wishes, Linda D. Misek-Falkoff >*Respectful Interfaces*. > > >On 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto: vb at bertola.eu] >> I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for network >> neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first amendment" >> that says that nothing should be censored ever. It's not democracy > >A "two-handed" answer for you, Vittorio. > >On the one hand a NN policy, as Dan and I have noted repeatedly, does not >make it impossible to declare certain kinds of content illegal, and to >prosecute those responsible for creating, publishing or using/possessing >it. A NN policy also does not prevent families from installing filters on >their own terminal devices and for private web sites to refuse to carry >certain kinds of content. > >On the other hand NN does militate against systematic use of the network >intermediary (either state-mandated blocking or private vertical >integration) to implement content regulation goals. It also would shift >the burden of proof against states that attempt to disguise trade >discrimination in digital content as "public order" mandated censorship. >In some cases it means that content people don't like will be accessible. >(Not that it isn't already.) > >As for "breaking the front," I see no "front" to be broken. Free >expression advocacy and NN advocacy are linked closely. No, a global NN >principle does not necessarily mean a global US-style first amendment, but >if you're not already pretty far along on the left side of the free >expression spectrum it's hard to understand why you'd be interested in a >NN policy. What does it accomplish for you If not a liberalization on the >constraints on internet expression and interaction? > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 8 17:51:23 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:51:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <473392EB.9000709@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end > users being given maximum control over their settings. Which, in turn, means that users must have a means to know what filters are in effect. This inability to know what is being filtered has caused significant concern and problems here in the US. Many companies that do filtering, whether in software in the user's machine or as something inserted the network path, are often loath to disclose the filters - they consider them to be highly proprietary information. Another potential principle of internet governance: Every user has the right to know whether their traffic is being filtered and, if so, what those filters are. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Nov 8 17:13:17 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:13:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) In-Reply-To: <473392EB.9000709@cavebear.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <473392EB.9000709@cavebear.com> Message-ID: At 2:51 PM -0800 11/8/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Dan Krimm wrote: >> I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end >> users being given maximum control over their settings. > >Which, in turn, means that users must have a means to know what filters >are in effect. > >This inability to know what is being filtered has caused significant >concern and problems here in the US. > >Many companies that do filtering, whether in software in the user's >machine or as something inserted the network path, are often loath to >disclose the filters - they consider them to be highly proprietary >information. > >Another potential principle of internet governance: Every user has the >right to know whether their traffic is being filtered and, if so, what >those filters are. There is an argument (devil's advocate) that suggests that if it were easy to find out how the filter algorithm works it could more easily be bypassed in the constantly-escalating spam wars, thus negating the value of the filter tool. So what is the technical compromise, or is it impossible? Even if one holds the algorithm close to the chest, it might be useful for end users to know which messages are being filtered out, though that could lead to empirical testing by spammers to reverse-engineer the filter criteria to some extent (at least, to discover temporarily non-filtered options by trial and error). Short of that, it would be nice to be given a menu of message types to filter, and counts of messages filtered out (and if a particular message seems like it's legitimate content, to retrieve that message -- but then again you increase the ability to reverse-engineer). What do you suggest here, Karl? 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 plano at funics.org.ar Thu Nov 8 19:37:53 2007 From: plano at funics.org.ar (Jorge Plano) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:37:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF: Accessibility activities In-Reply-To: <45ed74050711081134r3560220ak514cc2ca3407d354@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>, <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>, <45ed74050711081134r3560220ak514cc2ca3407d354@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <473381B1.6705.BF9818@plano.funics.org.ar> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From hkawa at attglobal.net Thu Nov 8 20:08:21 2007 From: hkawa at attglobal.net (Hiroshi Kawamura) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:08:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF: Accessibility activities References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>, <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>, <45ed74050711081134r3560220ak514cc2ca3407d354@mail.gmail.com> <473381B1.6705.BF9818@plano.funics.org.ar> Message-ID: <00be01c8226d$06f57b70$0a0ba8c0@X60120G> Dear Jorge: Thank you very much for your announcement on workshops related to Accessibility of Persons with Disabilities. The most current program contents of our workshop on "Accessibility standards development and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" to be held on 12th November 15:00-16:30 is available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=24 We are still struggling with "accessibility" of the Conference itself including no accessible guest room at the venue hotel, no availability of sign language interpreter for our deaf speaker from Colombia, &c. We should not see again such inconvenient barriers for participants with disabilities in the 3rd IGF in Egypt. The IGF must respect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=199) Best Hiroshi ---------------------------- Hiroshi Kawamura President, DAISY Consortium ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Plano" To: Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:37 AM Subject: [governance] IGF: Accessibility activities > At least the next activities on accessibility are programmed at the IGF > Regards > Jorge > > > Workshop: Monday, Nov 12th, 15:30-17 hs Alhambra II > "Accessibility guidelines and standards for persons with disabilities" > http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=52 > > > > > Workshop: Tuesday, Nov 13th, 14:30-16 hs Versailles I > "Making Accessibility a Reality in Emerging Technologies and the Web" > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/accessibility/index.html > > > > > Pre-IGF Conference: Sunday, November 11 Windsor Hotel > "Digital Inclusion: Accelerating Global Participation and Access through > Open ICT Standards" > 10.45-12.00 Panel 2: "Increasing Accessibility to Government Services > and Social Programs through Open Standards" > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vivek at itforchange.net Fri Nov 9 00:13:47 2007 From: vivek at itforchange.net (Vivek Vaidyanathan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:43:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Invitation to attend United Nations - Internet Governance Forum workshops being co-organised by IT for Change Message-ID: <20071109051343.4179B67846@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear Friends **Apologies for Cross Posting** Greetings from IT for Change This is to invite you attend workshops being co-organised by IT for Change (ITfC) at the United Nations - Internet Governance Forum 2007 at Rio, Brazil. Details regarding these workshops are given below 1. Frameworks for Governance of Critical Internet Resources * Time and Venue: 14th November 2007, 12:30 - 14:00 hrs, Pardo I, Windsor Barra Hotel * About the Workshop With the Internet becoming the infrastructure of an ever-increasing range of social, economic and political activities, the manner of governance of its core or critical resources - a term whose meaning itself is contested - is a matter of importance for all. Private commercial law, voluntary standards, community-based norms and practices, and national, regional and international law, may all have a role in the governance of Critical Internet Resources (CIRs). Their governance is exercised by private parties in contractual arrangements, local/ national regulators, regional and international governmental institutions, communities of Internet users and non-governmental, voluntary standards bodies of national, regional and international purview. * The purpose of this workshop is to examine some key issues regarding the governance of CIRs, such as: (1) The resources critical to the working and growth of the Internet and its appropriation by all individuals and groups, including the disadvantaged; (2) The level and means by which CIRs are governed/ should be governed; and (3) The normative basis of different approaches to the governance of CIRs. The multi-stakeholder, multinational panel of this workshop will map the current landscape of Internet Governance mechanisms and institutions, as well as explore alternatives, including "commons-based" and "public interest-based" frameworks, for the governance of CIRs. More information on this workshop can be found at http://www.itforchange.net/images/stories/files/governance_frameworks_for_cr itical_internet_resources_flyer.pdf 2. Dynamic Coalition on Framework of Principles for the Internet * Time and Venue: 14th November 2007, 16:30 - 18:00 hrs, Meeting Room Imperial, Windsor Barra Hotel * About the Dynamic Coalition The dynamic coalition on 'Framework of Principles for the Internet' has the objective to understand, influence and contribute to the processes of making international laws, conventions, treaties etc in the area of Internet Governance - both of the soft law and hard law varieties - incorporating the multi-stakeholder principle. For this purpose, the coalition will explore the possibility of civil society taking the lead in collaboratively developing some overall normative principles for the Internet which can underpin such international processes, and/or themselves be adopted through a framework convention kind of a process. * About the Workshop The present workshop will map out the objectives and working methods of the dynamic coalition, apart from taking on the substantive agenda of exploring what kind of frameworks and principles will be suitable for guiding global public policy for the Internet. It will also seek to address the possibility of engaging with global Internet public policy processes including that of the WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation'. More information on this workshop can be found at http://intgovforum.org/dyn_col_session.php?DC=Framework%20of%20Principles%20 for%20the%20Internet IT for Change is also involved in the organising of a third workshop being sponsored by the Civil Society - Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) 3. Fulfilling the mandate of the IGF * Time and Venue: 15th November 2007, 08:30 am - 10:00 am, Pardo 1, Windsor Barra Hotel * About the Workshop The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society mandates the IGF to: discuss public policy issues; facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with cross-cutting international public policies and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; advise all stakeholders on increasing the Internet's availability and affordability in the developing world; strengthen and enhance multistakeholder engagement in existing and future Internet Governance mechanisms; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; contribute to capacity-building; promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes; discuss critical Internet resources; help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet; and publish its proceedings. It could be argued that the IGF is contributing to the realization of some of these objectives. However, other items in the list are more difficult to promote solely through annual conferences comprising main sessions with panels of speakers and an assortment of workshops. Accordingly, this workshop will consider what additional steps, if any, could be taken on a consensual, multistakeholder basis to help the IGF community achieve the mandate. In particular, the workshop will consider: 1. The thinking behind the formulation of the mandate, which derives from the WGIG Report and the discussions held during Prep-Com 3 of the WSIS Tunis phase; 2. Whether some or all of the functions enumerated in the mandate remain important, value-adding, activities that are not being performed elsewhere, would benefit the global community, and are uniquely suited to the IGF; 3. Operationally practical steps that could be pursued on a consensual, multistakeholder basis by the IGF community in order to perform those functions; 4. Related current trends and challenges in the IGF's activities. More information on this workshop can be found at http://intgovforum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=37 Additionally, information on those workshops where ITfC is participating in can be found at http://www.itforchange.net/images/stories/files/itfor_change_at_theun_igf_20 07.pdf Best Regards Vivek Vivek Vaidyanathan IT for Change (ITfC) Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:(+91 80) 26654134, 26536890 Fax:(+91 80) 41461055 Mob: +91 9980084835 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Nov 9 01:25:34 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:25:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) Message-ID: Am I the only one amused by the position being taken that filtering spam is a devilish deviation from net neutrality? I guess to be logically consistent we should all shut down our spam filters so we're net neutral. You first... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> dan at musicunbound.com 11/08/07 5:13 PM >>> At 2:51 PM -0800 11/8/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Dan Krimm wrote: >> I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end >> users being given maximum control over their settings. > >Which, in turn, means that users must have a means to know what filters >are in effect. > >This inability to know what is being filtered has caused significant >concern and problems here in the US. > >Many companies that do filtering, whether in software in the user's >machine or as something inserted the network path, are often loath to >disclose the filters - they consider them to be highly proprietary >information. > >Another potential principle of internet governance: Every user has the >right to know whether their traffic is being filtered and, if so, what >those filters are. There is an argument (devil's advocate) that suggests that if it were easy to find out how the filter algorithm works it could more easily be bypassed in the constantly-escalating spam wars, thus negating the value of the filter tool. So what is the technical compromise, or is it impossible? Even if one holds the algorithm close to the chest, it might be useful for end users to know which messages are being filtered out, though that could lead to empirical testing by spammers to reverse-engineer the filter criteria to some extent (at least, to discover temporarily non-filtered options by trial and error). Short of that, it would be nice to be given a menu of message types to filter, and counts of messages filtered out (and if a particular message seems like it's legitimate content, to retrieve that message -- but then again you increase the ability to reverse-engineer). What do you suggest here, Karl? Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Nov 9 00:54:01 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 22:54:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't know whose position that is, but it's not mine. :-) I just want to make sure I am in control of my own spam filtering settings, so that others cannot decide to set the filter too strong to filter out messages that are not in fact spam. I was confused by the bounce messages I received. At first I thought my own email host was running a spam filter other than the ones they provide for my direct control, and that would have been disconcerting to say the least. But I've figured out where I was getting those messages from: it seems to be someone on this list with an account at the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority in Egypt, which is running the Antigen virus/spam blocking application from Microsoft (which I checked out and I see that its spam functions are reported as being a little crude). Simply mentioning an offensive keyword seems to have bounced the messages and purged them from that person's reception, so this person has not received two of my posts (and I suspect one or more of Vittorio's as well), though they can probably see those messages on the listserv web site if they care to login and look. In this case, that individual is prevented from even *discussing* policy surrounding the offensive topic, above and beyond engaging in the offensive conduct itself (i.e., advertising or transmitting offensive material). Seems a little extreme from my western perspective, but perhaps this makes total sense in Egypt. Who am I to criticize? In any case, I am not suggesting that spam filtering is directly related to net neutrality (that's why I changed the subject header -- this is a tangential thread). In particular, as long as such filtering is really happening "at the edges" then it has nothing to do with intermediate "pipes" data transport and everything to do with "edges" end-user control (allowing a broad definition of edge and end-user to include whole organizations, etc.). No one is suggesting turning off the filters, but rather providing end-users full knowledge and control over such filtering. "Power to the edges" is a principle that spans both net neutrality and spam filtering. Best, Dan At 1:25 AM -0500 11/9/07, Lee McKnight wrote: >Am I the only one amused by the position being taken that filtering spam >is a devilish deviation from net neutrality? > > I guess to be logically consistent we should all shut down our spam >filters so we're net neutral. > >You first... > >Lee > >Prof. Lee W. McKnight >School of Information Studies >Syracuse University >+1-315-443-6891office >+1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> dan at musicunbound.com 11/08/07 5:13 PM >>> >At 2:51 PM -0800 11/8/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>Dan Krimm wrote: >>> I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with >end >>> users being given maximum control over their settings. >> >>Which, in turn, means that users must have a means to know what filters >>are in effect. >> >>This inability to know what is being filtered has caused significant >>concern and problems here in the US. >> >>Many companies that do filtering, whether in software in the user's >>machine or as something inserted the network path, are often loath to >>disclose the filters - they consider them to be highly proprietary >>information. >> >>Another potential principle of internet governance: Every user has the >>right to know whether their traffic is being filtered and, if so, what >>those filters are. > > >There is an argument (devil's advocate) that suggests that if it were >easy >to find out how the filter algorithm works it could more easily be >bypassed >in the constantly-escalating spam wars, thus negating the value of the >filter tool. > >So what is the technical compromise, or is it impossible? > >Even if one holds the algorithm close to the chest, it might be useful >for >end users to know which messages are being filtered out, though that >could >lead to empirical testing by spammers to reverse-engineer the filter >criteria to some extent (at least, to discover temporarily non-filtered >options by trial and error). > >Short of that, it would be nice to be given a menu of message types to >filter, and counts of messages filtered out (and if a particular message >seems like it's legitimate content, to retrieve that message -- but then >again you increase the ability to reverse-engineer). > >What do you suggest here, Karl? > >Dan >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Nov 9 06:59:07 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 17:29:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071109115900.D8F4DA6C88@smtp2.electricembers.net> McTim I fully agree with your assertion that "the bottom up nature of Internet policy making is "the best of all possible worlds" from a CS standpoint.... No other policy framework is going to give CS folk a voice as loud as the one they have now". Our efforts must aim to ensure and enhance CS participation in multi-stakeholder governance; though I would say that these new governance structures still need to mature to provide equitable influence to different stakeholder groups ... The dice is loaded more in favor of some ... US, EU governments ..., transnational businesses and Civil society groups largely based in these places ... If we understand 'internet community' to be comprised of all those who are affected (and if we can look forward, then we would include 'those who will be impacted even if they are not today') by it, then we pretty much cover most of humanity and I am not sure if we can assume that the current 'power' structures are in a position to adequately factor in the concerns of many other groups ... Also I fully agree with your statement that "In the few notable examples where people / institutions who govern have gotten involved (Japan/S. Korea and to a more limited extent the USA) in urging IPv6 deployment, governments have "decided" to make it national policy to push v6 usage, and these have been successful initiatives in promoting v6 deployments". So 'policy' can have a strong influence on progressive changes like moving to v6. And this would also not leave us to depend on the market forces alone ... When will consumers demand v6? Relying solely on the 'market' may mean that we wake up too late to the challenge of depleted numbers and do not have adequate time to make a large transition as v4-v6. While this 'choking' will by and large affect all across the globe, it is nevertheless a fair assertion that more of the people who will suffer will be those in places where the 'increase' in demand for numbers (new devices added to the network) will be much higher ... Which includes China and India. While many of these devices / organizations that use them will be transborder, I guess most of them would be within national boundaries ... So would you agree that Indian and Chinese Governments (and other groups from these regions including the RIRs) need to push for quicker transition to v6 in the interests of their 'consumers' ('citizens')? Through (both national and) global governance structures? I would like to quote a recent ALAC statement on this issue: "We like to ask the global address allocation registries to make sure that the allocation of remaining pool of IPv4 address will be done in a fair and equitable manner. The challenge here is what exactly we mean by "fair and equitable" - and we understand that this requires open and inclusive policy development process" ..... And that "Measures be taken to help developing countries to prepare the transition in a timely and affordable manner". Maybe this requires more concerted efforts ... Guru Ps - pleasantly surprised at the extent of our agreement :-) ... We can discuss more at the Governance Frameworks for cir workshop (http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=37) on Nov 14 ... -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:35 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC Subject: Re: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' Guru, On 11/4/07, Guru at ITfC wrote: > Not very long back, the thrust of quite a few discussions and > submissions on ig was "... Ig issues are really technical in nature > and should be left to 'neutral' technical bodies and experts to decide > ... And should not be 'politicised' or become a playground for > non-experts, including Governments to influence or participate in decision making ...." Is this an actual quote?? I am guessing not. If you want to characterize the viewpoint more fairly, how about "IG issues are largely administrative in nature, and shouldn't be "left" to anyone, rather it's the province of those governments, CS actors and engineers who choose to participate in the bottom-up policy making processes of the existing neutral administrative bodies." Guru - I agree, though I do not understand the term 'neutral' > > So here we seem to have moved 180 degree to assert that the (non) move > to > IPv6 is really a political and policy failure than a technical one. Who is we? Paul's mail, which said "economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of), without any technical issue involved." was spot on. The big drivers are economic and financial, with politics coming a distant third. For example, if you as a CS organisation or end-user demand that your ISP give you IPv6 connectivity, then you might get it, but until enough people demand the service, it won't be supplied. Since their is no "killer app" driving IPv6, very few are demanding it, hence the slow rollout. I agree, > for how can the technical community make a move happen or not happen, > they can only provide (valuable) substantive inputs on the need for > the move and the pros and cons ... And people / institutions who > govern / play a role in governance need to make the larger decisions > of movement Well yes, and no. In the case of v6, it was the IETF who set the standard over 10 years ago, so they clearly made that "happen". In the few notable examples where people / institutions who govern have gotten involved (Japan/S. Korea and to a more limited extent the USA) in urging IPv6 deployment, governments have "decided" to make it national policy to push v6 usage, and these have been successful initiatives in promoting v6 deployments. Paul is entirely correct that in the absence of such initiatives, it's then left to the marketplace to drive IPv6 usage. In other words, it's largely ISPs who make these decisions based on the market, and it's largely up to the beancounters in these organizations, and NOT the propeller-heads. (If it were up to the engineers, I think we would all have IPv6 enabled toasters by now.) > > An element of policy or politics is inherent in such movements, since > invariably they have pros and cons and affect different sections > differently ... For e.g. one perspective could be that the move to > IPv6 is critical for nations as India or China that will need > significant 'quantity' of these resources in the days to come ... > While the move involves costs (of > migration) for the current players, without commensurate benefits to them. Well, it will be critical for all network operators certainly at some point, and that point will be reached at the same time (roughly) for all network operators whether they are in the USA or in China. I think it's nonsensical to say that "country X consumes IP addresses", because it's actually organisations located in country X that do the consuming, but that same org may also be in country Y. LIR assignments and sub-allocations are made across borders. > > So are we also saying that the original wisdom of internet being > ideally "self-regulated" by an "internal / trade-association" is not > really valid.... No, WE are not saying that at all. First of all, the notion that IPv6 was designed by a "trade association" is misguided. Second, and most importantly, the bottom up nature of Internet policy making is "the best of all possible worlds" from a CS standpoint. It boggles my mind why CS actors would reject it. No other policy framework is going to give CS folk a voice as loud as the one they have now. And we need to explore governance structures and processes that > would do both - get the best of technical inputs in, as well as > negotiate amongst multiple stakeholders to arrive at decisions that > are both 'desirable' and 'implementable' .... ("War is too important > to be left to the generals") AFAIAC, we HAVE governance structures and processes that can do both. It's just that some stakeholders don't come to the table(s) where these decisions are made. > > I am also intrigued by Paul's assertion that "... which is that > progress may rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots > level". I am not able visualise a billion Indians standing up to demand IPv6 implementation ... It will probably only take a critical mass of corporate IT folk in India demanding that their ISP give them native IPv6 connectivity. This may only happen once they are unable to get more IPv4 address space, which may make it harder for their customers to get the services that Ray is on about. Do you have IPv6 connectivity at your office? If not, ask your ISP if they can deliver it. If they can't, then shop for one who can. Your current ISP will get the message eventually. That's one way to drive IPv6 deployment. > Policy making perhaps is more complex than 'meeting the demand > articulated by consumers', though the needs of individuals is indeed a > critical input to policy. Well, as Janis Karklins said in LA, "Specifically, the GAC noted the important need for the continued good management of the IPv4 address space in light of the depletion of the free pool and urgent need for initiatives by all relevant stakeholders to ensure the acceleration of deployment and use of IPv6 addresses." In India, you have an active IPv6 body http://ipv6forum.in/, so perhaps you can work with them (if you are not already). Guru - Thanks for this info ... -- 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 pouzin at well.com Fri Nov 9 08:55:00 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:55:00 +0100 (MET) Subject: [governance] Jan 2009 - World Social Forum "Sciences & Democracy" - Forum Social Mondial "Sciences & =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9mocratie?=" Message-ID: <200711091355.lA9Dt07e011046@merlin.enst.fr> Dear all, Here is an initiative you may find worth supporting Best Chers tous, - - - Chers tous, Voici une initiative que vous pouvez souhaiter soutenir. Bien cordialement ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Appel_FSMSCIENCE.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 66249 bytes Desc: not available URL: From guyversonv at hotmail.com Fri Nov 9 09:00:19 2007 From: guyversonv at hotmail.com (Guyverson Vernous) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:00:19 -0400 (Atlantic Standard Time) Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f?=. : [governance] Jan 2009 - World Social Forum "Sciences & Democracy" - Forum Social Mondial "Sciences & =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9mocratie?=" References: <200711091355.lA9Dt07e011046@merlin.enst.fr> Message-ID: It seems to me that the file is corrupted. Guy -------Message original------- De : Louis Pouzin Date : 11/9/2007 9:55:53 AM A : gov at wsis-gov.org; e-democracy at wsis-gov.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sujet : [governance] Jan 2009 - World Social Forum "Sciences & Democracy" - Forum Social Mondial "Sciences & Démocratie" Dear all, Here is an initiative you may find worth supporting Best Chers tous, - - - Chers tous, Voici une initiative que vous pouvez souhaiter soutenir. Bien cordialement ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 narten at us.ibm.com Fri Nov 9 09:08:02 2007 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:08:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end > users being given maximum control over their settings. Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it to the "edges", only to be filtered there. Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep it from entering their network in the first place. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 9 09:30:19 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:30:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <090d01c822dd$0fcd2ac0$8b00a8c0@IAN> -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: 09 November 2007 17:26 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; dan at musicunbound.com Subject: Re: [governance] spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) Am I the only one amused by the position being taken that filtering spam is a devilish deviation from net neutrality? Next it will be encryption and passwords....... No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1119 - Release Date: 08/11/2007 17:55 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 9 12:36:56 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:36:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Right. Actually the percentages I have heard are higher -- 98% of all email traffic is now spam. And there is no principled objection to filtering spam because almost all of it constitutes undesired messages which exploit the ability to free ride on the Internet resources of others. Milton Mueller, Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ------------------------------ The Convergence Center: http://www.digitalconvergence.org -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:08 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dan Krimm Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end > users being given maximum control over their settings. Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it to the "edges", only to be filtered there. Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep it from entering their network in the first place. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 9 13:10:03 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:10:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: How much spam (virus, malware etc) is filtered in transit? Adam At 12:36 PM -0500 11/9/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Right. Actually the percentages I have heard are higher -- 98% of all >email traffic is now spam. And there is no principled objection to >filtering spam because almost all of it constitutes undesired messages >which exploit the ability to free ride on the Internet resources of >others. > >Milton Mueller, Professor >Syracuse University >School of Information Studies >------------------------------ >Internet Governance Project: >http://internetgovernance.org >------------------------------ >The Convergence Center: >http://www.digitalconvergence.org > >-----Original Message----- >From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com] >Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:08 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dan Krimm >Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle >for Internet Governance" > >> I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with >end >> users being given maximum control over their settings. > >Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email >they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it to >the "edges", only to be filtered there. > >Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep it >from entering their network in the first place. > >Thomas >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 9 13:22:22 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:22:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20071109182430.E572E2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 03:10 11/10/2007 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >How much spam (virus, malware etc) is filtered in transit? It depends very much on the providers. Some filter spam/viruses, some don't. At ISOC-Bulgaria we maintain real-time database, which is used by some ISPs. Statistics from one of the Bulgarian portals - lex.bg shows 97.61 % spam, 2.39 % - legitimate e-mail. I've 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 Fri Nov 9 15:31:33 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:31:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation - Internet Users' Voices on Internationalized Domain Names - IGF, Rio Message-ID: <007d01c8230f$85d77270$91865750$@com> This is to invite you attend the workshop on “Internet Users' Voices on Internationalized Domain Names” being co-organised by the At Large Advisory Committee of ICANN and the Yale Information Society Project at the United Nations – Internet Governance Forum 2007 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. For more information - HYPERLINK "http://www.intgovforum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=26"http://www.intgovf orum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=26 Internet Users' Voices on Internationalized Domain Names § Time and Venue: 12th November 2007, 15:30 – 17:00 hrs, Room Pardo II, Windsor Barra Hotel § About the Workshop Short Description The participation of the local Internet user community is considered necessary in the successful implementation of IDNs. This session will look at the experiences of several early adopter TLDs who may have involved the local community in the process of implementation of IDNs, to different extents, as well as users who have participated in those trials. Best practices and lessons learnt will be presented, and the discussion will focus on the practical implementation of these IDNs with the full participation of end-users. Panelists 1. Email Address Internationalization and TEST BED Jiankang Yao, Chief Architect on Internationalized Domain Names, CNNIC Jiankang is a Research Engineer and Chief IDN Architect at CNNIC, since 2003. His main Research interests include Email Address Internationalization (EAI), Internationalized Domain Names (IDN). He holds a Masters Degree from the National University of Singapore. 2. IDNs for Japanese Users Hiro Hotta, Japan Registry Service Co. Ltd. During his career in NTT (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone corporation) he was responsible for developing value-added services in NTT's ISP services. While he was with NTT, he was Chairman of Asia & Pacific Internet Association in 2000-2001. After he left NTT, he joined JPRS as one of its start-up members, which has been a .JP ccTLD registry from 2001. He is responsible for orporate planning and business development. He is particularly special in IDN technology and deployment. >From 1999, he was a member of Names Council of ICANN DNSO appointed by ISP Constituency for 2 years. He was a member of ICANN IDN Registry Implementation Committee. Currently he is on ICANN President's Advisory Committee for IDNs and ccNSO Council. 3. IDNs in Poland Andrzej Bartosiewicz, Chairman of CENTR,Polish NASK Andrzej has a total 10+ years of professional experience in ICT sector including 7+ years in Internet/Domain Names System business. He is at present working as Head of DNS Division (national Registry for .PL and +48 ENUM Registry for Poland) at HYPERLINK "http://www.nask.pl/"NASK (Research and Academic Computer Network). Andrzej is participating actively in ICANN, ITU, RIPE, IETF and CENTR conferences. Author of several Internet Drafts to IETF, contributions to ICANN, CENTR and other organizations. Since March 2007 Andrzej is a chairman of HYPERLINK "http://www.centr.org/"CENTR, organisation of top-level domain managers. 4. One DNS, One Dream Hong Xue, Yale Information Society Project and University of Hong Kong Dr. XUE Hong, Assistant Professor of Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, and Fellow of Information Society Project of Yale Law School. Dr. Xue specializes in intellectual property law, information technology law and the Internet governance. She has published widely in both Chinese and international journals. Dr. Xue was elected as one of the Ten Nationally Distinguished Young Jurists by the China Law Society and granted the Special Governmental Allowance for prominent contribution to social science by the State Council. She also got the Outstanding Young Researcher Award from the University of Hong Kong. She has served on many government/public and professional bodies. Internationally, she works in many governmental and non-governmental organizations. She is the Member of the Executive Committee of the International Association for Promotion of the Advanced Teaching and Research of Intellectual Property (ATRIP) and ICANN President's Advisory Committee on Internationalized Domain Names . Since 2003, she is one of the founders of the Internet Users Organization in the Asia-Pacific Region. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1119 - Release Date: 11/8/2007 17:55 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Fri Nov 9 15:37:55 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:37:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF: Best Practices Forum - Bulgaria, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 6:30 p.m. Message-ID: <20071109203807.6AC1E2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Dear colleagues, please, mark in your calendar the BPF (Best Practices Forum) on Wednesday, Nov. 14, at 6:30 p.m. The Bulgarian Ambassador to Brazil, H.E. Nikolay Tsachev will be presenting the case of Bulgaria. The presentation will cover the Bulgarian experience in governing the Internet through public-private partnership. The presentation will review the legal framework, how the country is managing the domain name system and the IP address allocation, combating cyber-crime, etc. There will be a special focus on partnership between the government and the private sector. 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Nov 9 05:34:07 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:34:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20071109103407.GA10188@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:00:31AM +1100, Ian Peter wrote a message of 239 lines which said: > The world has changed since then and it's just possible that a more > creative way of expanding the number pool might be available to us > now that wasn't thought about then. You're welcome to explain it to us. Congratulations for thinking of a solution that noone at the IETF was able to find in the last twenty years. > If we think through a decent mitigation strategy there are a number of > things that can be done to ensure that doesn't happen for another 20 years > or more. I also welcome an explanation of this clever strategy. Do not hesitate to martyrize your keyboard to document it. > The last great hope seems to be that when the last number runs out > someone (probably in an underdeveloped country) will scream and we > will all change. I agree with you. The people who have a lot of IPv4 addresses (and therefore do not fear the coming crisis) have the power and the people who are already experiencing the scarcity do not have the power. So, indeed, as you write, nobody will care when a new user in Africa will ask for IPv4 addresses and be denied. IPv6 was never deployed because, while the *global* cost of workarounds (such as NAT) is enormous, the *individual* cost of migrating to IPv6 is high. So, each actor takes a decision which is reasonable for him, but very costly for the community (like in the famous Prisoner's Dilemna). Before all, the non-deployment of IPv6 is a clear failure of the marker. As long as there is no collective action, only an addition of individual actions, big changes like IPv6 will not occur. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 9 19:24:34 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:24:34 -0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Reporting from the IGF In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01DA8C8F@ensms02.iris.se> References: <472CCC8A.9000902@bertola.eu> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01DA8C8F@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <0C1E883C-A6C0-49E2-AAA7-3ABCFD534E21@Malcolm.id.au> On 05/11/2007, at 5:54 AM, Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Vittorio, > > For me who can not be present and wish to follow what have happen, > I find your proposal a very good one! > > Hope it will become a reality! Do reports need to be anything more formal than just a blog post? Why not then just post them on the new IGF community site at http:// igf-online.net? Alternatively, RSS feeds from external blogs are aggregated on that site. Send your blog URL to me and I'll add it to the aggregator. PS. I have been off-line for ages. Just arrived in Rio and am back online. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 9 21:13:35 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:13:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: In-Reply-To: p06240810c35a52d60414@[10.242.44.87] Message-ID: Adam Peake wrote: > How much spam is filtered in transit? Zero, these days. ISPs may apply spam filters at the edge of *their* network, router blocking packets from certain sources. Certainly not transit. Back in the old days, the original MAPS RBL got its name as a Realtime Blackhole List - at least two tier 1 providers, Abovenet and Teleglobe - were nullrouting IPs that appeared on the RBL. That stopped a few years into the life of MAPS, and after that MAPS gradually went into decline till it was sold to Trend Micro and is currently part of yet another vendor spam filtering solution. Currently, the one example I can think of is ISPs filtering bogons / martians (lists such as maintained by bogons.cymru.com) - that means IPs that are reserved for special purposes as defined by IANA, as well as currently unallocated netblocks - bogons.cymru.com is kept current. But IANA reserved and unallocated netblocks dont normally originate packets, and any you see are likely to be random spoofed source address traffic - frequently malicious. Filtering these is sound network best practice. For more active filtering, there are advisories such as those published by spamhaus in their DROP list, that advise ISPs "Dont Route Or Peer" with certain malicious ASNs / netblocks - for example the DROP list lists currently known netblocks announced by the Russian Business Network. http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/ However in most cases ISPs use that as an ACL on their border routers. And the DROP list contains a very small number of netblocks under the direct control of spam gangs / malware operations (that is, they've got these allocated to them direct from the RIR such as ARIN etc - and use them in interesting ways, such as, as "ghost ASs" - get announced by some random ISP in eastern europe or south asia, or announced in a way to take advantage of inadequate prefix filtering - pump out spam / launch malware etc - and then simply disappear till it pops up somewhere else). The number of ASNs that do that and need such treatment is vanishingly small compared to the number of entries in the main SBL list, which is intended as a blocklist to be applied on mailservers. Using blocklists such as SBL, or other filters (HELO based etc), spam is blocked at the mailserver's edge. You can't push spam filtering onto users, trust me .. [1] It wont scale [2] Most users lack the capacity to do so [3] Most users would rather you dont give them a completely unfiltered feed of email and let them poke through the sludge to find valid mail. The flip side is that ISPs must have a mature false positive reporting and handling process (which we do at any rate, and which is best practice as advocated by MAAWG - www.maawg.org) --srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 9 21:36:26 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:36:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: In-Reply-To: 473260B0.3010501@rits.org.br Message-ID: Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: What Vittorio raises below is exactly what Google is facing in Brazil (of all places) with its Orkut social platform abused by some members for illegal postings (child porn and alia). Again argues for having mature abuse handling processes in place. And the dual (well, universal) criminality of child porn makes this a case where Google clearly screwed up - their abuse handling processes were certainly not up to scratch. Contrast that with the recent Yahoo / Shih Tao case. And this techcrunch article that points out that the subpoena for Shih Tao's article was issued to Yahoo China, which is only 40% owned by Yahoo (the rest by Beijing based alibaba.com), and which is incorporated in China, staffed by Chinese citizens and subject to Chinese laws. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/yahoo-in-china-an-unfair-attack/ That certainly didnt stop the senate subcommittee from going after Yahoo VERY hard - Jerry Yang had to apologize in public to Shih Tao's mother, and that, for sure, gives her some excellent ammunition in whatever lawsuit she has against Yahoo for this. The article also states: San Mateo Democrat Chairman Tom Lantos called Yahoo moral pygmies, and Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., compared Yahoo�s cooperation with the Chinese government to companies that cooperated with Nazi Germany during World War II. The comments to the article range from heated criticism to much more nuanced opinions. Personally speaking, there are some Interesting points to note - Tom Lantos, especially, is the only holocaust survivor, a jew who survived Nazi Germany, to currently sit on the US senate. So any comparison he makes or agrees with that reference Nazi Germany need not necessarily be what usenet would call a Godwin argument. And whatever gets blogged, there is a lot of bipartisan support right now to support bills that would enable US Internet companies to cooperate with foreign law enforcement .. This kind of bipartisan support and anger can lead to sweeping legislative curbs in short order. Presidential veto may not work either - the recent override of Bush�s veto - by an overwhelming majority across party lines - on the water bill, and the passing of a previous bill that declared Turkey�s repression of Armenians in around 1910 genocide (to the fury of Turkey, which has been a NATO member for quite some time ..) I dont remember the specific bill back from 2006 but I believe it proposed that such cross border cooperation would be through the US Department of Justice, and applying the internationally recognized concept of dual criminality which means that the action against which the warrant or subpoena has been issued should be regarded as criminal in both countries - the country issuing the warrant, and the country which receives the warrant. What does this mean for ISPs who will want to do business in the USA as well as In China, if this trend becomes something more pronounced, as it well may? In other words, if China wants to go after a blogger calling for free elections, or if (say) Thailand pursue Orkut for someone posting insulting photos of the Thai king, Indians want to go after someone who calls Shivaji (a respected historical king in India + the mascot of a particular rightwing political party that takes "insults" to him as an excuse to start riots) a coward, it won�t work. Any warrant that is produced and has to go the crossborder route will run headfirst into the first amendment, that protects free speech except under some narrowly defined exceptions (speech that causes or may cause immediate harm .. the so-called �shouting fire in a crowded theater� test). Even now, the US, a signatory to the Council of Europe convention on cybercrime, is NOT a signatory to the additional protocol on racial hatred / xenophobia through computer systems - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/189.htm (used to pursue, for example, deniers of the holocaust, white supremacists etc) On the whole, not a bad thing at all. Though it would make China, Thailand, Saudi Arabia etc not very happy campers. --srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 9 21:43:07 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:43:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071110024307.GA16361@hserus.net> Suresh [09/11/07 18:13 -0800]: >Adam Peake wrote: > >> How much spam is filtered in transit? > >Zero, these days. ISPs may apply spam filters at the edge of *their* network, >router blocking packets from certain sources. Certainly not transit. And as for the bounce that triggered this - that's certainly not an in transit filter. > Received: from mail pickup service by ntra-exfe-01.TRA.GOV.EG with > Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Nov 2007 04:39:39 +0200 > From: Antigen_NTRA-EXFE-01 > To: suresh at hserus.net > Subject: Antigen Notification: Antigen found a message matching a filter Someone on this list is signed up with a gov.eg address, and his ministry IT department needs to either retrain their email admin, install a new spam filter or both .. Ha. Capacity Building, providing the right tools for the job .. sounds like at least two standard practices that can be applied here. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 02:11:21 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:11:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2007 11:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Well, let me be radical about this and suggest that IPv6 has already failed > and will never be rolled out. Tell that to the 1000+ networks that are already announcing IPv6 prefixes! > The world has changed since then and it's just possible that a more creative > way of expanding the number pool might be available to us now that wasn't > thought about then. Could you be more specific? It is also possible that we are dealing with an adoption > problem of a scale not anticipated at the time (particularly given the long > unanticipated lead time in rollout). > Clearly the case. > If it's consumers who are supposed to lead the adoption of IPv6, I suggest > it will never succeed. As everyone agrees, there is no business case. NO > business case, no rollout, no IPv6. That's the laws of the universe. But there will be a biz case if /when a) mandated (or encouraged by carrots) via gov't intervention b) after v4 runout > > I will also say it doesn't matter - because the problem is not non-adoption > of IPv6, as we have begun to believe - it's that numbers are supposed to run > out and probably will unless something changes. > > If we think through a decent mitigation strategy there are a number of > things that can be done to ensure that doesn't happen for another 20 years 20??? That's very optimistic! This just puts off the problem that has already been put off for ~10 years, so we would leave it to another generation to face the same issues? > or more. That gives time for a more elegant approach to number pool > expansion than IPv6 to emerge. > > To their credit, both Geoff Huston and Randy Bush have begun to think about > these alternative mitigation strategies - although both seem to still cling > at times to the hope that the laws of markets and the laws of human > behaviour will suddenly change and IPv6 will suddenly be adopted but a lot > later than first expected. (That's sometimes called denial). The last great > hope seems to be that when the last number runs out someone (probably in an > underdeveloped country) will scream and we will all change. Yeah, right > on.... In many of the proposals being considered by the RIR communities, each RIR will get "N" /8s at a certain point in time (when there are x /8s unallocated in the free pool). Because of faster burn rates in NA and EU, this will probably mean that here in Africa, we will have the last IPv4 to give out. In other words, EU may run out first, followed closely by NA/Asia, then LAC, and finally Africa. There are other proposals that would change this scenario though. > > Sorry to rain on the parade, but really the answer to the number pool > expansion problem requires us to be realistic rather than hopeful, and to be > prepared to be flexible with approaches rather than clinging to an approach > that hasn't worked. > > So let me say it again - the problem is not that people are not adopting > IPv6. The problem is that we have not yet arrived at a strategy for dealing > with number pool expansion that is acceptable to all major stakeholders and > is scaleable to future needs. We need a major rethink - and I really don't > think it will be a difficult problem to solve if we put our efforts into > alternative approaches rather than "flogging a dead horse". > > But back to Guru's question about what this has to do with governance. Quite > a lot. Neither IGF in it's current state or current "governance" > institutions of a technical nature The governance institutions that deal with these are actually administrative in nature. are adequate as they exist now to deal > with this problem without further levels of involvement (that's > self-evident). Self evident to you perhaps, but not to many others who have spoken on this topic. (TA, GAC, ALAC, etc) Structural change is probably necessary to ensure the levels > of talent and skills and political and business impact necessary to deal > with this and a host of other (probably more pressing) issues. > By the time you get your "structural change" together, the IPv4 pool will be exhausted. Best to work within the current system which is deeply engaged in finding solutions in this space! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -- 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 peter at peter-dambier.de Sat Nov 10 04:02:29 2007 From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:02:29 +0100 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f?=. : [governance] Jan 2009 - World Social Forum "Sciences & Democracy" - Forum Social Mondial "Sciences & =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9mocratie?=" In-Reply-To: References: <200711091355.lA9Dt07e011046@merlin.enst.fr> Message-ID: <473573A5.4030909@peter-dambier.de> I can read it and I like it. Regards Peter and Karin Je l'ai lue. ça me plait beaucoup. Cordialement Peter et Karin Guyverson Vernous wrote: > It seems to me that the file is corrupted. > > Guy > > /-------Message original-------/ > > /*De :*/ Louis Pouzin > /*Date :*/ 11/9/2007 9:55:53 AM > /*A :*/ gov at wsis-gov.org ; > e-democracy at wsis-gov.org ; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > /*Sujet :*/ [governance] Jan 2009 - World Social Forum "Sciences & > Democracy" - Forum Social Mondial "Sciences & Démocratie" > > Dear all, > > Here is an initiative you may find worth supporting > > Best > > Chers tous, > - - - > > Chers tous, > > Voici une initiative que vous pouvez souhaiter soutenir. > > Bien cordialement > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at peter-dambier.de mail: peter at echnaton.arl.pirates http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 10 07:14:29 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 04:14:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> McTim [10/11/07 10:11 +0300]: >On Nov 7, 2007 11:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Well, let me be radical about this and suggest that IPv6 has already failed >> and will never be rolled out. > >Tell that to the 1000+ networks that are already announcing IPv6 prefixes! As compared to how many that are announcing v4, again? Most of the v6 boosting is generally koolaid, stuff like "hey look, my fridge has a v6 address, knows I am out of beer and can contact the supermarket's ordering system, also on v6 .." - all that's left is a reliable way of delivering beer (or is it kool aid) over v6. Whatever production deployment of v6, whatever v6 prefix announcing was going to happen has happened. Now, unless * someone thinks of a killer app for v6 only hosts * a major broadband / cellular carrier edge/3g rollout assigns v6 to customers or something on that scale, all you are left with is a few hobbyists running tunnels, a few sites (freebsd ftp servers and such) that run dual stack v6 + v4 machines, etc. Drops in the bucket. >> The world has changed since then and it's just possible that a more creative >> way of expanding the number pool might be available to us now that wasn't >> thought about then. > >Could you be more specific? Er, I keep coming across hijacked /16s here and there, some reclamation might help (and yes it is going on) Then again there's no shortage of random ISPs (in the third world or the first) whose IP allocation procedure consists of entries in an excel sheet, and are sloppy at best about things like reclaiming space from customers, aggregating their prefix announcements etc. I know and have talked to various ISPs who still say "class C" for example, and probably got trained in classful addressing too .. just cant wrap their minds around CIDR and their network allocation methods show it. Trimming some of that wasteful use might result in surprising savings of IP addresses. That's not creative, that's elbow grease and hard work. But .. >But there will be a biz case if /when >a) mandated (or encouraged by carrots) via gov't intervention >b) after v4 runout c) after the vendors kool aid supply runs out. >> But back to Guru's question about what this has to do with governance. Quite >> a lot. Neither IGF in it's current state or current "governance" >> institutions of a technical nature > >The governance institutions that deal with these are actually >administrative in nature. Very true. I wish a lot more people would realize that The RIR mechanism is actually [1] adequate [2] far better clued on how to manage IP addresses. People of the caliber of geoff huston dont grow on trees, strangely enough. And when I see IP addressing arguments and even vaguer root server arguments come in (one gentleman was assuring me that they were going to give his country just root servers .. read root server anycast instances .. but he held out for three, and very proud he was, never mind that most ISPs in his country still route their packets so they take a roundtrip through Singapore or the USA before coming back into the country...) Great, when you consider what kind of highly informed opinions can come in from various people who have not had control of much more than a T1 or ADSL line with maybe a /26 ... much more interesting when the commenter is just about good at configuring an IP address onto his laptop. >By the time you get your "structural change" together, the IPv4 pool >will be exhausted. Best to work within the current system which is >deeply engaged in finding solutions in this space! As for the v6 space, given the way it is currently being allocated - I guess once we get ipv9 (hallelujah for Jim Fleming!) and interstellar internet we'll have the Intergalactic Governance Forum, and Milton Mueller's great^n grandson can debate this with green and red spotted tentacled aliens from the crab nebula. regards srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 10 08:15:57 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:15:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> (mueller@syr.edu) References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> Milton L Mueller wrote: > And there is no principled objection to filtering spam because > almost all of it constitutes undesired messages which exploit the > ability to free ride on the Internet resources of others. I disagree. As long as the fundamental design of the email system is not fixed to make it possible to reliably avoid the problem of false positives in spam filtering, spam filtering is inherently problematic. For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being falsely classified as spam. That is a violation of net neutrality with regard to freedom of religion. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 10 08:39:45 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 05:39:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> Norbert Bollow [10/11/07 14:15 +0100]: >As long as the fundamental design of the email system is not fixed >to make it possible to reliably avoid the problem of false positives >in spam filtering, spam filtering is inherently problematic. Please dont drag in net neutrality into contexts where it doesnt exist. There are no common carrier obligations for email traffic. And while there's a lot of best practices about good spam filtering, calling bad or incompetent spam filtering a violation of network neutrality is ludicrous, at best. srs (mildly surprised at agreeing with milton for once) >For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing >Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being >falsely classified as spam. That is a violation of net neutrality >with regard to freedom of religion. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Sat Nov 10 08:58:09 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:58:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> Norbert Bollow ha scritto: > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> And there is no principled objection to filtering spam because >> almost all of it constitutes undesired messages which exploit the >> ability to free ride on the Internet resources of others. > > I disagree. > > As long as the fundamental design of the email system is not fixed > to make it possible to reliably avoid the problem of false positives > in spam filtering, spam filtering is inherently problematic. > > For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing > Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being > falsely classified as spam. That is a violation of net neutrality > with regard to freedom of religion. I think that, in our collective discussion, we've abundantly shown that things are not black or white, and any attempt to design a single and simple principle is immediately subject to a flood of desirable exceptions. Personally, I see it much easier to discriminate among "collectively approved" violations of the neutrality principle - established by law or by other open policy-making processes, under due process guarantees - and "private" violations, arbitrarily imposed by a single party or by a cartel. Private violations are usually done for personal interest, much like all the business cases of non-neutrality on whose undesirability we all agree (BTW, Milton - there's a "right wing" reason for network neutrality too, which is promoting liberal market competition). But even when they're done "for the good", they usually lack checks and balances, so they are easily prone to capture, and they often reflect the operator's personal understanding of what needs to be filtered, rather than the socially agreed collective view. Public violations, at least, should come from collective sentiments and through democratic processes. Of course you have issues with a possible "dictatorship of the majority", so we should err on the side of less filtering, than on the side of more filtering. In other words, they should be limited to the bare minimum that a society finds necessary - see for example article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art10 which represents the current compromise accepted in Europe. Still, this doesn't solve the problem that these sentiments and compromises differ in different parts of the world. As I said, to me the real challenge is how to find a way to address the issue "glocally", allowing for flexibility while maintaining the uniqueness of the Internet. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 10 09:06:23 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:36:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <000a01c823a2$e26bf860$a743e920$@net> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Still, this doesn't solve the problem that these sentiments and > compromises differ in different parts of the world. As I said, to me > the real challenge is how to find a way to address the issue "glocally", > allowing for flexibility while maintaining the uniqueness of the > Internet. Developing best current practices, perhaps? Harder than it sounds, and certainly a better product than idealistic expressions of belief that something should happen, and something else should not .. given that they are going to be grounded in operational realities. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Sat Nov 10 09:47:47 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:47:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] speakers for the IGF opening ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4735C493.6090200@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Hi, > > It seems all stakeholders are to be invited to make suggestions for > representatives who will speak during the opening ceremony in Rio next > Monday (Opening Session from 1100 to 1300.) This seems to be somewhat lost in the noise, but anyway I see it difficult that any stakeholder group can have a meaningful discussion about this matter in two days. Personally, I would like to suggest a speaker from the rights community, for example Anriette Esterhuysen or Rikke Frank Joergensen, if they are here. In any case, given the timeframe, I guess that the AG will be doing choices on its own. -- 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 Sat Nov 10 09:48:16 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:48:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights events at the IGF Message-ID: <4735C4B0.4040709@bertola.eu> ==== Workshop “Towards an Internet rights framework: a work in progress” Tuesday 13 November 2007 10:30 – 12:00 Room Versailles II The “Internet Bill of Rights” coalition, founded at the Athens IGF, has been prompting for the last year a discussion on the appropriate instruments to further the advancement and enforcement of human rights over the Internet, and on the types of rights, both traditional and innovative, to be covered by such instruments. After the introductory remarks of extremely distinguished panelists, coalition members will summarize the emerging trends from this year's work, as an input into an open discussion with the audience about possible next steps for year 2008. This workshop aims to be a brainstorming session where communalities among the different views on this matter are extracted, so to lead to shared proposals and stock-taking commitments for immediate working items. Panelists: Hon. Min. Gilberto Passos Gil Moreira, Minister of Culture, Brazil Prof. Stefano Rodotà, University of Rome, Italy M.me Catherine Trautmann, Member of the European Parliament, France Mr. Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Fundaçao Getulio Vargas, Brazil Ms. Robin Gross, IP Justice, United States Moderator: Mr. Vittorio Bertola, Società Internet, Italy ==== Organizational meeting Monday 13 November 2007 11:00 – 13:00 Room Queluz VI The meeting is open to all members of the coalition as well as to anyone interested in joining it, and will focus on the status of the work and on working plans for next year. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Recap of activities and meetings from last year 2. Final organizational details about our workshop 3. Name of the coalition 4. Working items and deliverables for 2008 5. Possible conclusions to be delivered to the IGF plenary / AG -- 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 cnd at knowprose.com Sat Nov 10 10:01:52 2007 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:01:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> And there is no principled objection to filtering spam because >> almost all of it constitutes undesired messages which exploit the >> ability to free ride on the Internet resources of others. >> > > I disagree. > > As long as the fundamental design of the email system is not fixed > to make it possible to reliably avoid the problem of false positives > in spam filtering, spam filtering is inherently problematic. > > For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing > Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being > falsely classified as spam. That is a violation of net neutrality > with regard to freedom of religion. > I could take that a step further and state that I find all Christian email messages that demand I surrender my heathen Buddhist soul to be spam; that their freedom of speech and religious self expression trods on my own personal freedoms just as ringing my doorbell to 'share their word' with me is a disturbance of my peace - an unwelcome intrusion on the sanctity of my privacy so that they can shove their beliefs down my throat. That said, I happily delete them knowing that people mean well - but if we're going to use religious examples, lets go all the way, shall we? The truth is that the Spam problem could be fairly easily addressed - it is simply a matter of following the money. The people who own the links which appear in commercial spam messages are guilty of funding the spam in the first place. Prosecuting them is sensible, but then there is the possibility that competing businesses may plant spam messages, etc. So the real people to find and deal with would be the enablers - those who actually send the messages. This means that local laws where the spam is being sent from would need to work toward the same. Consider the problems between the UK and the United States when it comes to spam regulation (we have reached a point where we *regulate* spam). Also consider that domain registrars are still accepting inaccurate registration information, so that many of these people easily obfuscate their true identities - perhaps even creating a market for credit card theft. What is happening outside of the geopolitical sphere: Webmasters and network administrators are blacklisting entire regions because of the spam. If that continues, people in those countries will be unable to access many sites and email lists - and that means that either local government will have to deal with their issues and redeem themselves or, by their own lack of action, censor their own people from the internet. This is very heavy handed, but the lack of progress in internet governance along these lines forces the community to fall to lynch mob justice. Christian keywords, as annoying as they are for myself personally, are the tip of the iceberg. -- Taran Rampersad http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com 'Making Your Mark in Second Life: Business, Land, and Money' http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514174/ Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 10 10:11:46 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:41:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <002801c823ac$05704510$1050cf30$@net> Taran Rampersad wrote: > The truth is that the Spam problem could be fairly easily addressed - > it is simply a matter of following the money. The people who own the links > which appear in commercial spam messages are guilty of funding the spam > in the first place. Prosecuting them is sensible, but then there is the I wish it were that easy. Consider, for example, a spammer based in the USA, but spamming through a botnet operated by someone in the Ukraine, with servers hosted in china, money / online payment transactions located in the carribbean etc etc. > Also consider that domain registrars are still accepting inaccurate > registration information, so that many of these people easily obfuscate > their true identities - perhaps even creating a market for credit card > theft. If that harebrained opoc idea ever took off (which it wont, as I thought) - that issue would have been removed, entirely. By making whois data practically nonexistent. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Nov 10 11:53:14 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:53:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" Message-ID: Thomas, My point exactly, a 'principle' defined by exceptions and nuances in the eye of the beholder seems perfect only for theological debates on how many neutral angels can fit on the head of a pin. So it is not really a 'nice principle,' it's a trap set by Google lobbyists all too many of you have fallen into. Again, nothing against Google, love that search engine and gmail etc, but their spin-doctors, are well, spin post-docs as I see how well they have spun many of you, including my own esteemed colleagues ; ). I prefer "universal, open, equitable, and flexible access" to quote from the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework Draft Version 0.1, October 2007, as a Global Principle. Go to http://ctu.int/ctu/Projects/InternetGovernance/tabid/73/Default.aspx if you wish to review the doc or post comments, perhaps explaining to Caribbean governments why they really all would be better off talking of network neutrality, when what they mean is universal, open, equitable and flexible access as a shared policy principle for Internet governance. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> narten at us.ibm.com 11/09/07 9:08 AM >>> > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end > users being given maximum control over their settings. Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it to the "edges", only to be filtered there. Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep it from entering their network in the first place. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sat Nov 10 13:53:09 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:53:09 -0300 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f?=. : [governance] Jan 2009 - World Social Forum "Sciences & Democracy" - Forum Social Mondial "Sciences & =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9mocratie?=" In-Reply-To: References: <200711091355.lA9Dt07e011046@merlin.enst.fr> Message-ID: <4735FE15.3010809@rits.org.br> Reads fine here in Adobe Reader 8. --c.a. Guyverson Vernous wrote: > It seems to me that the file is corrupted. > > > > Guy > > > > -------Message original------- > > > > De : Louis Pouzin > > Date : 11/9/2007 9:55:53 AM > > A : gov at wsis-gov.org; e-democracy at wsis-gov.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Sujet : [governance] Jan 2009 - World Social Forum "Sciences & Democracy" - > Forum Social Mondial "Sciences & Démocratie" > > > > Dear all, > > > > Here is an initiative you may find worth supporting > > > > Best > > > > Chers tous, > > - - - > > > > Chers tous, > > > > Voici une initiative que vous pouvez souhaiter soutenir. > > > > Bien cordialement > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 10 14:28:51 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:58:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting tomorrow - 11th In-Reply-To: <002801c823ac$05704510$1050cf30$@net> Message-ID: <20071110192854.0EF7E67890@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All This is to confirm tomorrow's IGC meeting from 530 to 730 at Windsor Barra hotel, Salao Imperial room - the room in which LAC civil society meeting will take place. Markus is unable to come because of understandable pre-occupations. He will request Chengetai to come in instead for a while. The agenda of the meeting is as follow: Meeting will open with a short presentation of IGC's work over the last year by Vittorio. 10 mins Open house for members to take up organizational issues - 50 mins Priority issues, and strategy and activities by IGC and IGC members, during IGF 2007 - 50 mins Any clarifications with the IGF secretariat (Chengetai) - 10 mins Meeting ends at 730. 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sat Nov 10 15:57:14 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:57:14 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071110205714.GA541@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:25:34AM -0500, Lee McKnight wrote a message of 80 lines which said: > I guess to be logically consistent we should all shut down our spam > filters so we're net neutral. That's a very twisted way of representing the opinions of other people. You write an important word: "OUR spam filters". I have spam filters, like anyone. But I choosed them and I control them, that's the big difference with the stuff put by a provider (and not documented, and about which the user support never reply). You make the same error as Milton Mueller when, to criticize people who complain against traffic engineering and bandwidth shaping, said "Do you think that IETF should not have invented diffserv?" diffserv, like spam filters, is a tool. The point is not wether the tool is Good or Evil but who controls 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 KovenRonald at aol.com Sat Nov 10 16:06:58 2007 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:06:58 EST Subject: [governance] speakers for the IGF opening ceremony Message-ID: Dear Alkl I would like to nominate Julien Pain, until recently the head of the Internet freedom desk at Reporters sans Frontieres, now in charge of Internet freedom news at France 24 (the new "French CNN"), and this coming week a member of the World Press Freedom Committee delegation at the IGF. He was very active at the Athens IGF, publicly challenging the Chinese official representatives in plenary to justify their restrictive practices. Best regards, Rony Koven European representative World Press Freedom Committee ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Sat Nov 10 16:36:48 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:36:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] IP Justice at Internet Governance Forum 2007 Message-ID: <47362470.3030207@ipjustice.org> *IP Justice at Internet Governance Forum 2007 *11 - 15 November 2007 Inquiries: robin at ipjustice.org IP Justice is proud to be involved with a number of discussions scheduled for the 2007 *Internet Governance Forum* (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. The IGF is a United Nations conference bringing together various stakeholders such as government, civil society, and business to discuss issues related to Internet governance. IP Justice is either an organizer, speaker, or co-sponsor of the following IGF-Rio sessions, which will be held at the Windsor Barra Hotel in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil during the 2007 Internet Governance Forum (11-15 November 2007). _*11 Nov. 2007*_ *Standards Edge Conference: "Digital Inclusion: Accelerating Global Participation & Access through 'Open' ICT Standardization"* Time: 8:30 - 17:30 Keynote: John Gage - Sun MicroSystems Session: *"International Market Influences"* (15:45 - 17:15) Speakers include: Robin Gross of *IP Justice* / Richard Owens of *the World Intellectual Property Organization* / Thomas Vinje of *Clifford Chance *Info: http://thebolingroup.com/digitalinclusion _*12 Nov. 2007*_ *Session: The intersection of open ICT standards, development and public policy* Time: 15:30 - 17:00 Room: Pardo I Speakers include: Robin Gross of *IP Justice* / Malcolm Harbour of *European Parliament* / Carlos Afonso of *Rits-Brazil *Info: http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=61* * *Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression (FOEonline)* Time: 17:30 - 19:00 Room: Imperial Speakers include: Nicholas Dearden of *Amnesty International* / Julien Pein of *World Press Freedom Committee* / Christian Moeller of *OSCE / *Robert Faris of *Open Net Initiative / *Bob Boorstin* *of *Google *http://foeonline.wordpress.com/* * _*13 Nov. 2007*_ *Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights* Time: 10:30 - 12:00 Room: Versailles II Speakers include: *Gilberto Gil* of Brazilian Ministry of Culture / *Stefano Rodota,* Former EU Privacy Commissioner / *Catherine Trautman* of European Parliament / *Robin Gross* of IP Justice / *Carlos Affonso Pereria de Souza *of FGV-CTS / *Vittorio Bertola *http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/* * *Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)* Time: 14:30 - 16:00 Room: Pardo I Speakers include: Susan Stuble of *Sun MicroSystems */ Georg Greve of *Free Software Foundation Europe* / Thiru Balasubramaniam of *Knowledge Ecology International *http://igf-dcos.org/* * *Session: * * "Digital Education and Information Policy Initiative: Towards the Development of Effective Exceptions to and Limitations on Copyright in the Realm of Digital Education"* Time: 18:30 - 20:00 Room: Alhambra II Speakers include: Maria Badia of *European Parliament* / Ariel Vercelli of *Creative Commons Argentina* / Luis Villaroel Villalon of *Chile's Ministry of Education* / Geidy Lung of *the World Intellectual Property Organization* / Robin Gross of *IP Justice *http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/06/digital-education-workshop-at-the-2007-igf-rio/* * _*14 Nov. 2007*_ *Session: IP Justice International Cyberlaw Clinic Showcase: A global network of law schools promoting the public interest in Internet law and policy* Time: 9:00 - 10:00 am Room: Queluz VI Speakers include: *Stefano Rodota*, Former EU Privacy Commissioner / Michael Geist of *CIPPIC* / Ronaldo Lemos of *FGV-CTS* / Nick Dearden of *Amnesty International* / Hong Xue of *Hong Kong University* / Mary Wong from *Franklin Pierce Law Center* / Carlos de Souza of *FGV-CTS* http://www.ipjustice.org/cyberlaw/showcase *Session: **Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Access to Knowledge and Free Expression (A2K at IGF)* Time: 16:30 - 18:00 Room: Versaille II Speakers include: Robin Gross of *IP Justice* / Brad Biddle of *Intel Corp* / Eddan Katz of *Yale Law School* / Susan Struble of *Sun MicroSystems* / Natasha Primo of *Association for Progressive Communications* / Ronaldo Lemos and Pedro Paranagua of *FGV-CTS* / Mary Wong of *Franklin Pierce Law Center *http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/03/a2kigf-rio-2007/* * _*15 Nov. 2007*_ _**_ _**_*Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy* Time: 8:30 - 10:00 am Room: Imperial http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Privacy _*IGF Press Conferences: *_IP Justice also supports the following press conferences at IGF (Windsor Barra Hotel): * 13 Nov. 11:00 am: *Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards Press Conference* * 14 Nov. 10:00 am: *Launch of Dynamic Coalition on Digital Education Press Conference* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Nov 10 17:08:16 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:08:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) Message-ID: Stefan, I've been criticizing the lack of info provided by the firms doing traffic engineering, in print, for a long time, which is why I advocated consumer SLAs rather than the current obscurity which shields the provider practices from light, but obviously not criticism. See my 'Info' article 'towards consumer service level agreements' with Bill Lehr, from I think 2001. I am not attacking anyone, I am critiquing the twisted 'concept' of network neutrality, which was planted in the policy discourse by Google lobbyists, and is great fun for stimulating heated arguments but not useful in my opinion for shedding light. I believe net neutrality to be useful mainly as a blunt instrument for criticizing carrier practices, but when examined more closely, as I have said before, I find no there there. You and others may disagree, but so far on the list all I have seen is one attempt after another that when it gets down to facts, seems to be a bit, as you say, twisted. It wasn't me that said spam filters violated net neutrality. As you may note, Milton and I have different opinions on that concept, so am surprised to find you trying to group us, but whatever. We are indeed faculty colleagues who have agreed to disagree on network neutrality. As I said in another note, I prefer 'universal, open, flexible access' as a global policy principle. The point is not who controls which tool, it is what global policy principle is agreed by multistakeholders as an overarching principle for Internet governance. So criticize me for that phrase if you wish, since yeah I helped bring it into the Caribbean discourse to legitimize it before going global - Google lobbyists aren;t the only ones who know a thing or two about agenda setting, they just have a head start on me : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 11/10/07 3:57 PM >>> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:25:34AM -0500, Lee McKnight wrote a message of 80 lines which said: > I guess to be logically consistent we should all shut down our spam > filters so we're net neutral. That's a very twisted way of representing the opinions of other people. You write an important word: "OUR spam filters". I have spam filters, like anyone. But I choosed them and I control them, that's the big difference with the stuff put by a provider (and not documented, and about which the user support never reply). You make the same error as Milton Mueller when, to criticize people who complain against traffic engineering and bandwidth shaping, said "Do you think that IETF should not have invented diffserv?" diffserv, like spam filters, is a tool. The point is not wether the tool is Good or Evil but who controls 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 vb at bertola.eu Sat Nov 10 18:22:31 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:22:31 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47363D37.8040708@bertola.eu> Lee McKnight ha scritto: > I am not attacking anyone, I am critiquing the twisted 'concept' of > network neutrality, which was planted in the policy discourse by Google > lobbyists, Perhaps that's the common perception in the US, but to me, network neutrality is to be a much wider concept, that embraces the necessary decoupling between the different roles in the chain of providing the various pieces of a communication. Sure it goes to the advantage of Google (the company) when applied to ISPs, but it should also go to their disadvantage when we realize that ubiquitous content distribution platforms such as Google (the search engine) and Youtube should be subject to similar constraints. In the end, network neutrality is simply another form of antitrust enforcement, drawing its roots in the "browser war" of the mid 90's, when Microsoft exploited its control power on the operating system platform (the "carrier") to discriminate in favour of its own browser at the application level (the "content" carried by the operating system). > As I said in another note, I prefer 'universal, open, flexible access' > as a global policy principle. But are the two exclusive? I don't think so. I don't think that there will be just one principle, there will be many of them. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sat Nov 10 19:12:20 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:12:20 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <000a01c823a2$e26bf860$a743e920$@net> References: <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> <000a01c823a2$e26bf860$a743e920$@net> Message-ID: <20071111001220.GC16637@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:36:23PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote a message of 23 lines which said: > Developing best current practices, perhaps? Harder than it sounds, Since we worked on this, you know that it is slow and that there is no real consensus, the interests at stake are too different. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Nov 10 19:14:47 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:14:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <473392EB.9000709@cavebear.com> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <473392EB.9000709@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071111001446.GD16637@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:51:23PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote a message of 28 lines which said: > Another potential principle of internet governance: Every user has the > right to know whether their traffic is being filtered and, if so, what > those filters are. YES! That's the important point (and it applies to other things than spam filtering). Note the IETF produced a document about that, RFC 4084, which is widely ignored. I have never seen an hotel advertising its crippled Internet connectivity with RFC 4084, for instance, or even acknowledging that it was a limited Internet connectivity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Nov 10 19:33:17 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:33:17 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) In-Reply-To: References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <473392EB.9000709@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071111003316.GA17721@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:13:17PM -0700, Dan Krimm wrote a message of 50 lines which said: > There is an argument (devil's advocate) that suggests that if it > were easy to find out how the filter algorithm works it could more > easily be bypassed in the constantly-escalating spam wars, thus > negating the value of the filter tool. I've rarely heard this argument when there is a technical audience (because everyone would bursts with laughter). But, yes, I've heard it sometimes. Do we suggest that the police or other law enforcement bodies work behind closed doors because the bad guys could use the knowledge of their process for the wrong use? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sat Nov 10 19:37:34 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:37:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20071111003734.GA18011@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 09:08:02AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote a message of 19 lines which said: > > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end > > users being given maximum control over their settings. > > Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email > they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it to > the "edges", only to be filtered there. > > Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep it > from entering their network in the first place. Yes, in an ideal world, all spam would be treated on my desktop, for maximum control. But, for the reasons you give, it is often better to handle the spam before my filters can see it. However, it does not change the underlying principle: users should be in control, or, as a minimum, should be fully informed. (An example is my current ISP where each user can choose, from a Web interface, the level of filtering he chooses.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 10 21:06:45 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:06:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071111001220.GC16637@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> <000a01c823a2$e26bf860$a743e920$@net> <20071111001220.GC16637@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <20071111020645.GC5987@hserus.net> Stephane Bortzmeyer [10/11/07 22:12 -0200]: >On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:36:23PM +0530, > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote > a message of 23 lines which said: > >> Developing best current practices, perhaps? Harder than it sounds, > >Since we worked on this, you know that it is slow and that there is no >real consensus, the interests at stake are too different. Well yes, which is why I am set to tear my hair out for most of next year http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 00:32:23 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:32:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Nov 10, 2007 3:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > As compared to how many that are announcing v4, again? How many ASNs announcing v4 prefixes or how many v4 prefixes announced? potaroo.net is your friend ;-) > > Most of the v6 boosting is generally koolaid, I too have seen the v6 enabled demo of the remote opening of window blinds in Madrid from a continent away. > > Whatever production deployment of v6, whatever v6 prefix announcing was > going to happen has happened. a tad pessimistic. > > Now, unless > > * someone thinks of a killer app for v6 only hosts > * a major broadband / cellular carrier edge/3g rollout assigns v6 to > customers > > or something on that scale, all you are left with is a few hobbyists > running tunnels, a few sites (freebsd ftp servers and such) that run dual > stack v6 + v4 machines, etc. > > Drops in the bucket. > Yup, but I reckon it's just a longer phase of pioneering than was planned. If you want to fill a bucket, the first drops are important! > >> The world has changed since then and it's just possible that a more creative > >> way of expanding the number pool might be available to us now that wasn't > >> thought about then. > > > >Could you be more specific? > > Er, I keep coming across hijacked /16s here and there, some reclamation > might help (and yes it is going on) > true, 12 /8 was recently reclaimed, but that too is a drop in the bucket, even ALL if all of the legacy space was reclaimed, used or not, is only putting this off for a few years (not 20, certainly). > Then again there's no shortage of random ISPs (in the third world or the > first) whose IP allocation procedure consists of entries in an excel sheet, > and are sloppy at best about things like reclaiming space from customers, > aggregating their prefix announcements etc. I know and have talked to > various ISPs who still say "class C" for example, and probably got trained > in classful addressing too .. just cant wrap their minds around CIDR and > their network allocation methods show it. > ACK My ISPs network manager can't tell me what my IP is, (I have to tell her). > Trimming some of that wasteful use might result in surprising savings of IP > addresses. > > That's not creative, that's elbow grease and hard work. But .. > > >But there will be a biz case if /when > >a) mandated (or encouraged by carrots) via gov't intervention > >b) after v4 runout > > c) after the vendors kool aid supply runs out. agreed > > >> But back to Guru's question about what this has to do with governance. Quite > >> a lot. Neither IGF in it's current state or current "governance" > >> institutions of a technical nature > > > >The governance institutions that deal with these are actually > >administrative in nature. > > Very true. I wish a lot more people would realize that > me too > The RIR mechanism is actually [1] adequate [2] far better clued on how to > manage IP addresses. People of the caliber of geoff huston dont grow on > trees, strangely enough. right on! > > And when I see IP addressing arguments and even vaguer root server > arguments come in (one gentleman was assuring me that they were going to > give his country just root servers .. read root server anycast instances .. > but he held out for three, and very proud he was, never mind that most ISPs > in his country still route their packets so they take a roundtrip through > Singapore or the USA before coming back into the country...) > > Great, when you consider what kind of highly informed opinions can come in > from various people who have not had control of much more than a T1 or ADSL > line with maybe a /26 ... much more interesting when the commenter is just > about good at configuring an IP address onto his laptop. > > >By the time you get your "structural change" together, the IPv4 pool > >will be exhausted. Best to work within the current system which is > >deeply engaged in finding solutions in this space! > > As for the v6 space, given the way it is currently being allocated - I > guess once we get ipv9 (hallelujah for Jim Fleming!) I thought his mantra was IPv8/IPv16!! and interstellar > internet we'll have the Intergalactic Governance Forum, and Milton > Mueller's great^n grandson can debate this with green and red spotted > tentacled aliens from the crab nebula. Who might have an intergalactic number/naming scheme better than ours ;-)) -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 11 00:45:37 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:15:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> Message-ID: <000f01c82426$17342670$459c7350$@net> McTim wrote: > On Nov 10, 2007 3:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > As compared to how many that are announcing v4, again? > How many ASNs announcing v4 prefixes or how many v4 prefixes announced? > potaroo.net is your friend ;-) Entirely aware of the cidr report. But that was kind of a rhetorical question. > a tad pessimistic. No. As I said. > > Now, unless > > * someone thinks of a killer app for v6 only hosts > > * a major broadband / cellular carrier edge/3g rollout assigns v6 to > > customers [etc] V6 enabling window blinds and beer coolers simply means you are sooner or later going to run into botnets composed of these. If they're intelligent enough to have a v6 stack they can certainly get turned into botnets. And if somebody thinks v6 is magically more secure than v4 .. they just drank the koolaid, I fear. > Yup, but I reckon it's just a longer phase of pioneering than was > planned. If you want to fill a bucket, the first drops are important! Analogies, analogies .. if the tap keeps dripping this long, either there's a water shortage, or there's a block somewhere in the pipe that leads to your tap. > true, 12 /8 was recently reclaimed, but that too is a drop in the > bucket, even ALL if all of the legacy space was reclaimed, used or > not, is only putting this off for a few years (not 20, certainly). Then we simply wait for the next dotbomb. Silly Valley is starting to boom again - funnily named startups, domain name speculation by "domainers", etc etc. Once that happens, guess how much IP space gets freed up again? > ACK > > My ISPs network manager can't tell me what my IP is, (I have to tell > her). Yes. And I've seen a "senior network engineer" ask the workshop instructor (Philip Smith as it happens, at a sanog workshop sometime back) what a route map was. > > guess once we get ipv9 (hallelujah for Jim Fleming!) > > I thought his mantra was IPv8/IPv16!! Typo. Yes. But then there was a chinese vendor who managed to develop "ipv9" - and start a story about how the Chinese government was endorsing this. http://www.circleid.com/posts/explaining_chinas_ipv9 > Who might have an intergalactic number/naming scheme better than > ours ;-)) I am sure that will be discussed in great detail .. and travel budgets will have to scale up correspondingly (wonder what a beach resort in deep space looks like). Thank god the third IGF is going to be in Delhi, which is as crowded and polluted a city as can be (and at a time - winter - where most flights are going to be badly hit by fog delays..). Good food though. And by the way it is a place where you get fleatrap motels for $150+, Marriott / Sheraton type places for $250, a Hilton for $300 etc. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 00:53:30 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:53:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <000f01c82426$17342670$459c7350$@net> References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <000f01c82426$17342670$459c7350$@net> Message-ID: On Nov 11, 2007 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Forgot to include this URL in my last post, have you ever heard of this "routing guru" http://www.networkworld.com/chat/archive/2007/110807-jeff-doyle-chat.html?page=1 > I am sure that will be discussed in great detail .. and travel budgets will > have to scale up correspondingly (wonder what a beach resort in deep space > looks like). Thank god the third IGF is going to be in Delhi, which is as > crowded and polluted a city as can be (and at a time - winter - where most > flights are going to be badly hit by fog delays..). Good food though. And > by the way it is a place where you get fleatrap motels for $150+, Marriott / > Sheraton type places for $250, a Hilton for $300 etc. > Yikes! -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 11 01:03:15 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:33:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <000f01c82426$17342670$459c7350$@net> Message-ID: <001001c82428$8e424a60$aac6df20$@net> McTim wrote: > Forgot to include this URL in my last post, have you ever heard of > this "routing guru" > http://www.networkworld.com/chat/archive/2007/110807-jeff-doyle- > chat.html?page=1 Why the quotes, mate? Jeff Doyle is actually very good (used to be with Juniper for ~ 8 years, now consulting on his own). And he does make sense. The sky is not falling if you don't adopt v6 right now. 5 years or more seems to be a reasonable timeline to start adopting it. For a more operational take try his preso at APRICOT 2006 in Perth - http://www.apricot.net/apricot2006/slides/conf/wednesday/Jeff_Doyle-IPv6%20T ransition.ppt srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 02:03:16 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:03:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <001001c82428$8e424a60$aac6df20$@net> References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <000f01c82426$17342670$459c7350$@net> <001001c82428$8e424a60$aac6df20$@net> Message-ID: On Nov 11, 2007 9:03 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > McTim wrote: > > > Forgot to include this URL in my last post, have you ever heard of > > this "routing guru" > > http://www.networkworld.com/chat/archive/2007/110807-jeff-doyle- > > chat.html?page=1 > > Why the quotes, mate? Because they called him a "celebrity author" as well as a guru, I had not heard his name him before, that's all. Jeff Doyle is actually very good (used to be with > Juniper for ~ 8 years, now consulting on his own). > > And he does make sense. The sky is not falling if you don't adopt v6 right > now. 5 years or more seems to be a reasonable timeline to start adopting it. > roger > For a more operational take try his preso at APRICOT 2006 in Perth - > http://www.apricot.net/apricot2006/slides/conf/wednesday/Jeff_Doyle-IPv6%20T > ransition.ppt Nice! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Sun Nov 11 02:13:43 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:13:43 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 11:58 AM -0200 11/10/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >I think that, in our collective discussion, we've abundantly shown that >things are not black or white, and any attempt to design a single and >simple principle is immediately subject to a flood of desirable exceptions. ... >Still, this doesn't solve the problem that these sentiments and >compromises differ in different parts of the world. As I said, to me the >real challenge is how to find a way to address the issue "glocally", >allowing for flexibility while maintaining the uniqueness of the Internet. I would suggest that whatever issues arise with spam should not muddy the water when it comes to general *data transport* common carriage (as distinct from spam filtering), which I think seems quite clear: I suggest there should be no exceptions to common carriage at the network layer within an integrated political jurisdiction capable of full direct control over ex post enforcement of crimes, regardless of what complications might arise at the application layer. (And those complications might still be productively addressed by the edge-power principle, generally.) If there are any "breaks in the front" regarding handling of spam, then I would suggest that spam issues should be split off from the data transport aspect of net neutrality, which is more fundamental and should be allowed to reach consensus on its own if differences of opinion on spam prove to be more persistent. I think the network layer can and should represent a bulwark against erosion of common carriage, even if the application layer presents more nuanced complications. And of course, the principle of protecting the network layer against ex ante restraint of data transmission for any carve-outs of criminal violations at the application/content layer, in favor of ex post enforcement, seems pretty clear as well. If there *is* to be any violation of net neutrality at the network layer, it should certainly be confined to borders between sovereign jurisdictions. And ideally it would be only temporary while jurisdictional cooperation agreements can be established for ex post enforcement, where appropriate. (However, I would not suggest that liberal governments accede to authoritarian governments simply to remove data blockage established by the latter. If an authoritarian sovereign chooses to violate net neutrality in order to oppress its local population, then there is nothing that can be done to force the long term diplomatic process that might change those local polices and cause the authoritarian to remove the data block. Sovereign authoritarian powers have the ability to violate net neutrality and the rest of the world simply cannot stop them. But the "free world" should establish precedents of net neutrality within their own jurisdictions, and to the extent possible between their jurisdictions through the construction of processes for effective ex post enforcement of local criminal violations on their own merits.) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Sun Nov 11 03:07:37 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:07:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...) In-Reply-To: <20071111003316.GA17721@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <473392EB.9000709@cavebear.com> <20071111003316.GA17721@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: At 10:33 PM -0200 11/10/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:13:17PM -0700, > Dan Krimm wrote > a message of 50 lines which said: > >> There is an argument (devil's advocate) that suggests that if it >> were easy to find out how the filter algorithm works it could more >> easily be bypassed in the constantly-escalating spam wars, thus >> negating the value of the filter tool. > >I've rarely heard this argument when there is a technical audience >(because everyone would bursts with laughter). But, yes, I've heard it >sometimes. > >Do we suggest that the police or other law enforcement bodies work >behind closed doors because the bad guys could use the knowledge of >their process for the wrong use? I'm glad to hear this devil's advocate argument is not convincing (I do believe, for example, the arguments suggesting that widely-used open source SW can be more secure than proprietary SW because of the vastly larger number of eyeballs pounding on it to close breaches quickly when they emerge -- sunlight disinfects all things). Nevertheless, sometimes law enforcement does legitimately "work behind closed doors" in order to avoid alerting their criminal targets to their operations. Espionage, undercover operations, surveillance, etc. Law enforcement considers this a critical component of their tool set in certain circumstances. Of course, they routinely over-extend the legitimate application of these tools, and that requires constant vigilance (by those serving the public interest in a democratic society) to fight to constrain that transgression. Drawing these lines appropriately and enforcing those lines is one of the most difficult political balancing acts facing us as free societies. So, your second paragraph may overstate the case, because in some contexts the answer to that rhetorical question is indeed legitimately in the affirmative. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Nov 11 04:49:12 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:49:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59395@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> "Universal, flexible, open and equitable" are less precise and more prone to religious quibbling than the concept of net neutrality. This is just a string of adjectives. A significant literature on the NN topic has developed and we have an increasingly clear concept of its implications. Lee is just muddying the water. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:53 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; dan at musicunbound.com; narten at us.ibm.com > Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple > for Internet Governance" > > Thomas, > > My point exactly, a 'principle' defined by exceptions and nuances in the > eye of the beholder seems perfect only for theological debates on how > many neutral angels can fit on the head of a pin. > > So it is not really a 'nice principle,' it's a trap set by Google > lobbyists all too many of you have fallen into. Again, nothing against > Google, love that search engine and gmail etc, but their spin-doctors, > are well, spin post-docs as I see how well they have spun many of you, > including my own esteemed colleagues ; ). > > I prefer "universal, open, equitable, and flexible access" to quote from > the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework Draft Version 0.1, > October 2007, as a Global Principle. > > Go to > http://ctu.int/ctu/Projects/InternetGovernance/tabid/73/Default.aspx if > you wish to review the doc or post comments, perhaps explaining to > Caribbean governments why they really all would be better off talking of > network neutrality, when what they mean is universal, open, equitable > and flexible access as a shared policy principle for Internet > governance. > > Lee > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> narten at us.ibm.com 11/09/07 9:08 AM >>> > > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with > end > > users being given maximum control over their settings. > > Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email > they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it to > the "edges", only to be filtered there. > > Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep it > from entering their network in the first place. > > Thomas > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1120 - Release Date: > 11/9/2007 9:26 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1120 - Release Date: 11/9/2007 9:26 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Nov 11 04:52:31 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:52:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59396@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Off list Lee, I am continually amazed by the stupidity of your public interventions. Let's agree to part ways vis a vis you and the IGP since you clearly have no interest in participating in a group effort. The final straw here is not just your disagreement about NN but your complete lack of any attempt to even inform, much less include, IGP in your Caribbean initiative. It's ok if you are more interested in promoting your own small puddle of influence in Jamaica but don't pretend to be part of IGP at the same time. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:53 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; dan at musicunbound.com; narten at us.ibm.com > Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple > for Internet Governance" > > Thomas, > > My point exactly, a 'principle' defined by exceptions and nuances in the > eye of the beholder seems perfect only for theological debates on how > many neutral angels can fit on the head of a pin. > > So it is not really a 'nice principle,' it's a trap set by Google > lobbyists all too many of you have fallen into. Again, nothing against > Google, love that search engine and gmail etc, but their spin-doctors, > are well, spin post-docs as I see how well they have spun many of you, > including my own esteemed colleagues ; ). > > I prefer "universal, open, equitable, and flexible access" to quote from > the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework Draft Version 0.1, > October 2007, as a Global Principle. > > Go to > http://ctu.int/ctu/Projects/InternetGovernance/tabid/73/Default.aspx if > you wish to review the doc or post comments, perhaps explaining to > Caribbean governments why they really all would be better off talking of > network neutrality, when what they mean is universal, open, equitable > and flexible access as a shared policy principle for Internet > governance. > > Lee > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> narten at us.ibm.com 11/09/07 9:08 AM >>> > > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with > end > > users being given maximum control over their settings. > > Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email > they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it to > the "edges", only to be filtered there. > > Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep it > from entering their network in the first place. > > Thomas > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1120 - Release Date: > 11/9/2007 9:26 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1120 - Release Date: 11/9/2007 9:26 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 11 05:00:45 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:30:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59396@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59396@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <002a01c82449$bbc324c0$33496e40$@net> That, Milton, was not offlist. But since when has that stopped you spewing poison? On circleid, or here for that matter Who the hell gave you tenure anyway? Your so-called "project" is a joke, and your entire strategy is based on the assumption that others will remain collegial while you can continue to carry on as usual. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 3:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight > Subject: RE: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple > for Internet Governance" > > Off list > > Lee, I am continually amazed by the stupidity of your public > interventions. Let's agree to part ways vis a vis you and the IGP since > you clearly have no interest in participating in a group effort. > > The final straw here is not just your disagreement about NN but your > complete lack of any attempt to even inform, much less include, IGP in > your Caribbean initiative. It's ok if you are more interested in > promoting your own small puddle of influence in Jamaica but don't > pretend to be part of IGP at the same time. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:53 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; dan at musicunbound.com; > narten at us.ibm.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as > GlobalPrinciple > > for Internet Governance" > > > > Thomas, > > > > My point exactly, a 'principle' defined by exceptions and nuances in > the > > eye of the beholder seems perfect only for theological debates on how > > many neutral angels can fit on the head of a pin. > > > > So it is not really a 'nice principle,' it's a trap set by Google > > lobbyists all too many of you have fallen into. Again, nothing > against > > Google, love that search engine and gmail etc, but their spin-doctors, > > are well, spin post-docs as I see how well they have spun many of you, > > including my own esteemed colleagues ; ). > > > > I prefer "universal, open, equitable, and flexible access" to quote > from > > the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework Draft Version 0.1, > > October 2007, as a Global Principle. > > > > Go to > > http://ctu.int/ctu/Projects/InternetGovernance/tabid/73/Default.aspx > if > > you wish to review the doc or post comments, perhaps explaining to > > Caribbean governments why they really all would be better off talking > of > > network neutrality, when what they mean is universal, open, equitable > > and flexible access as a shared policy principle for Internet > > governance. > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > School of Information Studies > > Syracuse University > > +1-315-443-6891office > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> narten at us.ibm.com 11/09/07 9:08 AM >>> > > > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented > with > > end > > > users being given maximum control over their settings. > > > > Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email > > they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it > to > > the "edges", only to be filtered there. > > > > Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep > it > > from entering their network in the first place. > > > > Thomas > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1120 - Release Date: > > 11/9/2007 9:26 AM > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1120 - Release Date: > 11/9/2007 9:26 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 11 05:19:15 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:49:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59396@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59396@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <003201c8244c$5185d960$f4918c20$@net> You know, Milton, * You seem to desperately want yourself to be involved in this carribbean initiative, whatever it is * When you didn't get involved, you dismiss it as "a small puddle of influence" This kind of reminds me of that old Aesop's fable about the fox and the sour grapes. srs Milton L Mueller wrote: > The final straw here is not just your disagreement about NN but your > complete lack of any attempt to even inform, much less include, IGP in > your Caribbean initiative. It's ok if you are more interested in > promoting your own small puddle of influence in Jamaica but don't > pretend to be part of IGP at the same 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 06:33:27 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:33:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59395@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59395@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Nov 11, 2007 12:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > "Universal, flexible, open and equitable" are less precise and more prone to religious quibbling than the concept of net neutrality. This is just a string of adjectives. > > A significant literature on the NN topic has developed and we have an increasingly clear concept of its implications. Lee is just muddying the water. I thought it was the telcos who, by trying to expropriate the term Net Neutrality" to represent their own position who were muddying the water? -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 11 06:44:02 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:14:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59395@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <005801c82458$2a292280$7e7b6780$@net> McTim wrote: > I thought it was the telcos who, by trying to expropriate the term Net > Neutrality" to represent their own position who were muddying the > water? Call it a common pool .. everybody from Milton to the telcos to GOOG is engaged in adding a few tons of their own mud and then stirring it around a bit. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 11 07:47:35 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:47:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF has been Slashdotted Message-ID: It didn't happen last year, but this year the IGF has reached Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/10/2134212. For those who aren't familiar with it, Slashdot is a community of geeks known for generating large volumes of ill-informed commentary on topics they know very little about. Perhaps some of us could head over there and through a bit of light on the discussion. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 11 07:51:43 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:21:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF has been Slashdotted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005d01c82461$9e27df60$da779e20$@net> Jeremy Malcolm [Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:18 PM]: > > It didn't happen last year, but this year the IGF has reached > Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/10/2134212. For > those who aren't familiar with it, Slashdot is a community of geeks > known for generating large volumes of ill-informed commentary on > topics they know very little about. Perhaps some of us could head > over there and through a bit of light on the discussion. > Slashdot is a community of *wannabe* geeks generating large amounts of ill informed commentary .. on something that has its own fair share of ill informed commentary all over the place. Crikey, talk about the blind leading the blind. Seriously, Jeremy - do you think posting anything sensible about this on Slashdot is going to help at all? suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sun Nov 11 08:11:48 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:11:48 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF has been Slashdotted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071111131148.GA12411@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 10:47:35AM -0200, Jeremy Malcolm wrote a message of 21 lines which said: > For those who aren't familiar with it, Slashdot is a community of > geeks PRETENDING to be geeks. Otherwise, your sumamry is correct. But my first impression of the discussion is that comments are not "ill-formed", they are mostly xenophobic (and very provincial). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Sun Nov 11 13:51:51 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:51:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <005801c82458$2a292280$7e7b6780$@net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E59395@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <005801c82458$2a292280$7e7b6780$@net> Message-ID: Attached is a kind of "work in progress" translation of the recent report on Net Neutrality Study Group by Japanese Ministry of Internal affairs and Communications, to which I was the member of. As I tried to say in today's Giganet meeting, the net neutrality policy debate seem to very much reflect the local broadband situation, but lacking the global coordination efforts (yet). In any case, just for your reference. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JP NetNeutralityRep.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1226450 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anriette at apc.org Sun Nov 11 15:38:34 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:38:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC reflections on the IGF Message-ID: <4737846A.10239.1344BD@anriette.apc.org> Hallo all Attached is a document that contains APC's reflections on the IGF process as we begin the second forum in Rio. This does not include our positions on content related to the themes of the IGF, but rather focuses on the IGF process as it is now, and looking to towards the future. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -------------- next part -------------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: APC_Reflections_on_the_IGF_Nov2007.pdf Date: 11 Nov 2007, 22:35 Size: 104798 bytes. Type: Unknown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_Reflections_on_the_IGF_Nov2007.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 104798 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karl at cavebear.com Sun Nov 11 15:50:46 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:50:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47376B26.8000705@cavebear.com> McTim wrote: > On Nov 7, 2007 11:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Well, let me be radical about this and suggest that IPv6 has already failed >> and will never be rolled out. > > Tell that to the 1000+ networks that are already announcing IPv6 prefixes! Sorry for taking so long to get back on this - it's an important point you make. I like IPv6. In fact this Wednesday my company is doing a technical seminar on the current state, and practical use of, network management tools in v6 networks. But I don't see the driving force to compel IPv6. Yes, V4 addresses are getting scarcer. But for each of those 1000+ nets that you say are announcing v6 prefixes - how many are doing *only* v6 prefixes and not also announcing v4 prefixes that lead to exactly the same computers? In other words, I don't see new users adopting v6 alone. These new users will need to talk to the vast legacy world of v4 machines. Consequently users of of v6 will find it necessary to also run v4. In other words, I see two parallel paths for IPv6 to grow: - Legacy users of IPv4 who add IPv6 capabilities. These people will retain IPv4 so they can continue to talk to the existing IPv4 world. This will put no strain on the existing IPv4 pool. - New users who chose to use IPv6. These people will need to acquire IPv4 capabilities so that they can talk to the existing IPv4 world. These latter users will tend to require, block for block, an IPv4 allocation for every IPv6 allocation. And I suspect it would be unusual for sites to go public space for IPv6 but private, NAT'ed space for IPv4. The root of the problem, as I perceive it, is that IPv6 and IPv4 create parallel but disjoint internets. Connectivity between them will be via a relatively few application level gateways (ALGs) - email relays, web proxies, SIP (VoIP) proxies and call gateways, etc. From the point of view of internet governance, these interconnection points become internet versions of the Panama, Suez, and the Straits of Malacca - points through which control can be multiplied. (Yes, people can deploy new ALGs between the v4 and v6 worlds, which does diminish my analogy somewhat.) Have fun in Rio! --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 Nov 11 15:53:04 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:53:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E593AE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > Private violations are usually done for personal interest, much like all > the business cases of non-neutrality on whose undesirability we all You have what I perceive as a very naïve view of political processes. Public violations are also done for personal interest, by people who hold the levers of power or have strong influence among those who do. The distinction is not a useful one. > Public violations, at least, should come from collective sentiments and > through democratic processes. Of course you have issues with a possible > "dictatorship of the majority", so we should err on the side of less > filtering, than on the side of more filtering. In other words, they > should be limited to the bare minimum that a society finds necessary - > see for example article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: As a matter of fact there will of course be deivations from freedom of expression based on "collective sentiments and democratic processes." And we are in violent agreement that this should be minimized. > (BTW, Milton - there's a "right wing" reason for network > neutrality too, which is promoting liberal market competition). But even Hmm, I find this terminology bizarre. There is nothing "right wing" about liberal market competition. Fascists (far right) and communists (far left) share an antipathy to liberal freedoms, the market and competition. Moreover rightists are inevitably nationalist, it is perhaps the most important distinction. And nothing is more anti-nation No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.29/1124 - Release Date: 11/11/2007 10:12 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From riazt at iafrica.com Sun Nov 11 17:38:56 2007 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:38:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Yahoo! and Microsoft have removed Iran from the country lists Message-ID: <47378480.2080403@iafrica.com> Sanctions bite, but not at Gmail By Chris Williams ¡ú More by this author Published Wednesday 7th November 2007 17:50 GMT Exclusive Yahoo! and Microsoft have removed Iran from the country lists of their webmail services as stronger US sanctions against the Islamic republic begin to bite. Google has kept Iran as an option on the Gmail registration page, however. The US administration stepped up economic pressure on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's eccentric government less than two weeks ago. A Yahoo! spokeswoman told The Reg: "Yahoo! continually reviews its business operations to ensure compliance with these restrictions. Consistent with this policy, we cannot accept registrations from countries subject to these restrictions. So essentially, you can't choose Iran as a country option because we are restricted from conducting business there ¨C all US companies must comply with this policy." She was unable to tell us exactly when Yahoo! applied the rules. Microsoft said it was unable to comment on the issue. Google insists the sanctions do not preclude it from including Iran in its Gmail country list. A statement from the firm said: "Google is committed to full compliance with US export controls and sanctions programs and is confident in our compliance with those controls and programs." A representative of the Iranian embassy in London was unable to provide an immediate response. On 30 October, the Tehran correspondent of Netherlands newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported (in Dutch) that his paid Skype account had been cancelled. An email from the VoIP outfit said its financial services provider had been forced to stop taking payments from Iran. That's perhaps more easily understable than a blockade on free email. Whether Yahoo! and Microsoft's apparent action is the result of an over-zealous compliance lawyer or not, the effect on US interests of denying ordinary Iranians access to free international communications is questionable at best. Of course, the Iranian government itself heavily restricts what its citizens can access online. The OpenNet Initiative, a collaboration of Harvard, Toronto, Oxford, and Cambridge universities, describes it as having installed "one of the most extensive technical filtering systems in the world". Iran removed from Yahoo, Hotmail list Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:01:42 Microsoft and Yahoo have removed Iran from the country lists of their web mail services, after the US imposed new sanctions on Iran. "Yahoo continually reviews its business operations to ensure compliance with these restrictions. Consistent with this policy, we cannot accept registrations from countries subject to these restrictions," a Yahoo spokeswoman told The Register. "So essentially, you can't choose Iran as a country option because we are restricted from conducting business there - all US companies must comply with this policy," she added. Microsoft, however, declined to comment on the issue. Google has kept Iran as an option on the Gmail registration page. Google officials said that the sanctions do not preclude it from including Iran in its Gmail country list. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Nov 11 20:57:50 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:57:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Universal, Flexible, Open and Equitable as Global Principles for Internet Governance Message-ID: Hi, Just jumping back into the list after travel to Brazil, etc. There is an extensive literature on universal service/universal access, including Milton's book own book on Universal Service. Likewise open access/open systems is for example a topic discussed by the digital standards crowd today pre-IGF as well as in several decades of research, whether on open systems, open source, open access, etc. Open is not a narrowly defined term, but we generally know the difference between open and closed for example. So no I don't claim these are clear and simple terms, which don't need to be elaborated upon more precisely in one or another context. I just claim that global multistakeholder consensus can be, in fact has already been reached at regional level, on their merits as principles that civil society, business, government, the technical community etc can all subscribe to. That's not muddy at all, I am clearly stating as have multistakeholders ie Caribbean governments, civil society groups, business, as well as regional reps of global orgs such as ICANN and ITU which have been participating in the regional deliberations, that universal, open, flexible and equitable are principles on Internet governance that are both worthy of support, and on which we have a realistic chance of reaching multistakeholder consensus. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 11/11/07 6:33 AM >>> On Nov 11, 2007 12:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > "Universal, flexible, open and equitable" are less precise and more prone to religious quibbling than the concept of net neutrality. This is just a string of adjectives. > A significant literature on the NN topic has developed and we have an increasingly clear concept of its implications. Lee is just muddying the water. I thought it was the telcos who, by trying to expropriate the term Net Neutrality" to represent their own position who were muddying the water? -- 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Nov 11 22:20:33 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:20:33 -0200 Subject: [governance] caucus meeting notes Message-ID: <4737C681.6020609@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Here are my rough and unedited notes from the caucus meeting today. Hope that helps. Best, Ralf ----------------------------------- Internet Governance Caucus, 11 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro 0. Parminder / Vittorio: Introduction & Agenda 1. broad discussion on MAG experiences and the role of the IGC in general: - biggest problem for MAG was finding good speakers - MAG mandate was very late this year - most originally proposed speakers were male from the North, MAG and Markus Kummer had to actively recruit women and people from the South - what could IGC have done to help here? -> speak out more loudly on what CS wants than the MAG members could -> help the MAG -> tell the MAG members about ideas - MAG members have a mandate from UN SG to keep their constituencies informed - should IGC coordinators become MAG members/observers or have a more formalized relationship to the IGF? - MAG members will rotate, about 1/3 each year, this is also discussed in UN HQs, - need to make sure that business people also rotate, which is not easy, because they are paid to do this - February IGF consultations must talk about stocktaking, substance and rotation - should CS seats in MAG be nominated by CS? - Jeanette Hofmann: No, this formalization would only increase the overhead and lead to side-discussions. CS MAG members are powerful if the caucus has statements on specific issues, not because they are elected. - but known difficulties for IGC to come up with position papers - is the caucus in a position anymore to do this? - we might need to use the voting system for this. - easy to agree on procedural issues, but less easy on substance - IGC and CS need clearer identity, but also clearer idea of what the stakes really are (if we are a "stakeholder") - Jeremy Malcolm: new mailing list (read-only), where only IGC coordinators and IGF secretariat can post? Would increase transparency? - IGC might become more effective if we create working groups etc? - what are we here for in the first place? - Wolfgang Kleinwächter: should we develop a CS declaration on IG as a fundamental guiding document? There will be a World Summit of Internet Users in Paris next year that could adopt it. - Ralf Bendrath: Not sure if distinct CS statements are really helpful and that much needed, because the conditions have changed. In WSIS, we were an observer group and had to try and influence the Tunis Agenda or the Geneva Declaration. The IGF does not produce these kinds of outcomes anymore, and we participate on a very equal footing with everybody else. 2. Election of coordinators - Vittorio's term is ending. We need to have (re-)elections soon. - Unclear yet if Vittorio is willing to do it again. - structural issues of the IGC have to be addressed and resolved before people can decide if they want to become coordinator ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 12 04:05:23 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:05:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <47376B26.8000705@cavebear.com> References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47376B26.8000705@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On Nov 11, 2007 11:50 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Sorry for taking so long to get back on this - it's an important point > you make. > > I like IPv6. In fact this Wednesday my company is doing a technical > seminar on the current state, and practical use of, network management > tools in v6 networks. > > But I don't see the driving force to compel IPv6. Yes, V4 addresses are > getting scarcer. > > But for each of those 1000+ nets that you say are announcing v6 prefixes > - how many are doing *only* v6 prefixes and not also announcing v4 > prefixes that lead to exactly the same computers? a very, very few indeed, but the point of the transition plan is to run dual stack, not v6 only. > > In other words, I don't see new users adopting v6 alone. That is unlikely. These new > users will need to talk to the vast legacy world of v4 machines. of course. > Consequently users of of v6 will find it necessary to also run v4. of course. > > In other words, I see two parallel paths for IPv6 to grow: > > - Legacy users of IPv4 who add IPv6 capabilities. These people will > retain IPv4 so they can continue to talk to the existing IPv4 world. > This will put no strain on the existing IPv4 pool. > this is a transition method called "dual stacking". Probably the most popular one. > - New users who chose to use IPv6. These people will need to > acquire IPv4 capabilities so that they can talk to the existing IPv4 > world. These latter users will tend to require, block for block, an > IPv4 allocation for every IPv6 allocation. There are transition mechanisms that don't require an allocated/public v4 address. Of course, dual stack does. And I suspect it would be > unusual for sites to go public space for IPv6 but private, NAT'ed space > for IPv4. By 2010(ish) it will probably be fairly common. > > The root of the problem, as I perceive it, is that IPv6 and IPv4 create > parallel but disjoint internets. Connectivity between them will be via > a relatively few application level gateways (ALGs) - email relays, web > proxies, SIP (VoIP) proxies and call gateways, etc. > There are/will be many, many ways to do this, including; SIIT, NAT-PT, SOCKS64, BIS, DSTM, Tcp-udp relay, etc. > From the point of view of internet governance, these interconnection > points become internet versions of the Panama, Suez, and the Straits of > Malacca - points through which control can be multiplied. (Yes, people > can deploy new ALGs between the v4 and v6 worlds, which does diminish my > analogy somewhat.) > and they will, it will be quite common, I'm not worried about "points of control". -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Nov 12 07:11:31 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:11:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF Message-ID: Remote participants can send in questions or comments to the following email addresses: For English questions: igf_rio_english at intgovforum.info Pour les questions en français:igf_rio_francais at intgovforum.info Para las preguntas en español:igf_rio_espanol at intgovforum.info Para perguntas em portugues:igf_rio_portugues at intgovforum.info 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 From klohento at panos-ao.org Mon Nov 12 07:16:50 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:16:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Meeting with Mr Sha UN Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs Message-ID: <51741.200.214.0.6.1194869810.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Dear all I'm forwarding you bellow a mail in French (for translation in English go to http://www.reverso.net/text_translation.asp?lang=EN), in which I'm giving a short report of a small meeting of Mr Sha, UN Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs (represents the UN SG here at IGF) had with MAG CS members yesterday afternoon, after a meeting with all MAG members. It was an opportunity that MAG CS members used to raise some CS concerns about the IGF. Main points raised were about IGF funding, developing country CS participation, some problems related to MAG establishment. Best regards KL ---------------------------- Message original ---------------------------- Objet: FGI Rio, divers (Rencontre avec Mr Sha des Nations-Unies, démarrage de la rencontre) De: klohento at panos-ao.org Date: Dim 11 novembre 2007 23:30 À: africa at wsis-cs.org africann at afrinic.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (For English, please use translation tools such as this http://www.reverso.net/text_translation.asp?lang=EN) Bonjour Un petit compte rendu depuis Rio, où le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet (FGI) commence officiellement demain. Aujourd’hui les membres du Comité Conseil des Nations Unies pour le FGI ont fait une réunion avec le Sous Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies pour les Affaires Economiques et Sociales, qui représente le SG des Nations-Unies à Rio. L’objectif était de faire rapidement le point sur la rencontre qui commence. Juste après, Mr Sha, accompagné du Coordonnateur du Secrétariat du FGI Markus Kummer, a eu une petite discussion (environ 30 mn) avec les membres du Comité Conseil venant de la société civile (une demie douzaine de personnes). Ces derniers ont soulevé les points suivants : - difficulté pour la société civile, en particulier pour la société civile des pays en développement, de participer physiquement au FGI (problèmes de financement, problèmes de visa, etc.) - nécessité d’un soutien politique plus fort pour favoriser la recherche de financement et renforcer la participation de la société civile aux sommets du FGI - nécessité de traduire le site du Secrétariat du FGI dans plusieurs langues ; - nécessité d’accroître les financements mis à la disposition du FGI (Secretariat)) afin de renforcer ses actions; - le retard qui a été observé cette année pour mettre en place/renouveler le Comité Conseil du FGI, ce qui a entravé certains préparatifs; - etc. M Sha a insisté sur la reconnaissance aujourd’hui, contrairement à il y a quelques années, du rôle de la société civile dans les processus politiques, en particulier au niveau des Nations Unies. Il espère qu’elle contribuera davantage à ces processus car il y a une attente dans ce sens. Il a reconnu le problème lié à la participation de la société civile des pays en développement, en indiquant que les problèmes de financement du FGI étaient liés sans doute au fait que le FGI est une rencontre durant laquelle des décisions ne sont pas prises. Selon lui il y aura toujours un Comité Conseil pour les prochains forums et l’évaluation prévue après la rencontre de Rio permettra d’améliorer les procédures liées à son fonctionnement et sa représentativité. Divers : - Pour plus d'information sur la rencontre qui commence à Rio (programme, contributions diverses etc.) : voir http://www.intgovforum.org/ -- site du Secretariat - http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/ : Site du pays hôte sur le FGI - Suivi à distance : 1) aller notamment sur le site du pays hôte, à partir de demain il y aura une retransmission en directe via le web; 2) des questions pourront être posées par email, que ce soit en français, en anglais, en espagnol ou en portugais (voir l'adresse sur le site du FGI ou sur celui du pays hôte demain). Il prévu que ces questions soient transmises aux responsables des sessions prévues à partir de demain pour réponse, dans la mesure du possible. Ken Lohento ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Mon Nov 12 07:17:05 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:17:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Meeting with Mr Sha UN Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs Message-ID: <38855.200.214.0.6.1194869825.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Dear all I'm forwarding you below a mail in French (for translation in English go to http://www.reverso.net/text_translation.asp?lang=EN), in which I'm giving a short report of a small meeting of Mr Sha, UN Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs (represents the UN SG here at IGF) had with MAG CS members yesterday afternoon, after a meeting with all MAG members. It was an opportunity that MAG CS members used to raise some CS concerns about the IGF. Main points raised were about IGF funding, developing country CS participation, some problems related to MAG establishment. Best regards KL ---------------------------- Message original ---------------------------- Objet: FGI Rio, divers (Rencontre avec Mr Sha des Nations-Unies, démarrage de la rencontre) De: klohento at panos-ao.org Date: Dim 11 novembre 2007 23:30 À: africa at wsis-cs.org africann at afrinic.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (For English, please use translation tools such as this http://www.reverso.net/text_translation.asp?lang=EN) Bonjour Un petit compte rendu depuis Rio, où le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet (FGI) commence officiellement demain. Aujourd’hui les membres du Comité Conseil des Nations Unies pour le FGI ont fait une réunion avec le Sous Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies pour les Affaires Economiques et Sociales, qui représente le SG des Nations-Unies à Rio. L’objectif était de faire rapidement le point sur la rencontre qui commence. Juste après, Mr Sha, accompagné du Coordonnateur du Secrétariat du FGI Markus Kummer, a eu une petite discussion (environ 30 mn) avec les membres du Comité Conseil venant de la société civile (une demie douzaine de personnes). Ces derniers ont soulevé les points suivants : - difficulté pour la société civile, en particulier pour la société civile des pays en développement, de participer physiquement au FGI (problèmes de financement, problèmes de visa, etc.) - nécessité d’un soutien politique plus fort pour favoriser la recherche de financement et renforcer la participation de la société civile aux sommets du FGI - nécessité de traduire le site du Secrétariat du FGI dans plusieurs langues ; - nécessité d’accroître les financements mis à la disposition du FGI (Secretariat)) afin de renforcer ses actions; - le retard qui a été observé cette année pour mettre en place/renouveler le Comité Conseil du FGI, ce qui a entravé certains préparatifs; - etc. M Sha a insisté sur la reconnaissance aujourd’hui, contrairement à il y a quelques années, du rôle de la société civile dans les processus politiques, en particulier au niveau des Nations Unies. Il espère qu’elle contribuera davantage à ces processus car il y a une attente dans ce sens. Il a reconnu le problème lié à la participation de la société civile des pays en développement, en indiquant que les problèmes de financement du FGI étaient liés sans doute au fait que le FGI est une rencontre durant laquelle des décisions ne sont pas prises. Selon lui il y aura toujours un Comité Conseil pour les prochains forums et l’évaluation prévue après la rencontre de Rio permettra d’améliorer les procédures liées à son fonctionnement et sa représentativité. Divers : - Pour plus d'information sur la rencontre qui commence à Rio (programme, contributions diverses etc.) : voir http://www.intgovforum.org/ -- site du Secretariat - http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/ : Site du pays hôte sur le FGI - Suivi à distance : 1) aller notamment sur le site du pays hôte, à partir de demain il y aura une retransmission en directe via le web; 2) des questions pourront être posées par email, que ce soit en français, en anglais, en espagnol ou en portugais (voir l'adresse sur le site du FGI ou sur celui du pays hôte demain). Il prévu que ces questions soient transmises aux responsables des sessions prévues à partir de demain pour réponse, dans la mesure du possible. Ken Lohento ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 12 07:46:30 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - IS) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:46:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] European Parliament meeting the Civil Society - 13 November, 13:00-15:00 Message-ID: <1194871590-e70fe62b775821a07cd8c6e055ec69b0@ngocongo.org> Dear all, We have been requested by the Office of Ms. Trautman to forward you this additional information on the civil society meeting with European Parliamentarians, scheduled to take place tomorrow Tuesday 13 November (13:00-15:00). Best, Ph “The European Parliament delegation, composed of Catherine Trautmann, Maria Badia, Malcolm Harbour and Gunnar Hökmark, invites you to meet and exchange views on Tuesday 13th, between 13.00 and 15.00, in the Queluz VII. There's no preselected topic on the table so if you wish to send position papers prior to the meeting please do so to catherine.trautmann at europarl.europa.eu. The MEPs look forward to hearing your hopes and concerns on Internet governance and the Information society, and having a direct and open discussion.” 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 message was scrubbed... From: Philippe Dam Subject: European Parliament meeting the Civil Society - 13 November, 13:00-15:00 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:33:57 +0100 Size: 16377 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 12 08:08:17 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:08:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] connect to video? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone managed to connect to the video? David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Mon Nov 12 09:14:12 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:14:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] caucus meeting notes In-Reply-To: <4737C681.6020609@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20071112131417.786092846A@srv1.igfbrazil2007.br> My notes .... Unedited and rough too ... Of the caucus meeting Guru 1. IGC meeting on November 11, 2007 2. Parminder explained the agenda 3. VittoRio gave a brief on work done so far a. Mailing list discussed issues b. Viewpoint expressed in IGF meetings 4. What is the value of the IGC, we need to discuss. Now there is one more caucus for CS (wsis gov) 5. Izumi – can mag members give their views, on how IGC can help them make CS work more effective 6. Jeanette – mag finds lacking women from south a. Last time mag mandate came very late and could not do much 7. Adam - Feedback – IGC should communicate more often with secretariat to alert on issues 8. Param – cant be sure that mag CS members can dissociate from CS 9. Ian peter – CS members should directly go to mag 10. Izumi – can we have one of the coordinators member of mag. We need to have some info sharing with CS 11. Guru – like private sector and Government, mag members need to be sharing info 12. Milton – is mag getting reconstituted? Can CS/IGC help mag be reconstituted 13. Param – in feb mag will be reviewed, can we focus on IGC effectiveness through mag 14. Jeanette – mag membership will be rotated. We should have rotation in other groups as well, else other groups will have an advantage (due to staying longer). Feb meeting will discuss rotation possibilities 15. VittoRio – can we have a more transparent process of representation in mag. 16. Jeanette – if caucus comes out with positions/questions, then mag members can represent better. Not only selection of members in mag 17. Adam – ayesha can say – I represent business, while it is difficult for CS. Am concerned that we will spend energies in mag selection. We should speak on substance in feb. so IGC should push its views now for this in feb. The panels are better in terms of CS participation this time 18. Bill – IGC can do better, a. if IGC can get position papers out – write out and share papers. Earlier caucus used to be able to agree on texts, now we don’t b. Can we put in renewed effort to get common ground – maybe through new efforts like voting techniques c. We rather tend to flow along since we are too busy d. We should talk controversial themes as well and cover development, cir etc e. We should also question the main themes as well. I hope we wont keep talking about access, openness, security 19. Param – new methods and processes that bill suggested should be tried and coordinators will need to work more a. We may need to use voting also 20. Izumi – can coordinators share their views on what we could do better 21. VittoRio – we can work on procedural items but not on substantive issues, since we are too diverse 22. Maybe IGC can only start a discussion 23. Param – don’t agree with VittoRio that only procedural issues can be done by CS 24. Jeremy – procedural suggestion – IGC communicating with secretariat – 9/10 times I don’t get a response. Can we have a mailing list where only coordinators and markus can post, while others can only read 25. Anriette – APC have drafted doc on IGF process 26. Guru – IGC workshops idea for Rio was good, but maybe next time we can get these people to share their positions and lead discussions before 27. Izumu do the coordinators need more help. Do we need more coordinators 28. Renata – as an observer on the list, can we have more focus on discussions on the list and share work on the list. Sometimes ‘sexy’ issues derail discussions. 29. Param – need to have both the discussion and the formalizing aspects 30. Izumi – we can sub groups or working committees to do specific work which can go back to plenary. Maybe secretariat may not be a good area a. Either coordinators can nominate people or invite people to suggest themselves for 31. Jeanette – coordinators should not have to give position papers for all items. They should be able to take help of others in making positions. Depends on how people take responsibility for this. More coordinators or new coordinators may not help a. Mailing discussions gets to be aggressive. b. Coordinators should work backwards on timelines to get views across, either they present positions or request for positions c. When people write papers, they are doing in best interests and should not get drastic reactions 32. Bill – can we have a different mailing list for activists (suggested in Tunisia). We should have a separate group for taking positions without being shouted down by some people. Something like working groups that can create position papers 33. Lee – no structure change, but coordinators should be empowered to take decisions – appoint people who can write position papers 34. Ralph – one reason why we are not so affective is that the ‘great’ wsis processes are over. Now we have only smaller items, which don’t need great position papers. Smaller groups can make more impact 35. Adam – we needed to have an opening speaker for Rio but we did not get back to IGC in time. We need to prepare much ahead of time so that we can get back with substance 36. Param – need to have a calendar of events so we can be better prepared 37. Ian – currently we are not clear on outcomes. We seem to have a lack of focus on outcomes. 38. Wolfgang – agree with ian. When we established IGC in 2002 – icann issues determined agenda for IGC. Icann planning world summit for internet users in 2008 in paris. Can we bring together the icann and wsis communities in paris in 2008. In same way we should have a great goal for IGC we should approach Sebastian on working on internet user summit 39. Jeanette how can caucus do substantial contributions for mag – we can work on the same structure for main sessions, but we should be open to new themes as well (bill idea). We should make substantive contributions 40. Ralph – IGC can’t make substantive specific contributions.. Now we have IGF where we all participate on equal footing. 41. Carlos – mag membership – while business and Government mag members share back with their groups, CS does not. As a CS representative, I am not there on a personal basis. 42. Ken – the idea of IGC making a statement is good, but difficult. UN is less and less involved in IGF – no UN person in list of speakers. 43. Param – I will start a discussion on the list on restructuring IGC to make it more effective. 44. Jeremy – transparency in mag (un secy general call) – for reporting back. But what about secretariat itself 45. Renata – financing for CS to attend – while some Governments have agreed to fund participation, we need more info on this transparently 46. Chenegatai – we are transparent with the mag and we take their inputs 47. Adam – short time frames, so funding support does not reach participant -----Original Message----- From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:21 AM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] caucus meeting notes Here are my rough and unedited notes from the caucus meeting today. Hope that helps. Best, Ralf ----------------------------------- Internet Governance Caucus, 11 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro 0. Parminder / Vittorio: Introduction & Agenda 1. broad discussion on MAG experiences and the role of the IGC in general: - biggest problem for MAG was finding good speakers - MAG mandate was very late this year - most originally proposed speakers were male from the North, MAG and Markus Kummer had to actively recruit women and people from the South - what could IGC have done to help here? -> speak out more loudly on what CS wants than the MAG members could -> help the MAG tell the MAG members about ideas - MAG members have a mandate from UN SG to keep their constituencies informed - should IGC coordinators become MAG members/observers or have a more formalized relationship to the IGF? - MAG members will rotate, about 1/3 each year, this is also discussed in UN HQs, - need to make sure that business people also rotate, which is not easy, because they are paid to do this - February IGF consultations must talk about stocktaking, substance and rotation - should CS seats in MAG be nominated by CS? - Jeanette Hofmann: No, this formalization would only increase the overhead and lead to side-discussions. CS MAG members are powerful if the caucus has statements on specific issues, not because they are elected. - but known difficulties for IGC to come up with position papers - is the caucus in a position anymore to do this? - we might need to use the voting system for this. - easy to agree on procedural issues, but less easy on substance - IGC and CS need clearer identity, but also clearer idea of what the stakes really are (if we are a "stakeholder") - Jeremy Malcolm: new mailing list (read-only), where only IGC coordinators and IGF secretariat can post? Would increase transparency? - IGC might become more effective if we create working groups etc? - what are we here for in the first place? - Wolfgang Kleinwächter: should we develop a CS declaration on IG as a fundamental guiding document? There will be a World Summit of Internet Users in Paris next year that could adopt it. - Ralf Bendrath: Not sure if distinct CS statements are really helpful and that much needed, because the conditions have changed. In WSIS, we were an observer group and had to try and influence the Tunis Agenda or the Geneva Declaration. The IGF does not produce these kinds of outcomes anymore, and we participate on a very equal footing with everybody else. 2. Election of coordinators - Vittorio's term is ending. We need to have (re-)elections soon. - Unclear yet if Vittorio is willing to do it again. - structural issues of the IGC have to be addressed and resolved before people can decide if they want to become coordinator ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 12 08:17:55 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:17:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] connect to video? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Has anyone managed to connect to the video? To answer my own question: Switched from my Mac to my PC. On the PC, the video successfully launches in Windows Media Player. So far the Mac platform is a second class citizen. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From plzak at arin.net Mon Nov 12 08:20:01 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:20:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <000f01c82426$17342670$459c7350$@net> Message-ID: See this comment by John Curran, Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees to Jeff's article http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/21709#comment-173582 Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:54 AM > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' > .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' > > On Nov 11, 2007 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > > Forgot to include this URL in my last post, have you ever heard of > this "routing guru" > > http://www.networkworld.com/chat/archive/2007/110807-jeff-doyle- > chat.html?page=1 > > > I am sure that will be discussed in great detail .. and travel > budgets will > > have to scale up correspondingly (wonder what a beach resort in deep > space > > looks like). Thank god the third IGF is going to be in Delhi, which > is as > > crowded and polluted a city as can be (and at a time - winter - where > most > > flights are going to be badly hit by fog delays..). Good food though. > And > > by the way it is a place where you get fleatrap motels for $150+, > Marriott / > > Sheraton type places for $250, a Hilton for $300 etc. > > > > Yikes! > > -- > 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 lists at privaterra.info Mon Nov 12 08:30:59 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:30:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] connect to video? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: on the mac - Try VLC with Flip4mac - http://www.flip4mac.com to be able to receive WMV feeds regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 12-Nov-07, at 11:17 AM, David Allen wrote: >> Has anyone managed to connect to the video? > > To answer my own question: Switched from my Mac to my PC. On the > PC, the video successfully launches in Windows Media Player. So far > the Mac platform is a second class citizen. > > David > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 12 09:10:10 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:10:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: connect to video? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >on the mac - Try VLC with Flip4mac - http://www.flip4mac.com to be able to receive WMV feeds Thanks, Robert. Have long had Flip4mac and VLC, and tried VLC after Quicktime before I gave up and went to the PC. Apparently you are connecting with VLC? David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 09:38:29 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:38:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] This Distance Forum - as Launchpad and Microcosm Message-ID: <45ed74050711120638s7699d14l475337993802d38a@mail.gmail.com> Well met - >From the pre comments and present ones already, such as the present ones on inclusion and bill of rights... dynamic coalitions as approach to be adopted... does it not emerge that the richer we can have the present albeit circumcised domain of "connected in " participants, the more it will be truly multistakeholder and inclusive as each IGF speaker has emphasized so far. And this enlargement of access and experience here will hold promise for the access and reach for the general global populace. And perhaps in addition to hopping among distinct venues like email and video and chat, we might be in a Second or Third or Nth Life or somewhat. of our own collectively, where 'all things good' things merge...... events formal and formal, and all that's entailed. :) Linda. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* -------------- 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 Mon Nov 12 09:48:23 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:48:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: This Distance Forum - as Launchpad and Microcosm In-Reply-To: <45ed74050711120638s7699d14l475337993802d38a@mail.gmail.com> References: <45ed74050711120638s7699d14l475337993802d38a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050711120648j4c8d00f1ofa2e1b5d0edb59e7@mail.gmail.com> Just noticed the Community Site reference to Second Life! L. On 11/12/07, linda misek-falkoff wrote: > > Well met - > > From the pre comments and present ones already, such as the present ones > on inclusion and bill of rights... dynamic coalitions as approach to be > adopted... > > does it not emerge that the richer we can have the present albeit > circumcised domain of "connected in " participants, the more it will be > truly multistakeholder and inclusive as each IGF speaker has emphasized so > far. And this enlargement of access and experience here will hold promise > for the access and reach for the general global populace. > > And perhaps in addition to hopping among distinct venues like email and > video and chat, we might be in a Second or Third or Nth Life or somewhat. of > our own collectively, where 'all things good' things merge...... events > formal and formal, and all that's entailed. > > :) > Linda. > Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff > *Respectful Interfaces* > -------------- 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 Mon Nov 12 10:58:58 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:58:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] connect to video? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47387842.5030507@rits.org.br> David, instructions in the streaming Web page indicate the use of the VLC player as well, which comes with the needed mp4 codec (and many other codecs) and is easily installable in a Mac. You can download VLC from http://www.videolan.org/. Depending on what you have already installed in your Mac, you might not have the specific codec needed. --c.a. David Allen wrote: >> Has anyone managed to connect to the video? > > To answer my own question: Switched from my Mac to my PC. On the PC, the video successfully launches in Windows Media Player. So far the Mac platform is a second class citizen. > > David > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 10:59:18 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:59:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] connect to video? In-Reply-To: <47387842.5030507@rits.org.br> References: <47387842.5030507@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Anybody on this list in Prado II (2 p.m. Rio time)? Audiocast has a loud hum, speakers are unintelligble! -- 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 12 11:25:10 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:25:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: connect to video? In-Reply-To: <47387842.5030507@rits.org.br> References: <47387842.5030507@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Thanks much, Carlos. I had 0.8.6a from before; to be sure I pulled down 0.8.6c. No joy. If you can specify a codec (and maybe where it is to be found), I will certainly try it. (Of course, I tried Quicktime Pro on the Mac repeatedly.) More generally, has anyone succeeded to connect to the main session video via Mac? And re the chat window, since you may be in touch with those making it all happen: Part way through the morning session, the video disappeared in the chat window (audio still coming through - Win Media by itself continued to show video). I did a restart, just to be sure it was not something on my end - still, the little Windows Media window insert into the chat page appears briefly, but that goes away and video is obscured while audio proceeds. (To note, after the session, there was a stock warning text regarding something 'not found,' repeated several times in the space where there ordinarily is chat.) David At 12:58 PM -0300 11/12/07, Carlos Afonso wrote: >David, instructions in the streaming Web page indicate the use of the VLC player as well, which comes with the needed mp4 codec (and many other codecs) and is easily installable in a Mac. You can download VLC from http://www.videolan.org/. Depending on what you have already installed in your Mac, you might not have the specific codec needed. > >--c.a. > >David Allen wrote: >>>Has anyone managed to connect to the video? >> >>To answer my own question: Switched from my Mac to my PC. On the PC, the video successfully launches in Windows Media Player. So far the Mac platform is a second class citizen. >> >>David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Nov 12 11:29:53 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:29:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: connect to video? In-Reply-To: References: <47387842.5030507@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20071112162953.GA24258@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:59:18PM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 17 lines which said: > Anybody on this list in Prado II (2 p.m. Rio time)? Me. > Audiocast has a loud hum, speakers are unintelligble! Is it better, now, with the new mike (used by Bill Manning and Jordi Palet)? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 12:24:30 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:24:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: connect to video? In-Reply-To: <20071112162953.GA24258@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <47387842.5030507@rits.org.br> <20071112162953.GA24258@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <45ed74050711120924h4d8fc2b2vb3de48aa4c8e828b@mail.gmail.com> Heard the hum and haven't checked back; what happened here is all rooms went to "not founds", though still able to get to the Main Room (empty seats of speakers while on break) through the chat link. Linda NY On 11/12/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:59:18PM +0300, > McTim wrote > a message of 17 lines which said: > > > Anybody on this list in Prado II (2 p.m. Rio time)? > > Me. > > > Audiocast has a loud hum, speakers are unintelligble! > > Is it better, now, with the new mike (used by Bill Manning and Jordi > Palet)? > ____________________________________________________________ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From MSeck at uneca.org Mon Nov 12 14:23:27 2007 From: MSeck at uneca.org (Mactar Seck) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:23:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fw: IGF Brazil 2007: AFRICAN GROUP MEETING Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Mon Nov 12 14:52:16 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:52:16 +0100 Subject: SV: [Pwd] [governance] IGF: Accessibility activities In-Reply-To: <00be01c8226d$06f57b70$0a0ba8c0@X60120G> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>,<7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>,<45ed74050711081134r3560220ak514cc2ca3407d354@mail.gmail.com><473381B1.6705.BF9818@plano.funics.org.ar> <00be01c8226d$06f57b70$0a0ba8c0@X60120G> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01033B41@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Hiroshi, You are so right and you have all the support from the disability movement! 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: pwd-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:pwd-bounces at wsis-cs.org] För Hiroshi Kawamura Skickat: den 9 november 2007 03:08 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jorge Plano; pwd at wsis-cs.org Ämne: Re: [Pwd] [governance] IGF: Accessibility activities Prioritet: Hög Dear Jorge: Thank you very much for your announcement on workshops related to Accessibility of Persons with Disabilities. The most current program contents of our workshop on "Accessibility standards development and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" to be held on 12th November 15:00-16:30 is available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=24 We are still struggling with "accessibility" of the Conference itself including no accessible guest room at the venue hotel, no availability of sign language interpreter for our deaf speaker from Colombia, &c. We should not see again such inconvenient barriers for participants with disabilities in the 3rd IGF in Egypt. The IGF must respect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=199) Best Hiroshi ---------------------------- Hiroshi Kawamura President, DAISY Consortium ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Plano" To: Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:37 AM Subject: [governance] IGF: Accessibility activities > At least the next activities on accessibility are programmed at the IGF > Regards > Jorge > > > Workshop: Monday, Nov 12th, 15:30-17 hs Alhambra II > "Accessibility guidelines and standards for persons with disabilities" > http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=52 > > > > > Workshop: Tuesday, Nov 13th, 14:30-16 hs Versailles I > "Making Accessibility a Reality in Emerging Technologies and the Web" > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/accessibility/index.html > > > > > Pre-IGF Conference: Sunday, November 11 Windsor Hotel > "Digital Inclusion: Accelerating Global Participation and Access through > Open ICT Standards" > 10.45-12.00 Panel 2: "Increasing Accessibility to Government Services > and Social Programs through Open Standards" > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > _______________________________________________ Pwd mailing list Pwd at wsis-cs.org http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pwd ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 12 16:44:29 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:44:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Connect to Video Feeds? Link Info In-Reply-To: a06240845c35e2c07c751@[192.168.0.101] Message-ID: IGF Scheadules: http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Schedule_final.html Video Feed Links http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/videos.htm Online Simulcast Video-Chat Space http://chat.igfbrazil2007.br/ - Ref.: Excerpt from Robin's Message: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-11/msg00117.html *NEW* Video Feed Links now included in session info. [per http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/videos.htm] - 12 Nov. 2007 Session: The intersection of open ICT standards, development and public policy Time: 15:30 - 17:00 Room: Pardo I Speakers include: Robin Gross of IP Justice / Malcolm Harbour of European Parliament / Carlos Afonso of Rits-Brazil Info: http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=61* VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws5-english Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression (FOEonline) Time: 17:30 - 19:00 Room: Imperial Speakers include: Nicholas Dearden of Amnesty International / Julien Pein of World Press Freedom Committee / Christian Moeller of OSCE / Robert Faris of Open Net Initiative / Bob Boorstin of Google http://foeonline.wordpress.com/ VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws3-english -- 13 Nov. 2007 Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights Time: 10:30 - 12:00 Room: Versailles II Speakers include: Gilberto Gil of Brazilian Ministry of Culture / Stefano Rodota, Former EU Privacy Commissioner / Catherine Trautman of European Parliament / Robin Gross of IP Justice / Carlos Affonso Pereria de Souza of FGV-CTS / Vittorio Bertola http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/ VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws2-english Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Time: 14:30 - 16:00 Room: Pardo I Speakers include: Susan Stuble of Sun MicroSystems / Georg Greve of *Free Software Foundation Europe / Thiru Balasubramaniam of *Knowledge Ecology International http://igf-dcos.org/ VIDEO FEED: http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=61 Session: "Digital Education and Information Policy Initiative: Towards the Development of Effective Exceptions to and Limitations on Copyright in the Realm of Digital Education" Time: 18:30 - 20:00 Room: Alhambra II Speakers include: Maria Badia of European Parliament / Ariel Vercelli of Creative Commons Argentina / Luis Villaroel Villalon of Chile's Ministry of Education / Geidy Lung of *the World Intellectual Property Organization / Robin Gross of IP Justice http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/06/digital-education-workshop-at-the-2007-igf-r io/ VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws4-english -- 14 Nov. 2007 Session: IP Justice International Cyberlaw Clinic Showcase: A global network of law schools promoting the public interest in Internet law and policy Time: 9:00 - 10:00 am Room: Queluz VI Speakers include: Stefano Rodota, Former EU Privacy Commissioner / Michael Geist of CIPPIC / Ronaldo Lemos of FGV-CTS / Nick Dearden of Amnesty International / Hong Xue of *Hong Kong University / Mary Wong from Franklin Pierce Law Center / Carlos de Souza of FGV-CTS http://www.ipjustice.org/cyberlaw/showcase VIDEO FEED: ?none Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Access to Knowledge and Free Expression (A2K at IGF) Time: 16:30 - 18:00 Room: Versaille II Speakers include: Robin Gross of IP Justice / Brad Biddle of Intel Corp / Eddan Katz of Yale Law School / Susan Struble of Sun MicroSystems / Natasha Primo of Association for Progressive Communications / Ronaldo Lemos and Pedro Paranagua of FGV-CTS / Mary Wong of Franklin Pierce Law Center http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/03/a2kigf-rio-2007/* VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws2-english -- 15 Nov. 2007 Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Pivacy Time: 8:30 - 10:00 am Room: Imperial http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Privacy VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws4-english -- IGF Press Conferences: IP Justice also supports the following press conferences at IGF (Windsor Barra Hotel): 13 Nov. 11:00 am: *Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards Press Conference Video Feed: ?None - 14 Nov. 10:00 am: *Launch of Dynamic Coalition on Digital Education Press Conference* Video Feed: ?None --- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Nov 12 16:52:29 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:52:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Connect to Video? Link Info Message-ID: IGF Scheadules: http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Schedule_final.html Video Feed Links http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/videos.htm Online Simulcast Video Chat Space http://chat.igfbrazil2007.br/ - Ref.: Excerpt from Robin's Message: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-11/msg00117.html *NEW* Video Feed Links now included in session info. [per http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/videos.htm] 12 Nov. 2007 Session: The intersection of open ICT standards, development and public policy Time: 15:30 - 17:00 Room: Pardo I Speakers include: Robin Gross of IP Justice / Malcolm Harbour of European Parliament / Carlos Afonso of Rits-Brazil Info: http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=61 VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws5-english Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression (FOEonline) Time: 17:30 - 19:00 Room: Imperial Speakers include: Nicholas Dearden of Amnesty International / Julien Pein of World Press Freedom Committee / Christian Moeller of OSCE / Robert Faris of Open Net Initiative / Bob Boorstin of Google http://foeonline.wordpress.com/ VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws3-english -- 13 Nov. 2007 Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights Time: 10:30 - 12:00 Room: Versailles II Speakers include: Gilberto Gil of Brazilian Ministry of Culture / Stefano Rodota, Former EU Privacy Commissioner / Catherine Trautman of European Parliament / Robin Gross of IP Justice / Carlos Affonso Pereria de Souza of FGV-CTS / Vittorio Bertola http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org/en/ VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws2-english Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Time: 14:30 - 16:00 Room: Pardo I Speakers include: Susan Stuble of Sun MicroSystems / Georg Greve of *Free Software Foundation Europe / Thiru Balasubramaniam of *Knowledge Ecology International http://igf-dcos.org/ VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws5-english Session: "Digital Education and Information Policy Initiative: Towards the Development of Effective Exceptions to and Limitations on Copyright in the Realm of Digital Education" Time: 18:30 - 20:00 Room: Alhambra II Speakers include: Maria Badia of European Parliament / Ariel Vercelli of Creative Commons Argentina / Luis Villaroel Villalon of Chile's Ministry of Education / Geidy Lung of *the World Intellectual Property Organization / Robin Gross of IP Justice http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/06/digital-education-workshop-at-the-2007-igf-r io/ VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws4-english -- 14 Nov. 2007 Session: IP Justice International Cyberlaw Clinic Showcase: A global network of law schools promoting the public interest in Internet law and policy Time: 9:00 - 10:00 am Room: Queluz VI Speakers include: Stefano Rodota, Former EU Privacy Commissioner / Michael Geist of CIPPIC / Ronaldo Lemos of FGV-CTS / Nick Dearden of Amnesty International / Hong Xue of *Hong Kong University / Mary Wong from Franklin Pierce Law Center / Carlos de Souza of FGV-CTS http://www.ipjustice.org/cyberlaw/showcase VIDEO FEED: ?none Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Access to Knowledge and Free Expression (A2K at IGF) Time: 16:30 - 18:00 Room: Versaille II Speakers include: Robin Gross of IP Justice / Brad Biddle of Intel Corp / Eddan Katz of Yale Law School / Susan Struble of Sun MicroSystems / Natasha Primo of Association for Progressive Communications / Ronaldo Lemos and Pedro Paranagua of FGV-CTS / Mary Wong of Franklin Pierce Law Center http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/03/a2kigf-rio-2007/ VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws2-english -- 15 Nov. 2007 Session: Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Pivacy Time: 8:30 - 10:00 am Room: Imperial http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Privacy VIDEO FEED: mms://wm.st.igfbrazil2007.br/igfrio2007-ws4-english -- IGF Press Conferences: IP Justice also supports the following press conferences at IGF (Windsor Barra Hotel): 13 Nov. 11:00 am: Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards Press Conference Video Feed: ?None - 14 Nov. 10:00 am: Launch of Dynamic Coalition on Digital Education Press Conference* Video Feed: ?None --- END ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 20:48:44 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:48:44 -0500 Subject: FW: [governance] APC publication: Multi-stakeholder partnerships in ICTs for development In-Reply-To: <08ce01c8258b$bcb3a1f0$6700a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <08ce01c8258b$bcb3a1f0$6700a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <45ed74050711121748y71773629xb12430c29549deeb@mail.gmail.com> Michael, Karen,* et al:* Thank you for sending this in advance, especially for access from 'remoteland', where we have been discussing out here (e-caucusing on) social networking aspects of partnering. Maybe next year *Second Life* banquet's etc.? I understand DIPLO may be well on the way with this. Very best wishes, LDMF Dr. L. d. Misek-Falkoff computing / law /humanities 1960's - *Respectful Interfaces*, Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N. ----- APC reference: ----- * "Multi-stakeholder partnerships thrive on ongoing interaction. *Creating spaces for informal interaction, coffees, after-meeting drinks, spontaneous exchanges, "off-topic" online discussions, etc. play a vital role in stimulating partnerships. A formal and rigid meeting procedure can stifle the formation of strong relationships. over time, the less formal interactions can build camaraderie, common understanding, friendships and a community of purpose across different organisations and individuals." On 11/12/07, michael gurstein wrote: > > > This is an extremely useful (if IMHO somewhat rosy) discussion concerning > Multi-stakeholder partnerships... Congrats to APC for putting this out. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: "karen banks" > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: "analia Lavin" ; claire at maplecs.org > Sent: 10/28/07 1:10 AM > Subject: [governance] APC publication: Multi-stakeholder partnerships in > ICTs for development ... . . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 13 02:56:59 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:56:59 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Things are not black or white (was Re: IGP Alert) In-Reply-To: <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> (message from Vittorio Bertola on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:58:09 -0200) References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735B8F1.1000505@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20071113075659.47E6722021B@quill.bollow.ch> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > I think that, in our collective discussion, we've abundantly shown that > things are not black or white, and any attempt to design a single and > simple principle is immediately subject to a flood of desirable exceptions. Yes - and I would suggest that this results to a significant extent from not having made it a design goal in the development of internet technology to have the technological framework empower users as much as possible to distinguish reliably between those peers who act in an acceptable manner and those who don't. I think that we should insist that from now on, in the design of technology standards (and most importantly when adoption/non-adoption decisions for proposed standards are made) concerns regarding the desirability of the likely socioeconomic effects of technology proposals should be significantly considered -- with the existence of simple policy principles that have a great domain of validity being among the desiderata. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 13 03:33:44 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:33:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> (message from Suresh Ramasubramanian on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 05:39:45 -0800) References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Norbert Bollow [10/11/07 14:15 +0100]: > >As long as the fundamental design of the email system is not fixed > >to make it possible to reliably avoid the problem of false positives > >in spam filtering, spam filtering is inherently problematic. > > Please dont drag in net neutrality into contexts where it doesnt exist. > There are no common carrier obligations for email traffic. The statement "There are no common carrier obligations for email traffic" sounds like a pretty much indefensible position to me. Among all the internet users whose email is in some way subject to automated spam-filtering, almost everyone is *not* making all relevant decisions *themselves*. If those decisions which people don't make themselves are made in such a way that some categories of internet users are discriminated against on grounds that are irrelevant to any legitimate definition of spam, that is IMO a violation of an important principle, which I'm referring to as an aspect of "net neutrality", for want of a better widely-understood term. Economically, it's the exact same kind of issue as with phone calls and phone companies. As an end user of the telephony system, I have every right to decide that I don't want to talk with party X, and if party X calls me anyway, I have every right to refuse to talk with them. However, the phone company does not have the right to make that decision for their customers. I don't object to email filtering in ways which are guaranteed to only affect forged email (as determined e.g. by the DomainKeys system) and unsolicited bulk email, but as soon as there is a risk of the filters affecting human-to-human correspondece or solicited bulk email, things are getting problematic, and even a low overall false positives rate is IMO unacceptable if there is a pattern in how the false positives are distributed and the pattern violates "net neutrality" principles. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 13 04:07:17 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:07:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> (message from Taran Rampersad on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:01:52 -0400) References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <20071113090717.E689D22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Taran Rampersad wrote: > > For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing > > Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being > > falsely classified as spam. That is a violation of net neutrality > > with regard to freedom of religion. > > > I could take that a step further and state that I find all Christian > email messages that demand I surrender my heathen Buddhist soul to be > spam; that their freedom of speech and religious self expression trods > on my own personal freedoms just as ringing my doorbell to 'share their > word' with me is a disturbance of my peace - an unwelcome intrusion on > the sanctity of my privacy so that they can shove their beliefs down my > throat. I was thinking of situtions where the intended recipient of the message has no objections to its religious content but where the religious content nevertheless causes the message to be misclassified as spam. What precisely is your definition of "spam"? Does it significantly differ from "unsolicited bulk email"? I'm not opposed in principle to filtering any category of "incredibly rude email" if a reasonable, practically verifiable definition of "incredibly rude" can be found which does not itself violate "net neutrality" principles, i.e. the definition should apply equally to rude atheists and to rude religious people, and it should apply equally to well-meaning but rude grass-rude political activists and to rude corporate marketing people, etc... I would suggest that it is a good strategy to focus anti-spam activities on trying to solve the problem that there is too much unsolicited bulk email, even if other categories of rude email also exist which can perhaps also be considered "spam". Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 04:01:18 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:31:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <009c01c825d3$c3b90970$4b2b1c50$@net> > The statement "There are no common carrier obligations for email > traffic" sounds like a pretty much indefensible position to me. Among It is a simple statement of fact, Norbert. And it is backed by enough rulings and laws behind it that allow ISPs to make good faith filtering efforts. > all the internet users whose email is in some way subject to automated > spam-filtering, almost everyone is *not* making all relevant decisions > *themselves*. ISPs rely on their users for input, in the form of this is spam / this is not spam buttons. The "end to end" principle simply does not apply or exist here, unless you claim that everybody with an email address is root / admin on his own server, and runs his own email. > Economically, it's the exact same kind of issue as with phone calls > and phone companies. As an end user of the telephony system, I have That is a obviously false analogy if you take time to think about it. > I don't object to email filtering in ways which are guaranteed to only > affect forged email (as determined e.g. by the DomainKeys system) and Do me a favor. Please study this a bit better. And study all the use cases where path and sender authentication systems *can* fail (I just spent multiple days discussing this elsewhere, so I am kind of amused at this naïvetë - though it does make for a change from poisonous propaganda). As for totally foolproof spam filtering systems - I am afraid they don't exist. And so you have good faith filtering efforts, backed by responsible filtering practices at most of the large ISPs, developing of best practices for spam filtering etc - look at the documents published on www.maawg.org for more. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 04:05:39 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:35:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071113090717.E689D22021B@quill.bollow.ch> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> <20071113090717.E689D22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <00a001c825d4$5e92e9c0$1bb8bd40$@net> > What precisely is your definition of "spam"? Does it significantly > differ from "unsolicited bulk email"? Not much of a difference from what others think on the issue. Though, practically, it will boil down to "email your users don't want and didn't ask to get" when you tie your filters to a report spam button. > I would suggest that it is a good strategy to focus anti-spam > activities on trying to solve the problem that there is too much For a slightly more holistic view on this - I wrote this document in early 2005, nothing much, if at all, has changed from then to now .. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/47/34935342.pdf srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue Nov 13 05:28:48 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:28:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > The statement "There are no common carrier obligations for email > traffic" sounds like a pretty much indefensible position to me. Among > all the internet users whose email is in some way subject to automated > spam-filtering, almost everyone is *not* making all relevant decisions > *themselves*. This is too much of a blanket statement. There are those providers that chose to be entirely blind to the content of the packets they carry. Often such carriers do so in order to take advantage of various legal protections afforded to those who exercise no editorial control over what is carried (and deciding what is spam and filtering it clearly is editorial control.) And there are those providers that have contractual agreements with receiving end-users that contain permission to filter. Put these two dimensions into a 2x2 matrix and we see that in one of the boxes there are providers that do exercise editorial control but have no contractual relationship with the receiver. Those providers are, to my mind, providers that are a) perhaps running with thin immunity and b) are as violative of the end-to-end principle as is Verisign's SiteFinder because they usurp control over the communication from the end-users. Spam filtering is, to my mind, OK only if it is done with the consent of the person to whom the spam is aimed (or his/her agent.) I simply do not buy the argument that "providers have to protect their resources" as being adequate to trigger filtering. Sure providers do need to protect their assets, but there needs to be a chain of permissions, originating ultimately with the receiving user in question. A provider proper mode to induce users to give such permission is to raise the costs charged to those users who withhold permission and thus require the provider(s) to carry the garbage. And core providers - the ones that sell packet carriage to other providers and not to end users - have a similar means of inducement - charging on the basis of traffic load, thus inducing their customers, i.e. the providers that actually do interact with users, to try to get those users to agree to filtering. As usual, no heavy or new mechanism of internet governance is required - only simple contractual principles. Network neutrality does not mean that providers must be blind. However it does mean that removal of the blinders requires permission from the user's whose communication is being affected. And it is natural and fair that those users' whose choices cause providers to bear additional costs should pay higher prices. The one tricky part is how to constrain providers from this opportunity to charge extra $$ into an opportunity to create a bias in favor of their own products over the products of competitors. --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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 05:43:16 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:13:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> > editorial control over what is carried (and deciding what is spam and > filtering it clearly is editorial control.) You might want to review 47 USC 230 which does provide safe harbor for such editorial control, at least in the USA. There are similar provisions in various countries' antispam laws that encourage providers to filter email. > Put these two dimensions into a 2x2 matrix and we see that in one of > the boxes there are providers that do exercise editorial control but have > no contractual relationship with the receiver. Those providers are, to my Er, like? There are some providers who have contractual relationships with the ISP that hires them to provide their servers such a service (brightmail, etc) > A provider proper mode to induce users to give such permission is to > raise the costs charged to those users who withhold permission and thus Not really. Most providers find that the costs of offering an unfiltered account are actually far higher than offering a filtered account. Not just bandwidth / disk etc - that is small change. Support costs from users who get spammed, phished etc and then complain about it? Do the numbers. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue Nov 13 06:49:15 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:49:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> Message-ID: <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> editorial control over what is carried (and deciding what is spam and >> filtering it clearly is editorial control.) > > You might want to review 47 USC 230 which does provide safe harbor for such > editorial control, at least in the USA. That section of the US code is very complex and relies on some rather tight definitions that may or may not apply to any given specific situation. Moreover, section (d) does impose certain obligations of notification in the context of an agreement with a "customer". In other words, this is a part of the law that providers need to study deeply. Moreover the necessity for that part of the USC tends to amplify the broader general underlying rule that "he who censors bears the risk of over-censorship". >> Put these two dimensions into a 2x2 matrix and we see that in one of >> the boxes there are providers that do exercise editorial control but have >> no contractual relationship with the receiver. Those providers are, to my > > Er, like? There are some providers who have contractual relationships with > the ISP that hires them to provide their servers such a service (brightmail, > etc) Yes, that's the kind of chain of contractual relationships through which permission from the ultimate recipient ought to be passed. For example, I have hired Postini to filter my incoming email. They have my contractual permission to do so based on their expertise and opinion about what is junk. And at one of my office sites I use a local access provider that normally blocks TCP port 25 - but I have an agreement with 'em not to block that port with an obligation on my part to be vigilant to avoid becoming an open relay or originator of junk. But most of us don't have relationships with core providers. Their link to us is indirect via our edge providers. So the permissions and costs need to be expressed in a language well suited for such indirect relationships - prices. And as a practical matter, core providers are not good places for traffic to be winnowed for naughty bits - the circuits of a packet switching fabric inside a carrier grade router are hardly the place to do semantic evaluation of application layer content. >> A provider proper mode to induce users to give such permission is to >> raise the costs charged to those users who withhold permission and thus > > Not really. Most providers find that the costs of offering an unfiltered > account are actually far higher than offering a filtered account. Not just > bandwidth / disk etc - that is small change. Support costs from users who > get spammed, phished etc and then complain about it? Do the numbers. I think you read me backwards. I believe that those who want non-filtered will often end up paying more - if for no other reason then they are causing more bits to be carried. Perhaps some providers don't do a good job of communicating to their customers that if they want unfiltered then those sers can't complain (or can't complain without paying $$ to file a complaint) if they receive junk. I'm not at all saying that providers should absorb costs created by user demands. Rather I'm saying that users should be given information that clearly defines what they are buying. Some providers may chose to offer a menu of choices (and prices), some may simply refuse to sell service to customers who want things that a provider doesn't want to sell (for whatever reason, other than a few limited reasons, such as discrimination on the basis or race or sex or ...) --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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 07:04:06 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:34:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> > That section of the US code is very complex and relies on some rather > tight definitions that may or may not apply to any given specific > situation. Moreover, section (d) does impose certain obligations of > notification in the context of an agreement with a "customer". In > other words, this is a part of the law that providers need to study deeply. A lot of providers are familiar with it, and have certainly used it. For example there was this case (district court only so no precedent) - Zango v Kaspersky. Spyware / adware company blocked by AV vendor, sues, case dismissed in favor of Kaspersky. > But most of us don't have relationships with core providers. Their > link to us is indirect via our edge providers. So the permissions and costs For email at least you don't have core and edge providers as such. You have a relationship with your email provider. Not with whoever provides his upstream, peering, transit etc. > And as a practical matter, core providers are not good places for > traffic to be winnowed for naughty bits - the circuits of a packet > switching fabric inside a carrier grade router are hardly the place to > do semantic evaluation of application layer content. As the Saudis, Pakistanis, etc keep finding out. But we are not talking about that kind of filtering or censorship here. > I believe that those who want non-filtered will often end up paying > more - if for no other reason then they are causing more bits to be carried. Not for the bits to be carried. For all its volume, spam / email etc is a drop in the bucket compared to, say, p2p and traffic to sites like youtube. Gmail's smtp traffic wont even be a blip in google's overall traffic patterns, trust me. > demands. Rather I'm saying that users should be given information that > clearly defines what they are buying. Some providers may chose to I'm all for that - but providing extra filtering at a higher cost is a mug's game. Especially when you buy a site license or use open source and roll your own, anyway. You have no incentive in such cases NOT to filter across the board. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Tue Nov 13 08:27:59 2007 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:27:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071113090717.E689D22021B@quill.bollow.ch> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> <20071113090717.E689D22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4739A65F.7050502@knowprose.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Taran Rampersad wrote: > > >>> For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing >>> Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being >>> falsely classified as spam. That is a violation of net neutrality >>> with regard to freedom of religion. >>> >>> >> I could take that a step further and state that I find all Christian >> email messages that demand I surrender my heathen Buddhist soul to be >> spam; that their freedom of speech and religious self expression trods >> on my own personal freedoms just as ringing my doorbell to 'share their >> word' with me is a disturbance of my peace - an unwelcome intrusion on >> the sanctity of my privacy so that they can shove their beliefs down my >> throat. >> > > I was thinking of situtions where the intended recipient of the > message has no objections to its religious content but where the > religious content nevertheless causes the message to be misclassified > as spam. > Statistically speaking, Christianity is not the majority of the world - so the majority of the world may consider these to be spam. According to these statistics (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ), 66% of the world may not like cybermissionary messages. I question those statistics - as you should - but it does demonstrate that no one religion is a majority. Regionally, though, one's results would vary. > What precisely is your definition of "spam"? Does it significantly > differ from "unsolicited bulk email"? > No. When I get emails that are unsolicited marketing messages, I include them. Religious advocacy is marketing as far as I am concerned. And on a cultural level, I understand why it exists but I do not think that a lot of people appreciate implications that their religion and culture are not good enough. This is dangerous ground. Expression of religious belief is not something to censor lightly - but then, sending people messages without solicitation is somewhat dubious. I, for one, do delete these messages. > I'm not opposed in principle to filtering any category of "incredibly > rude email" if a reasonable, practically verifiable definition of > "incredibly rude" can be found which does not itself violate "net > neutrality" principles, i.e. the definition should apply equally to > rude atheists and to rude religious people, and it should apply > equally to well-meaning but rude grass-rude political activists and to > rude corporate marketing people, etc... > In some countries, it might be considered incredibly rude to imply someone's religion isn't good enough. So your example may actually be better than anticipated - it brings in cultural factors that do weigh in on network neutrality and even support it. The balance is really the issue. > I would suggest that it is a good strategy to focus anti-spam > activities on trying to solve the problem that there is too much > unsolicited bulk email, even if other categories of rude email also > exist which can perhaps also be considered "spam". > The common phrase for any unsolicited email is spam - bulk or no. 'Why are you spamming me?' is a phrase used commonly. In my mind, separating the two simply reinforces a lack of cultural awareness. Despite the technological focus on internet governance, I must offer that the governance itself is about people more than technology. One cannot solve one problem without solving the other. Making the problem simpler to solve does not make the real problem go away. The real problem is the abuse of technology by a minority to affect the majority. That said, the UK instituted some good laws related to spam, including fines for spamming by your definition of bulk email. Those laws have not stopped spam in the UK, but it may have put a dent in it (all statistics would be based on projections - thus, they are fallible). On the flip side, it must be really hard to send any email from Nigeria that would be read. The point I am making is that one person's email can be another person's spam. That subjectivity is the issue. I do agree that individuals should have more of a say in what they have censored from their eyes - the sad fact is that the majority of people don't want to understand the problem and they don't care too much who gets censored or why... unless it is them. -- Taran Rampersad http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com 'Making Your Mark in Second Life: Business, Land, and Money' http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514174/ Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 13 08:56:48 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:56:48 -0200 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Remote access IGF Message-ID: No comments or questions being sent to any of the email addresses. We'd like to hear from you! I hope the webcast is working. Best, Adam >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:11:31 +0900 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >From: Adam Peake >Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF > >Remote participants can send in questions or >comments to the following email addresses: > >For English questions: igf_rio_english at intgovforum.info > >Pour les questions en français:igf_rio_francais at intgovforum.info > >Para las preguntas en español:igf_rio_espanol at intgovforum.info > >Para perguntas em portugues:igf_rio_portugues at intgovforum.info > > >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 narten at us.ibm.com Tue Nov 13 09:05:43 2007 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:05:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> Message-ID: <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> > true, 12 /8 was recently reclaimed, but that too is a drop in the > bucket, even ALL if all of the legacy space was reclaimed, used or > not, is only putting this off for a few years (not 20, certainly). Are you saying 12 /8s have recently been recovered/reclaimed? Please, provide details! I suspect this is completely untrue -- there just aren't /8s lying around that are easily reclaimable! E.g., see: http://www.icann.org/magazine/#reclamation My sense is that the easy-to-reclaim /8s were reclaimed a long while back, and there really isn't a lot of "unused" address space lying around to cover the demand for space. And to put this all in perspective, a dozen /8s corresponds to roughly one year's worth of IPv4 consumption at recent consumption rates. One year is not a lot of time in the overall scheme of things. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 09:25:01 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:55:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <016201c82600$fbabe0a0$f303a1e0$@net> Thomas Narten wrote: > I suspect this is completely untrue -- there just aren't /8s lying > around that are easily reclaimable! E.g., see: /8s no but smaller certainly - multiple /16s belonging to companies that went bust and never bothered to return their IP space are dime a dozen. Reclaiming those isn't the issue right now, it is reclaiming tinier netblocks and tightening up IP address usage and allocation policies. That, and letting providers roll out v6 to the customer. Most of the v6 prefixes so far are going to be v6 transit infrastructure - not all that many people opting for native v6 connectivity so far srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 09:30:08 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:30:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050711130630p33a12381y9dda436247a9b78e@mail.gmail.com> Hi Adam, :) Today all the connections are working for here in NY; this means plenary video and audio from side rooms, but the latter connects tend to stop at certain points and couldn't re-start. But I thought you would like this general positive feedback. Am working in background on educational materials about this process; perhaps each or some of us so doing can also ask more substantive questions, today or forward. Best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respecful Interfaces*, CCC/UN. On 11/13/07, Adam Peake wrote: > > No comments or questions being sent to any of the > email addresses. We'd like to hear from you! > > I hope the webcast is working. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:11:31 +0900 > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > >From: Adam Peake > >Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF > > > >Remote participants can send in questions or > >comments to the following email addresses: > > > >For English questions: igf_rio_english at intgovforum.info > > > >Pour les questions en français:igf_rio_francais at intgovforum.info > > > >Para las preguntas en español:igf_rio_espanol at intgovforum.info > > > >Para perguntas em portugues:igf_rio_portugues at intgovforum.info > > > > > >Best, > > > >Adam > -------------- 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 Tue Nov 13 09:33:42 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:33:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050711130633y58df2ebfsce708ad0f578ea2@mail.gmail.com> Question on current topic: In terms of equality of access - since there will always, will there not, be more and less affordable resources, in what ways can a basic set of internet resources of median cost be made available to everyone? Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Res[ectful Interfaces* CCC/UN On 11/13/07, Adam Peake wrote: > > No comments or questions being sent to any of the > email addresses. We'd like to hear from you! > > I hope the webcast is working. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:11:31 +0900 > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > >From: Adam Peake > >Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF > > > >Remote participants can send in questions or > >comments to the following email addresses: > > > >For English questions: igf_rio_english at intgovforum.info > > > >Pour les questions en français:igf_rio_francais at intgovforum.info > > > >Para las preguntas en español:igf_rio_espanol at intgovforum.info > > > >Para perguntas em portugues:igf_rio_portugues at intgovforum.info > > > > > >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 > . -------------- 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 Tue Nov 13 09:43:38 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:43:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Hello Thomas, On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > true, 12 /8 was recently reclaimed, but that too is a drop in the > > bucket, even ALL if all of the legacy space was reclaimed, used or > > not, is only putting this off for a few years (not 20, certainly). > > Are you saying 12 /8s have recently been recovered/reclaimed? No, but IIUC 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255 was reclaimed via IANA efforts in the last month or so. Perhaps I am mistaken about this, drc? anyone? I'll see if I can find where I read it. -- 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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 13 09:44:02 2007 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:44:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Compte rendu sommet Connecter l'Afrique Message-ID: *COMPTE RENDU DU SOMMET CONNECT AFRICA DE KIGALI* Il s'est tenu à Kigali le 29 et 30 Octobre 2007, un sommet des dirigeants intéressés au développement des TIC en Afrique. Ce sommet était organisé par le Gouvernement de la république du Ruanda, l'Union Internationale des Télécommunications (UIT), l'Union Africaine, le Groupe de la Banque Mondiale, l'Alliance Mondiale des Nations Unies pour les TIC au service du Développement, l'Union Africaine des Télécommunications, la Commission Economique des Nations Unies pour l'Afrique et le Fonds Mondial de Solidarité Numérique sous le haut patronage du Président du Rwanda et du Président du Ghana, Président en exercice de l'Union Africaine. Le sommet a connu la participation des différentes parties prenantes actives dans la région, à savoir les pays africains, la Chine, l'Inde, la Banque Mondiale, la Commission Européenne, le G8, l'OCDE, les pays Arabes, des grandes compagnies du secteur TIC, le Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement et d'autres organisations internationales. A l'ouverture de ce sommet, on a remarqué la présence des Présidents du Ruanda, du Ghana, du Sénégal, du Malawi, du Burkina Faso, de Djibuti, du Président de la Commission de l'Union Africaine, du Président de la Banque Africaine de Développement, du Représentant du Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies, du Secrétaire Général de l'UIT. Certains pas africains étaient représentés par leur Premier Ministre ou des Ministres en charge des TIC tandis que d'autres se sont fait représenter par des conseillers des Ministres. Ce sommet auquel ont participé près de 1000 personnes constitue donc le point de départ du projet " Connecter l'Afrique " dont la mise en œuvre apportera beaucoup en termes d'emplois et de réduction de la pauvreté aux pays bénéficiaires. Le chef de l'Etat djiboutien a, dans le discours qu'il a prononcé lors du sommet, clairement démontré les progrès effectués par son pays dans le domaine des télécommunications et dans celui des nouvelles technologies de l'Information. Le ministre en charge des télécommunications, M.Ali Abdi Farah, qui avait participé aux côtés de plusieurs ministres de l'Union Africaine aux réunions qui ont précédé le sommet des chefs d'Etat a indiqué que cette initiative était de nature à permettre aux pays africains de renforcer leurs capacités dans le domaine des TIC. "Comme l'a souligné le chef de l'Etat dans son discours à Kigali, il s'agit maintenant pour l'Afrique qui n'a pas pu faire sa révolution agricole et industrielle de faire sa révolution numérique. Le sommet de Kigali consacré à l'initiative " Connecter l'Afrique " a permis un engagement fort des dirigeants africains. Je crois que cette initiative sera une réussite dans la mesure où l'engagement politique existe et où les bailleurs des fonds, au premier rang desquels la Banque mondiale, se sont engagés à mobiliser les ressources financières nécessaires pour la mise en œuvre de ce projet qui bénéficie comme je l'ai dit de l'appui des bailleurs et d'organisations telles que l'Union internationale des télécommunications, a souligné M.Ali Abdi Farah. Le Sommet " Connecter l'Afrique " s'est en effet achevé par un engagement des dirigeants à créer un environnement réglementaire favorable et une promesse du secteur privé d'investir dans le secteur des communications sur le continent. Plus de 1 000 personnes, dont six chefs d'État, des chefs d'entreprise du secteur des technologies de l'information et des communications (TIC), des responsables de banques régionales de développement, ont participé à cette réunion dans la capitale rwandaise, consacrée aux moyens d'améliorer l'infrastructure des TIC en Afrique, particulièrement la connexion Internet à haut débit. " Le problème n'est pas technologique, car la technologie est disponible: il s'agit d'une question de volonté politique pour créer l'environnement adéquat ", a déclaré Craig Barrett, Président de l'Alliance mondiale des Nations Unies pour les TIC et Président d'Intel corporation, en déplorant les coûts de connexion particulièrement élevés en Afrique. " Les universités d'Afrique subsahariennes réunies payent 3 millions de dollars par mois uniquement en coûts de connexion, cet argent pourrait être utilisé à meilleur escient ailleurs ", a-t-il estimé. " Le marché africain est ouvert, l'Afrique est à la recherche de partenariats ", a pour sa part déclaré le Malien Hamadoun Touré, Secrétaire général de l'Union internationale des télécommunications (UIT), en assurant que les entreprises étaient prêtes à investir, sachant qu'il y avait de l'argent à gagner. À son tour, le Président du Rwanda Paul Kagamé, hôte du Sommet, a appelé les dirigeants africains à " faire les bons choix politiques pour que ces technologies deviennent une partie de la solution". Moshen Khalil, Directeur du Département ICT du Groupe Banque mondiale a quant à lui souligné les progrès accomplis dans le secteur. Il a rappelé que le taux de pénétration du téléphone était passé de 1% à 20% en quelques années en Afrique et il a souhaité que l'exemple du téléphone mobile soit reproduit dans d'autres secteurs des TIC. " Grâce à l'esprit d'entreprise du secteur privé africain, au soutien de la communauté internationale et à l'engagement des gouvernements du continent, la connexion universelle en Afrique n'est plus un rêve utopique " a renchéri Sha Zukang, Secrétaire général adjoint aux affaires économiques et sociales, qui représentait le Secrétaire général de l'ONU. Au cours des deux journées du Sommet, la Banque mondiale a annoncé qu'elle allait doubler son budget pour les infrastructures des TIC en Afrique, en débloquant 2 milliards de dollars sur les cinq prochaines années. L'UIT et Microsoft ont lancé " Virtual View ", une plateforme en ligne pour repérer et faciliter les projets de développements des TIC sur le continent. GSM, association commerciale mondiale représentant plus de 700 opérateurs de téléphonie mobile, a annoncé un projet d'investissement de plus de 50 milliards de dollars en Afrique subsaharienne au cours des cinq prochaines années pour offrir une couverture réseau à plus de 90% de la population. Le Président de la Banque africaine de développement, Donald Kaberuka, a annoncé un prêt de 150 millions de dollars pour un câble panafricain -le système de câble sous-marin d'Afrique de l'Est- qui apporterait une connexion rapide et bon marché à au moins 23 pays. Buts et Objectifs Le Sommet Connect Africa est un partenariat mondial réunissant de multiples parties prenantes et visant à mobiliser les ressources humaines, techniques et financières nécessaires pour remédier aux insuffisances flagrantes des infrastructures des technologies de l'information et de la communication en afrique. Cette initiative vise à compléter, accélérer et renforcer les projets et investissements TIC existants dans le secteur public et privé, en cherchant à remédier aux principales insuffisances, à mobiliser des ressources et à renforcer la coordination entre les parties prenantes , au service d'activités et de priorités nationales et régionales. Elle vise l'établissement de nouveaux partenariats et s'est articulé sur l'obtention des résultats concrets avec comme programme des discussions interactives dans le cadre de tables rondes réunissant de multiples parties prenantes, des annonces de partenariats, ainsi que la possibilité donnée aux participants de présenter leurs projets de développement des TIC à des partenaires et donateurs potentiels. Ce sommet a également offert une excellente occasion aux leaders des secteurs public, privé et financier de se rencontrer et de nouer de nouveaux partenariats pour l'avenir. Les participants ont eu à examiner les facteurs déterminants pour le succès du financement et du développement des TIC et ont décidé de collaborer en vue de : - lancer des initiatives visant à élargir l'infrastructure du réseau dorsal et des réseaux d'accès ; - mettre en oeuvre des initiatives qui encouragent l'accès partagé tels que les télécentres communautaires et les téléphones de village ; - améliorer la formation aux TIC (renforcement des capacités) ; - encourager l'élaboration d'applications et de services TIC adaptés aux conditions locales ; - intensifier les efforts destinés à mettre en place un environnement politique et réglementaire favorable à l'investissement. Recommandations essentielles I. Infrastructure dorsale et réseaux d'accès : 1. interconnecter toutes les capitales africaines à l'infrastructure TIC large bande et renforcer la connectivité avec le reste du monde à l'horizon 2012 ; 2. connecter tous les villages africains aux services large bande à l'horizon 2015 ; 3. mettre en oeuvre des initiatives qui encouragent l'accès partagé tels que les télécentres communautaires et les téléphones de village. 4. assurer la mise en place effective du fonds de service universel là où il n'est pas opérationnel ; 5. amener ceux qui l'ont pas encore fait à l'adhérer et utiliser le Fonds de Solidarité Numérique ; 6. recourir au partenariat public-privé pour la mise en œuvre des projets. ; 7. adopter des politiques réglementaires souples visant à favoriser l'implantation des opérateurs dans les zones rurales. II. Renforcement des capacités 1. accorder une priorité élevée au développement des compétences en quantité et en qualité suffisante, et intégrer pleinement les TIC dans l'éducation ; 2. mettre en place des centres d'excellence dans chaque sous-région de l'Afrique TIC. III. Services, contenu et applications 1. mettre en œuvre des services et applications qui : · répondent aux besoins des populations citadines et rurales ; · sont économiquement avantageuses pour permettre leur acquisition surtout par les plus démunis ; · permettent d'améliorer la productivité et par conséquent d'augmenter les revenus ; · soient développées en collaboration avec les communautés de base afin que celles-ci soient en mesure d'en assurer la pérennité. 2. mettre en oeuvre des services de télé-administration, téléenseignement, commerce électronique, télésanté, aide à l'agriculture, etc. 3. assurer le développement du contenu en langues locales. IV. Cadre politique et réglementaire 1. procéder à la révision des cadres réglementaires et de régulation ainsi qu'à l'harmonisation des politiques et réglementations, tant sur le plan sous-régional que régional ; 2. assurer le renforcement des capacités pour les régulateurs ; 3. créer des points d'échange internet nationaux et régionaux ; 4. libéraliser la téléphonie IP ; 5. baisser les droits de douane sur les équipements TIC. Toutes ces recommandations ont été accompagnées des promesses de financement par la plupart des organismes de financement et d'investissement présents. C'est ainsi par exemple que le consortium GSM a annoncé des investissements de 50 milliards de dollars pour les 5 prochaines années, contre 10 milliards les 5 dernières années, la Banque Mondiale a promis 2 milliards de dollars, Pour accéder à ces fonds, il a été demandé aux états africains de monter et présenter des projets bancables. *Remarque* -durant tout le déroulement de ce sommet, il a été soigneusement évité l'implication, la participation et le rôle de la société civile. Personne même le Secrétaire Général de l'UIT n'a fait mention du rôle joué par la société civile dans le processus des deux phases et dans la phase Post Tunis. *Activités avant le sommet* La CEA , en collaboration avec ISOC et la Commission de l'Union Africaine, a organisé une consultation régionale le 28 Octobre 2007 sur la gouvernance de l'Internet sous forme de table ronde en perspectives du Forum de Rio et qui s'est articulée sur les points suivants : *1. Aperçu panoramique du processus de la GI en Afrique dont voici les thèmes développés* : Modérateur: Makane Faye, UNECA Rapporteur: Moustapha Ndiaye (Sénégal) 1ère Communication: Africa and the Internet Governance debate: from Bamako to Athens, by Mamadou Iam Diallo, Chairperson, Bamako bureau for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 2e Communication: Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio: What is in for Africa? By Mr Dawit Bekele, Coordinator, ISOC Regional Bureau for Africa 3e Communication: Connect Africa: the Integrated Continental Information Network, by Ms Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International (Ethiopia) *2. Tables Rondes* *2.1. Acces and Africa* * * Président : Mr. Nii Quaynor du Ghana ; Rapporteur : Mr. Haroun Mahamat BADAOUY du Tchad Panélistes : MM. Moustapha M. Diaby de la Commission de l'Union Africaine ; David Turahi de l-Ouganda ; Lanre Ajayi du Nigeria ; Eric Osiakwan de AFRISPA Isidoro Pedro da Silva du Rwanda ; Ms. Fatimetou Mint Mohamed Saleck de la Mauritanie *2.2. Internet Critical Ressources and Africa* * * Modérateur: Mr Ridha Guellouz (Tunisie) Rapporteur : Mirabelle Djuine (Cameroun) Panélistes : - Raphaël Mmasi (Rwanda) - Marc Vincent de Paul Kallyth (Congo) - Gbenga Sesan (Nigeria) - Clement Dzidonou (Ghana) - Shem Ochuodho (Kenya) *2.3. Internet Security and Africa* * * Modérateur: Anne Rachel Inne (ICANN Rapporteur : Jean Philémon Kissangou (Congo) Panélistes : - Abdou Abass Sarr (Côte d'Ivoire) - Issoufou Seynou (Burkina Faso) - Brian Longwe (Kenya Information Network Centre) - Sophia Bekele, CBS International (Ethiopia) *2.4. Diversity and Africa * * * Modérateur : M. Olivier Nana Nzepa (Cameroun) Rapporteur: Mlle Esperance Niyonzima (Burundi) Panelistes : M. Maurice Tadajeu (Cameroun), M. Isaac Kofie Danner (Sierra Leone), M. Baudoin Schombe (RDC), M. Hezekiel Dlamini (UNESCO) *2.5. The way forward: On the Road to Rio de Janeiro* * * Modérateur: Esam Abulkhirat, Senior ICT Officer, African Union Commission Rapporteur: Mactar Seck (ECA) Panélistes (All Session Modérators): Dr Nii Quaynor, Mr Ridha Guellouz, Ms Anne Rachel Inne, Mr Olivier Nana Nzepa -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: COMPTE RENDU DU SOMMET CONNECT AFRICA DE KIGALI'.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53248 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 09:46:21 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:46:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam Please note the hypertext has 'swallowed' the word "Portuguese", so that now it is included in the twice in the email address, which will not work. It should be just igf_rio_portugues at intgovforum.info. Best regards, Rui On 12/11/2007, Adam Peake wrote: > > Remote participants can send in questions or > comments to the following email addresses: > > For English questions: igf_rio_english at intgovforum.info > > Pour les questions en français:igf_rio_francais at intgovforum.info > > Para las preguntas en español:igf_rio_espanol at intgovforum.info > > Para perguntas em portugues:igf_rio_portugues at intgovforum.info > > > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 09:48:18 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:18:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <017301c82604$3c0cb6d0$b4262470$@net> McTim wrote: > No, but IIUC 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255 was reclaimed via IANA efforts > in the last month or so. 12/8 has been AT&T territory, and used by / allocated to AT&T customers, since 1983. CIDR: 12.0.0.0/8 NetName: ATT RegDate: 1983-08-23 Updated: 2007-05-22 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From narten at us.ibm.com Tue Nov 13 09:49:05 2007 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:49:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200711131449.lADEn58K018655@localhost.localdomain> > No, but IIUC 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255 was reclaimed via IANA efforts > in the last month or so. Um, http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space says 12.0.0.0 belongs to AT&T. Maybe they gave it back because they weren't using it? (Hah!) Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 09:53:35 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:53:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > true, 12 /8 was recently reclaimed, but that too is a drop in the > > bucket, even ALL if all of the legacy space was reclaimed, used or > > not, is only putting this off for a few years (not 20, certainly). > > Are you saying 12 /8s have recently been recovered/reclaimed? > > Please, provide details! > > I suspect this is completely untrue -- there just aren't /8s lying > around that are easily reclaimable! E.g., see: > > http://www.icann.org/magazine/#reclamation The above says: "The "slash-8" was number 14 if you view IP address as a list of 256 items and was assigned to the Public Data Network." So it was 14, not 12, my bad. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 09:56:28 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:26:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources' In-Reply-To: References: <11d601c82178$db537110$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20071110121429.GC24953@hserus.net> <200711131405.lADE5h9r001529@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <017b01c82605$60a97770$21fc6650$@net> > "The "slash-8" was number 14 if you view IP address as a list of 256 > items and was assigned to the Public Data Network." > > So it was 14, not 12, my bad. Please see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 13 10:07:20 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:07:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4739A65F.7050502@knowprose.com> (message from Taran Rampersad on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:27:59 -0400) References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> <20071113090717.E689D22021B@quill.bollow.ch> <4739A65F.7050502@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <20071113150721.10EDE22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Taran Rampersad wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Taran Rampersad wrote: > > > > > >>> For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing > >>> Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being > >>> falsely classified as spam. That is a violation of net neutrality > >>> with regard to freedom of religion. > >>> > >>> > >> I could take that a step further and state that I find all Christian > >> email messages that demand I surrender my heathen Buddhist soul to be > >> spam; that their freedom of speech and religious self expression trods > >> on my own personal freedoms just as ringing my doorbell to 'share their > >> word' with me is a disturbance of my peace - an unwelcome intrusion on > >> the sanctity of my privacy so that they can shove their beliefs down my > >> throat. > >> > > > > I was thinking of situtions where the intended recipient of the > > message has no objections to its religious content but where the > > religious content nevertheless causes the message to be misclassified > > as spam. > > > Statistically speaking, Christianity is not the majority of the world - > so the majority of the world may consider these to be spam. Whether the "majority of the world" would consider a given email to be spam should be considered totally irrelevant if the only thing that triggers the spam filter is religious content which the actual addressee of the email message has no objection to. For example, I'm hosting a mailing list with a couple thousand subscribers who have explicitly requested to receive write-up of the sermons of a certain pastor which are emailed out every three weeks. Since I'm not emailing this stuff to arbitrary people, but only to people who have explicitly requested to be subscribers of that mailing list, these mailings clearly are not spam regardless of what all the non-subscribers of that mailing list (clearly the majority of the world) would think if I'd spam them (which I've never done, and don't intend to ever do.) However since there has been a lot of religious "Nigerian" spam and a lot of sex-related spam, there is now a significant degree of discrimination in the email system against totally-legitimate communications of pastors, especially those pastors who consider it a main goal of their ministry to try to help postitutes and drug addicts. > > I would suggest that it is a good strategy to focus anti-spam > > activities on trying to solve the problem that there is too much > > unsolicited bulk email, even if other categories of rude email also > > exist which can perhaps also be considered "spam". > > > The common phrase for any unsolicited email is spam - bulk or no. 'Why > are you spamming me?' is a phrase used commonly. > > In my mind, separating the two simply reinforces a lack of cultural > awareness. Despite the technological focus on internet governance, I > must offer that the governance itself is about people more than > technology. One cannot solve one problem without solving the other. > Making the problem simpler to solve does not make the real problem go > away. The real problem is the abuse of technology by a minority to > affect the majority. IMO it's equally objectionable if the majority (non-Christians) makes choices which result in making it needlessly difficult for a minority (Christians) to communicate with each other about topics that they consider important. If a way can be found for changing the overall email system so that unsolicited bulk email will no longer occur in significant quantities (without side-effects that significant reduce the overall usefulness of the email system or its "net neutrality" properties), that will IMO be from everyone's perspective at the very least be a significant reduction of the spam problem, regardless of what definition of "spam" they use. I believe that it is possible to desire to first address a clearly- defined and very significant subproblem (which has a definition that is independent of cultural factors) without being guilty of "lack of cultural awareness." However, when trying to address the spam problem, by any definition of "spam", care should be taken to avoid as much as possible side-effects of discrimination against the ability of any company or cultural group to use the internet in ways not involving spam. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Nov 13 10:01:09 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:01:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] PRESS RELEASE: APC/Council of Europe: New code for public participation in internet governance Message-ID: <20071113150110.6212C26F503@mail.gn.apc.org> Dear all an outcome of our preparations for and discussions during the workshop organised by the APC, COE and UNECE yesterday on public participation in internet governance.. karen ==== NO EMBARGO The Council of Europe and APC propose a code for public participation in internet governance RIO de JANEIRO, BRAZIL, November 13 2007 -- Intergovernmental and civil society organisations propose a self-regulatory mechanism to foster participation, access to information and transparency in Internet governance at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro on 12 November 2007. The mechanism should ensure that all the institutions which play a role in some aspect of governing the internet commit to transparency, public participation, including participation of all stakeholders, and access to information in their activities. The proposal was announced at a best practice forum on public participation in Internet governance and access to information, co-organised by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). The new proposal reflects the Council of Europe's commitment to the concept of public service value of the Internet. For Internet governance to satisfy democratic needs the part to be played by users should be recognised and strengthened, said the Council of Europe Deputy Secretary General Maud de Boer-Buquicchio at the IGF best practice forum on “Public participation in Internet Governance: Emerging issues, good practices and proposed solutions”. The forum explored how adherence to the World Summit on the Information Society principles can become common practice in institutions involved in Internet governance. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the “Aarhus Convention”) was presented at the Forum as a possible prototype of such a mechanism. The Convention is designed to admit as signatories, both governments and inter-governmental institutions, as well as other types of institutions, said Hans Hansell, leader of the group for ICT and development at UNECE. “The Aarhus Convention firmly establishes access to information, transparency and participation in governance processes as a shared value, and supports institutions in implementing the convention,” Mr Hansell explained. With its simple mechanism for dealing with complaints, as well as an information clearing house, the Aarhus Convention sets a particularly valuable model for the Internet governance community because transparency, participation and access to information, and accountability are the cornerstones of good governance, commented Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director of APC. “This is a framework that can underpin other processes and even support them, without replacing any existing institutional configuration, policies or regulations,” Ms Esterhuysen added. “Like the IGF, the new agreement we are proposing can constitute a non-threatening platform for progress and positive change and can be established as a self-regulatory mechanism. Institutions which want to demonstrate their commitment to being transparent, inclusive and accountable, can become signatories,” Ms Esterhuysen concluded. APC contact Frédéric Dubois, Information coordinator Mobile +1 514 660 0664, frederic at apc.org Council of Europe contacts Estelle Steiner, Press Officer, Mobile +33 (0)6 08 46 01 57, estelle.steiner at coe.int Sophie Lobey, Communications Officer, Mobile +33 (0)6 64 09 93 40, sophie.lobey at coe.int -30- -------------- 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 Tue Nov 13 10:11:29 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:11:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF In-Reply-To: <45ed74050711130630p33a12381y9dda436247a9b78e@mail.gmail.com> References: <45ed74050711130630p33a12381y9dda436247a9b78e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050711130711j65205a5bl11ffa7a4f1d6151a@mail.gmail.com> Dear Adam et al: How kind of you to remind us about questions, and indeed it was really wonderful to hear myself called on by the plenary panel on Access. So I know you did act for us out here. But how ironic, they did not seem to have the question; asked for my question several times, reppeating my name, Dr. Linda Misewk-Falkoff, like a question. And ready to hear. I wanted to sing out: I'm here! And how relevant for all those without n-way access. Perhaps an epiphany. We here but we are not here ... let me know offl-ist any details but the main thing is that you are there trying to knit us into the main networks. Keep trying! We need our spokespersons, no matter how "democratic," or indeed precisely in order to be. Best wishes, Linda. On 11/13/07, linda misek-falkoff wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > :) Today all the connections are working for here in NY; this means > plenary video and audio from side rooms, but the latter connects tend to > stop at certain points and couldn't re-start. But I thought you would like > this general positive feedback. > > Am working in background on educational materials about this process; > perhaps each or some of us so doing can also ask more substantive questions, > today or forward. > > Best wishes, > LDMF. > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > *Respecful Interfaces*, CCC/UN. > > > On 11/13/07, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > No comments or questions being sent to any of the > > email addresses. We'd like to hear from you! > > > > I hope the webcast is working. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:11:31 +0900 > > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, < gov at wsis-gov.org> > > >From: Adam Peake > > >Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF > > > > > >Remote participants can send in questions or > > >comments to the following email addresses: > > > > > >For English questions: igf_rio_english at intgovforum.info > > > > > >Pour les questions en français: igf_rio_francais at intgovforum.info > > > > > >Para las preguntas en español:igf_rio_espanol at intgovforum.info > > > > > >Para perguntas em portugues:igf_rio_portugues at intgovforum.info > > > > > > > > >Best, > > > > > >Adam > > > -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. For I.D. only here: Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability (IDC Steering). Persons With Pain International. National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus. IDC-ICT Taskforce. Respectful Interfaces* - Communications Coordination Committee For The United Nations; CCC/UN Board Member and Secretary; Chr., Online Committee.. Vita Summary: . Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 13 10:26:07 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:26:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <009c01c825d3$c3b90970$4b2b1c50$@net> (suresh@hserus.net) References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <009c01c825d3$c3b90970$4b2b1c50$@net> Message-ID: <20071113152607.393ED22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > The statement "There are no common carrier obligations for email > > traffic" sounds like a pretty much indefensible position to me. Among > > It is a simple statement of fact, Norbert. And it is backed by enough > rulings and laws behind it that allow ISPs to make good faith filtering > efforts. I'm not objecting to good faith filtering efforts. I'm just objecting to the blanket statement that there are _no_ relevant common carrier obligations. And I've tried to draw attention to a specific way in which current good faith filtering efforts have bad side-effects (which I would classify as "net neutrality violations", but I wouldn't mind using some other word(s) to describe the issue if a better term exists), in the hope that good faith efforts would be undertaken aimed at improving the methods used in those good faith filtering efforts. > so I am kind of amused at this naïvetë Suresh, since you have chosen to ridicule me instead of trying to engage in a constructive conversation, this dialogue ends here. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Tue Nov 13 12:13:03 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:13:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] Samba Night at IGF with DiploFoundaiton, EPIC, EFF and Privacy International! References: Message-ID: <03E33116-9282-4043-A63B-137DC1A6BAC6@privaterra.info> Dear Colleagues: FOR THOSE OF YOU that are going to be in RIO for the IGF 2007: This gathering will be a great opportunity to foster institutional and personal bonds, and to exchange experiences from all parts of the world - with no computer mediating them! EPIC-Privacy International, EFF and DiploFoundation invite you to gather with all of us to drink, chat and have fun!!! Rio is the city of samba, but not just during Carnival! As the birthplace of the Root Samba, the jazz influence of Rio's music scene can be felt year-round ...as the Brazilian lyrics go: "if you do not know samba, you cannot be a good friend." And so, friends, we think the perfect way to shake and stretch the body after sitting in the IGF and meetings all day is to dance the samba and have some Brazilian drinks in one of the most popular samba houses in old colonial Rio! If you are interested in joining us - please RSVP to me by end of day today, as we have to reserve the # of spots for the place 48 hours in advance. Regards Robert Guerra ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 13 12:25:52 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:25:52 -0200 Subject: [governance] Samba Night at IGF with DiploFoundaiton, EPIC, EFF and Privacy International! In-Reply-To: <141564460568DFB907903A97@237.96.wireless.igfbrazil2007.br> References: <03E33116-9282-4043-A63B-137DC1A6BAC6@privaterra.info> <141564460568DFB907903A97@237.96.wireless.igfbrazil2007.br> Message-ID: Paul: The event is thursday night. The idea is to leave the conference venue around 6pm, to arrive in Rio to the location - on or before 8pm. A few of us @ Diplo are organizing the reservation, which is the reason we need to get an approx 48 hours before. I'll provide additional details later today on the venue. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 13-Nov-07, at 3:18 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Hi Robert > > sounds like great fun! > > very interested, but wondering - when? > > did i miss something? > > Paul. > > > --On 13 November 2007 3:13:03 PM -0200 Robert Guerra > wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues: >> >> FOR THOSE OF YOU that are going to be in RIO for the IGF 2007: >> >> This gathering will be a great opportunity to foster institutional >> and >> personal bonds, and to exchange experiences from all parts of the >> world - >> with no computer mediating them! >> >> EPIC-Privacy International, EFF and DiploFoundation invite you to >> gather >> with all of us to drink, chat and have fun!!! >> >> Rio is the city of samba, but not just during Carnival! As the >> birthplace >> of the Root Samba, the jazz influence of Rio's music scene can be >> felt >> year-round ...as the Brazilian lyrics go: "if you do not know >> samba, you >> cannot be a good friend." >> >> And so, friends, we think the perfect way to shake and stretch the >> body >> after sitting in the IGF and meetings all day is to dance the samba >> and >> have some Brazilian drinks in one of the most popular samba houses >> in old >> colonial Rio! >> >> >> If you are interested in joining us - please RSVP to me by end of day >> today, as we have to reserve the # of spots for the place 48 hours in >> advance. >> >> Regards >> >> Robert Guerra >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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, Director-General, APNIC > > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 > 3100/99 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 12:41:18 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:41:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF In-Reply-To: <45ed74050711130711j65205a5bl11ffa7a4f1d6151a@mail.gmail.com> References: <45ed74050711130630p33a12381y9dda436247a9b78e@mail.gmail.com> <45ed74050711130711j65205a5bl11ffa7a4f1d6151a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050711130941q5769911fnefea1d9101bab81b@mail.gmail.com> p.s. just wondering, does the receiver of the questions plan to read them from the floor? No way to ask them from here.... or was that expected? Are you re-submiting? Thx, LDMF. On 11/13/07, linda misek-falkoff wrote: > > Dear Adam et al: > > How kind of you to remind us about questions, and indeed it was really > wonderful to hear myself called on by the plenary panel on Access. So I > know you did act for us out here. But how ironic, they did not seem to have > the question; asked for my question several times, reppeating my name, Dr. > Linda Misewk-Falkoff, like a question. And ready to hear. > > I wanted to sing out: I'm here! And how relevant for all those without > n-way access. Perhaps an epiphany. We here but we are not here ... let me > know offl-ist any details but the main thing is that you are there trying to > knit us into the main networks. Keep trying! We need our spokespersons, no > matter how "democratic," or indeed precisely in order to be. > > Best wishes, Linda. > > > On 11/13/07, linda misek-falkoff wrote: > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > :) Today all the connections are working for here in NY; this means > > plenary video and audio from side rooms, but the latter connects tend to > > stop at certain points and couldn't re-start. But I thought you would like > > this general positive feedback. > > > > Am working in background on educational materials about this process; > > perhaps each or some of us so doing can also ask more substantive questions, > > today or forward. > > > > Best wishes, > > LDMF. > > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > > *Respecful Interfaces*, CCC/UN. > > > > > > On 11/13/07, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > > > No comments or questions being sent to any of the > > > email addresses. We'd like to hear from you! > > > > > > I hope the webcast is working. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:11:31 +0900 > > > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, < gov at wsis-gov.org> > > > >From: Adam Peake < ajp at glocom.ac.jp> > > > >Subject: [governance] Remote access IGF > > > > > > > >Remote participants can send in questions or > > > >comments to the following email addresses: > > > > > > > >For English questions: igf_rio_english at intgovforum.info > > > > > > > >Pour les questions en français: igf_rio_francais at intgovforum.info > > > > > > > >Para las preguntas en español:igf_rio_espanol at intgovforum.info > > > > > > > >Para perguntas em portugues:igf_rio_portugues at intgovforum.info > > > > > > > > > > > >Best, > > > > > > > >Adam > > > > > > > > -- > Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. > For I.D. only here: > Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability (IDC Steering). > Persons With Pain International. National Disability Party, International > Disability Caucus. > IDC-ICT Taskforce. > Respectful Interfaces* - Communications Coordination Committee For The > United Nations; CCC/UN Board Member and Secretary; Chr., Online Committee.. > > Vita Summary: . > Other Affiliations on Request. -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. For I.D. only here: Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability (IDC Steering). Persons With Pain International. National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus. IDC-ICT Taskforce. Respectful Interfaces* - Communications Coordination Committee For The United Nations; CCC/UN Board Member and Secretary; Chr., Online Committee.. Vita Summary: . Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From cnd at knowprose.com Tue Nov 13 13:13:15 2007 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:13:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071113150721.10EDE22021B@quill.bollow.ch> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> <20071113090717.E689D22021B@quill.bollow.ch> <4739A65F.7050502@knowprose.com> <20071113150721.10EDE22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4739E93B.4020402@knowprose.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Taran Rampersad wrote: > > >> Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Taran Rampersad wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing >>>>> Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being >>>>> falsely classified as spam. That is a violation of net neutrality >>>>> with regard to freedom of religion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I could take that a step further and state that I find all Christian >>>> email messages that demand I surrender my heathen Buddhist soul to be >>>> spam; that their freedom of speech and religious self expression trods >>>> on my own personal freedoms just as ringing my doorbell to 'share their >>>> word' with me is a disturbance of my peace - an unwelcome intrusion on >>>> the sanctity of my privacy so that they can shove their beliefs down my >>>> throat. >>>> >>>> >>> I was thinking of situtions where the intended recipient of the >>> message has no objections to its religious content but where the >>> religious content nevertheless causes the message to be misclassified >>> as spam. >>> >>> >> Statistically speaking, Christianity is not the majority of the world - >> so the majority of the world may consider these to be spam. >> > > Whether the "majority of the world" would consider a given email to > be spam should be considered totally irrelevant if the only thing > that triggers the spam filter is religious content which the actual > addressee of the email message has no objection to. > > For example, I'm hosting a mailing list with a couple thousand > subscribers who have explicitly requested to receive write-up of > the sermons of a certain pastor which are emailed out every three > weeks. > > Since I'm not emailing this stuff to arbitrary people, but only to > people who have explicitly requested to be subscribers of that > mailing list, these mailings clearly are not spam regardless of > what all the non-subscribers of that mailing list (clearly the > majority of the world) would think if I'd spam them (which I've never > done, and don't intend to ever do.) > > However since there has been a lot of religious "Nigerian" spam and > a lot of sex-related spam, there is now a significant degree of > discrimination in the email system against totally-legitimate > communications of pastors, especially those pastors who consider it a > main goal of their ministry to try to help postitutes and drug addicts. > > >>> I would suggest that it is a good strategy to focus anti-spam >>> activities on trying to solve the problem that there is too much >>> unsolicited bulk email, even if other categories of rude email also >>> exist which can perhaps also be considered "spam". >>> >>> >> The common phrase for any unsolicited email is spam - bulk or no. 'Why >> are you spamming me?' is a phrase used commonly. >> >> In my mind, separating the two simply reinforces a lack of cultural >> awareness. Despite the technological focus on internet governance, I >> must offer that the governance itself is about people more than >> technology. One cannot solve one problem without solving the other. >> Making the problem simpler to solve does not make the real problem go >> away. The real problem is the abuse of technology by a minority to >> affect the majority. >> > > IMO it's equally objectionable if the majority (non-Christians) makes > choices which result in making it needlessly difficult for a minority > (Christians) to communicate with each other about topics that they > consider important. > You miss the point. If we can safely assume that people are happy with their own religions, we can safely assume that religious messages from other religions could be considered spam. If, however, there is an assumption that people want to be 'saved' from their present religion, I suspect there is a deeper problem than technology under discussion here. The truth is somewhere between the two extremes posited. I'd rather take the vantage that I should not offend people with my own religion, but I realize that I may not be alone in that. I, among others, do not want happy-clappy-religious-messages, thank you very much. If you wish to remove Christian keywords from spam directories, I'd suggest finding some way to legitimize taking these words out of spam recognition. Also bear in mind that at this time, less than 20% of the world is on the internet. As more people get on the internet, more and more of such preferences will probably be found in spam dictionaries. Some may say that this is a travesty on Free Speech, but then when one's Free Speech offends or annoys others, the mute button of technology is quite easy to click. Do I, personally, agree with it? Yes and no. I don't want to be inundated with messages in much the same way I don't like people ringing my doorbell so that they can save my heretic (their perspective) soul. The issue you bring up with the Christian keyword example demonstrates the use of technology to protect cultural identity and religious belief, in my eyes. The argument against that would seem to be cultural conquest, and I find that repugnant. Perhaps you would like to use another example? > If a way can be found for changing the overall email system so that > unsolicited bulk email will no longer occur in significant quantities > (without side-effects that significant reduce the overall usefulness > of the email system or its "net neutrality" properties), that will IMO > be from everyone's perspective at the very least be a significant > reduction of the spam problem, regardless of what definition of "spam" > they use. > This is always the same approach, and it is not a bad approach. I believe 'following the money' would be the most efficient way of handling most bulk spam, but that will require local laws to reflect an internet governance mechanism. This is a catch-22. Breaking that loop will require more user buy-in, but the users don't seem to care as long as what shows up in their mailbox is manageable. For my messages, I filter them through Postini, then have Seamonkey (email) rules that delete messages based on criteria that I have taught it. I now get about 5 spam messages a day, at most. As an individual, this is quite manageable. To internet service providers, it is a cost that they factor into their pricing. The sad truth, in my opinion, is that WSIS was too late and ineffective for the email issue (amongst others) and that there won't be significant democratic buy in from stakeholders (read: users) until something really bad happens. It has become like the internal combustion engine: Embedded in culture with structures built around it that will collapse should the problem actually be solved. > However, when trying to address the spam problem, by any definition of > "spam", care should be taken to avoid as much as possible side-effects > of discrimination against the ability of any company or cultural group > to use the internet in ways not involving spam. > Again, if someone's Freedom of Speech annoys people, they have the right to use the mute button. If it is applied to a culture, one could say that it is a travesty - but then we border on the question of democracy of theology. Those that wish the most religious sensitivity should provide it. -- Taran Rampersad http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com 'Making Your Mark in Second Life: Business, Land, and Money' http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514174/ Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 13 13:23:38 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:23:38 +1100 Subject: [governance] Samba Night at IGF with DiploFoundaiton, EPIC, EFF and Privacy International! In-Reply-To: <03E33116-9282-4043-A63B-137DC1A6BAC6@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <013601c82622$5143f1d0$e0654cbd@IAN> Count me in Robert as long as I can get away not too late!!! 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: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] Sent: 14 November 2007 04:13 To: privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] Samba Night at IGF with DiploFoundaiton, EPIC, EFF and Privacy International! Dear Colleagues: FOR THOSE OF YOU that are going to be in RIO for the IGF 2007: This gathering will be a great opportunity to foster institutional and personal bonds, and to exchange experiences from all parts of the world - with no computer mediating them! EPIC-Privacy International, EFF and DiploFoundation invite you to gather with all of us to drink, chat and have fun!!! Rio is the city of samba, but not just during Carnival! As the birthplace of the Root Samba, the jazz influence of Rio's music scene can be felt year-round ...as the Brazilian lyrics go: "if you do not know samba, you cannot be a good friend." And so, friends, we think the perfect way to shake and stretch the body after sitting in the IGF and meetings all day is to dance the samba and have some Brazilian drinks in one of the most popular samba houses in old colonial Rio! If you are interested in joining us - please RSVP to me by end of day today, as we have to reserve the # of spots for the place 48 hours in advance. Regards Robert Guerra ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1126 - Release Date: 12/11/2007 12:56 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1126 - Release Date: 12/11/2007 12:56 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 13 14:37:58 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:37:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <4739E93B.4020402@knowprose.com> (message from Taran Rampersad on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:13:15 -0400) References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E591F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4730A253.5040505@bertola.eu> <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <4735C7E0.80805@knowprose.com> <20071113090717.E689D22021B@quill.bollow.ch> <4739A65F.7050502@knowprose.com> <20071113150721.10EDE22021B@quill.bollow.ch> <4739E93B.4020402@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <20071113193758.7CE6022021B@quill.bollow.ch> Taran Rampersad wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > IMO it's equally objectionable if the majority (non-Christians) makes > > choices which result in making it needlessly difficult for a minority > > (Christians) to communicate with each other about topics that they > > consider important. > > > You miss the point. If we can safely assume that people are happy with > their own religions, we can safely assume that religious messages from > other religions could be considered spam. If, however, there is an > assumption that people want to be 'saved' from their present religion, I > suspect there is a deeper problem than technology under discussion here. Hmm... I'm getting the impression that you and I are simply talking about two entirely different topics - I'm talking about a problem with communication between members of the same minority cultural group being adversely affected by spam-filters that make the spam/ham determination primarily based on spam/ham decisions of people who don't belong to that cultural group (and who don't normally see messages with words like that used by members of that minority cultural group except in spam), while you're addressing the question of the definition of spam in the context of inter-cultural communication. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Nov 13 15:20:37 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:20:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] Some Scholarships available for CSO/NGOs to GK3 (11-13 November 2007) Message-ID: <200711132020.lADKKUB4001224@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to inform you we have been contacted by the GKP Secretariat today to announce that small number of last minute funding opportunities will be made available for CS representatives and NGOs for participating the GK3 Conference organised in Kuala Lumpur (11-13 December). The GKP Secretariat is requesting that any request or recommendation for funding should be sent to them no later than this Friday. The theme is Emerging People, Emerging Markets, Emerging Technologies. In allocating the available fellowship, the GKP is targeting organisations based in developing or transition countries and having a specific working expertise in the area of ICT4D. Interested CS organisations and NGOs should send us a request (wsis at ngocongo.org), before Thursday 15 November (12:00 am, GMT), indicating: - Name of the Civil Society Organisation or NGOs: - Country: - Name of representative: - Gender: - E-mail address: - Area of expertise and knowledge in ICT4D: Full information about the conference can be obtained from www.GKPEventsOnTheFuture.org . We regret the very late deadline and by the fact that this process can not be made more open, but the funding opportunity was apparently made available very late and the GKP Secretariat is willing to finalize the process early next week. Best regards, Philippe 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 dan at musicunbound.com Tue Nov 13 15:32:47 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:32:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <20071113152607.393ED22021B@quill.bollow.ch> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <009c01c825d3$c3b90970$4b2b1c50$@net> <20071113152607.393ED22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: At 4:26 PM +0100 11/13/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > The statement "There are no common carrier obligations for email >> > traffic" sounds like a pretty much indefensible position to me. Among >> >> It is a simple statement of fact, Norbert. And it is backed by enough >> rulings and laws behind it that allow ISPs to make good faith filtering >> efforts. > >I'm not objecting to good faith filtering efforts. > >I'm just objecting to the blanket statement that there are _no_ >relevant common carrier obligations. Norbert, While there are certainly some obligations for email traffic that are *related* to common carriage, I'm not sure if the common carriage principle *itself* applies directly in this instance, mainly because there is *lots* more competition in the email hosting market compared to last-mile connectivity which is often far from competitive (as in the US broadband market in the absence of open access/interconnection rules for broadband service). In short, it is relatively easier to find alternative email hosting regardless of how one gets access to the network. So, if you don't like your email host (if you suspect they are filtering your email in a way you oppose and cannot control), you can more readily find another one that gives you more control. Common carriage is aimed chiefly at gatekeeper bottleneck points in essential routes of transport. Certainly if I am using an independent email host, I expect my (separate) ISP not to touch a single packet of email traveling through their last-mile network services that I have purchased to connect to the Internet, and I expect no deep-packet-inspection along the way at other points in the data transport network layer -- *that* is common carriage. This is why people like Prof. Tim Wu argue for regulating data transport markets for structural competition, i.e., to remove gatekeeper leverage by mandating open access for devices, applications, networks and services, so that in the resulting competitive market the incentives to discriminate data traffic are undermined (because in a *competitive* market, customers will tend to "route around" any undue filtering). In a genuinely competitive transport market, common carriage is, in principle, not an issue because nondiscrimination emerges naturally out of the market competition. Granted, the reality of the email situation is a little hazier than I've portrayed it, given that many customers simply use the native email services of whatever ISP they use, because it's easier. That said, if they were to discover that their email was getting filtered in a way they did not want and could not control, that might well push many of them over the edge to look for an alternative email host, and it wouldn't be all that difficult for them to find those alternatives in the US at least. In cases where some email host has significant market power over some customer base, then the monopoly dynamics start to kick in, and discrimination becomes an issue to the extent that the end user loses control over filtering policies applying to the end user's email service. The control issue is certainly there in such cases, and it is similar to the control issue in common carriage for data transport, but it may be only a metaphorical relationship rather than a direct identity of classification. As I noted previously, spam is a more complicated issue, and I would like to see that split off from the issue of data transport common carriage if the former threatens to prevent consensus from forming around the latter. Let not the "perfect" become the enemy of the "good" and let the "good" become a platform upon which to build out further to "better". Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Nov 13 15:51:07 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:51:07 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Samba Night at IGF with DiploFoundaiton, EPIC, EFF and Privacy International! References: <03E33116-9282-4043-A63B-137DC1A6BAC6@privaterra.info> <141564460568DFB907903A97@237.96.wireless.igfbrazil2007.br> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD0D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Take to the list wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] Gesendet: Di 13.11.2007 18:25 An: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Cc: Paul Rendek; Paul Wilson Betreff: Re: [governance] Samba Night at IGF with DiploFoundaiton, EPIC, EFF and Privacy International! Paul: The event is thursday night. The idea is to leave the conference venue around 6pm, to arrive in Rio to the location - on or before 8pm. A few of us @ Diplo are organizing the reservation, which is the reason we need to get an approx 48 hours before. I'll provide additional details later today on the venue. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 13-Nov-07, at 3:18 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Hi Robert > > sounds like great fun! > > very interested, but wondering - when? > > did i miss something? > > Paul. > > > --On 13 November 2007 3:13:03 PM -0200 Robert Guerra > wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues: >> >> FOR THOSE OF YOU that are going to be in RIO for the IGF 2007: >> >> This gathering will be a great opportunity to foster institutional >> and >> personal bonds, and to exchange experiences from all parts of the >> world - >> with no computer mediating them! >> >> EPIC-Privacy International, EFF and DiploFoundation invite you to >> gather >> with all of us to drink, chat and have fun!!! >> >> Rio is the city of samba, but not just during Carnival! As the >> birthplace >> of the Root Samba, the jazz influence of Rio's music scene can be >> felt >> year-round ...as the Brazilian lyrics go: "if you do not know >> samba, you >> cannot be a good friend." >> >> And so, friends, we think the perfect way to shake and stretch the >> body >> after sitting in the IGF and meetings all day is to dance the samba >> and >> have some Brazilian drinks in one of the most popular samba houses >> in old >> colonial Rio! >> >> >> If you are interested in joining us - please RSVP to me by end of day >> today, as we have to reserve the # of spots for the place 48 hours in >> advance. >> >> Regards >> >> Robert Guerra >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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, Director-General, APNIC > > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 > 3100/99 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 13 21:55:09 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:55:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> Message-ID: <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> That section of the US code is very complex and relies on some rather >> tight definitions that may or may not apply to any given specific >> situation. Moreover, section (d) does impose certain obligations of >> notification in the context of an agreement with a "customer". In >> other words, this is a part of the law that providers need to study > deeply. > > A lot of providers are familiar with it, and have certainly used it. For > example there was this case (district court only so no precedent) - Zango v > Kaspersky. Spyware / adware company blocked by AV vendor, sues, case You have to be *extremely* careful - the way that the law you cited is written makes the outcome very, very tightly tied to the way that the factual situation fits the tricky definitions in the code. In other words, the way that the law is written, what seem to be tiny differences - such as whether the provider has a website, could turn the entire outcome on its head. That's why I suggest that any provider that does even the tiniest bit of filtering do so only after deep consultation with some good lawyers who have spent some time wrangling with this stuff. (There's an interesting reverse twist to this - companies here in the US could be considered liable if they do not filter out bad stuff and it causes an employee to consider himself/herself to be thus subject to sexual harassment.) >> But most of us don't have relationships with core providers. Their >> link to us is indirect via our edge providers. So the permissions and > costs > > For email at least you don't have core and edge providers as such. You have > a relationship with your email provider. Not with whoever provides his > upstream, peering, transit etc. What we are talking about here is generalized filtering. So yes I agree with you that if we think in levels of abstraction, the routing of email does bring users closer to email forwarding providers. But the picture I have in my mind is packet-forwarding providers, whether near the edge or in the core, that decide to move up the stack and add spam filtering. >> I believe that those who want non-filtered will often end up paying >> more - if for no other reason then they are causing more bits to be > carried. > Not for the bits to be carried. For all its volume, spam / email etc is a > drop in the bucket compared to, say, p2p and traffic to sites like youtube. > Gmail's smtp traffic wont even be a blip in google's overall traffic > patterns, trust me. I agree. I suspect that off-color video makes up a lot of that traffic. A decade ago when I built IP/TV we typically an aggregate of several gigabits to the viewers of any single item [we were using IP multicast so our basic stream rate of 5 to 15 mbits/second was heavily multiplied]. I suspect that the cumulative bit rate for video on the net is rather larger these days, especially since IP multicast has kinda disappeared. But we're drifting a bit here - the point I started with we need to find a way so that users can know what filters are being applied, have some way of saying "no" (which perhaps might mean moving to another carrier), and so that the providers don't get into a squeeze in which they have provide services without the ability to recoup the costs from those who a) cause those costs or b) won't let the provider deal with the issue itself. --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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 22:07:10 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:37:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47324CCF.5050801@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E592E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <45ed74050711080831w33d26630xc1602529bfc22304@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F3E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200711091408.lA9E82V2024528@localhost.localdomain> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F4C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <001001c8266b$74958010$5dc08030$@net> Karl Auerbach wrote: > You have to be *extremely* careful - the way that the law you cited is > written makes the outcome very, very tightly tied to the way that the > factual situation fits the tricky definitions in the code. Oh, fully agree - but that is the closest you get to a code that provides for safe harbor, for good samaritan filtering efforts. And these are on a best effort basis. > (There's an interesting reverse twist to this - companies here in the > US could be considered liable if they do not filter out bad stuff and it > causes an employee to consider himself/herself to be thus subject to > sexual harassment.) Under other laws certainly - OSHA regulations on workplace health / safety, HIPAA / COPPA / Sarbanes Oxley etc .. for businesses. Haven't seen a lot of those get applied to customers of email services / ISPs providing email. > But the picture I have in my mind is packet-forwarding providers, > whether near the edge or in the core, that decide to move up the stack > and add spam filtering. Well, as I mentioned somewhere upthread, there is precious little or none of that that goes on. Unless that provider explicitly appears in an MX record, or is otherwise contracted to do so by the ISP that asks for such a service, that doesn't go on. > stream rate of 5 to 15 mbits/second was heavily multiplied]. I suspect > that the cumulative bit rate for video on the net is rather larger > these days, especially since IP multicast has kinda disappeared. Yup. See the mrtg graphs for video.google.com / limelight / youtube etc (at least some of this periodically turns up in nanog presentations) > But we're drifting a bit here - the point I started with we need to > find a way so that users can know what filters are being applied, have some > way of saying "no" (which perhaps might mean moving to another carrier), It just doesn't scale for ISPs to exempt specific users from a filter and provide a completely unfiltered feed. A good complaints / false positive handling process is of course needed, so that when there is a report of inappropriately blocked email, the filter or block that caused the email to be inappropriately blocked is addressed, or information given for why the block was appropriate (for example the blocked server was hacked into and used to relay spam). srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Nov 14 02:47:24 2007 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:47:24 +1000 Subject: [governance] Result of informal survey on Critical Internet Resources Message-ID: Dear all, Some of you will remember a question I posted to this list a while ago, asking for views on what are "Critical Internet Resources". I received nearly 100 responses, and have reported them here: http://www.apnic.net/news/docs/cir-pwilson-20071112.pdf I am well aware of the limitations of this type of approach, and of course the (intentional) vagueness of the question itself. However I hope some will find this interesting. I'm sure Google will like it. :-) Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 14 03:22:35 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:22:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] European Parliament meeting the Civil Society - 13 November, 13:00-15:00 In-Reply-To: <1194871590-e70fe62b775821a07cd8c6e055ec69b0@ngocongo.org> Message-ID: <00a101c82697$84666780$8b00a8c0@IAN> Brief notes from this meeting IN attendance EP delegation of about 7, including 4 parliamentarians ISOC delegation of about 4 Renate and Philippe from CONGO and myself No-one else I recognize as a regular participant on this list 3-4 others, no Latinos, no Africans, no Asians EP want to regularly consult with civil society Noted cs not represented sufficiently with opening ceremony Their main proposal is national and regional IGF structures ISOC and ISOC France explained their background and reiterated concept of forum that should discuss only and not make any recommendations Renate mentioned importance of multistakeholder approach Parliamentarian asked us all to explain what we were doing with governments in our own countries I spoke about the need for another dimension here of global work on issues citing examples such as cybercrime and googleisation. I said I thought it would be a great pity if we had 5 years of discussion and no outcomes and no action. I asked what we might actually achieve from IGF. Parliamentarian mentioned that he thought main value was hearing different points of view on issues. Some discussion on need to discuss further between meetings perhaps using working groups One gentleman spoke strongly about access needs. Overall a disappointing involvement of CS and I wonder why this is so. Is European parliament irrelevant or are we just disorganized? Ian Peter _____ From: CONGO - IS [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Sent: 12 November 2007 23:47 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Subject: [governance] European Parliament meeting the Civil Society - 13 November, 13:00-15:00 Dear all, We have been requested by the Office of Ms. Trautman to forward you this additional information on the civil society meeting with European Parliamentarians, scheduled to take place tomorrow Tuesday 13 November (13:00-15:00). Best, Ph “The European Parliament delegation, composed of Catherine Trautmann, Maria Badia, Malcolm Harbour and Gunnar Hökmark, invites you to meet and exchange views on Tuesday 13th, between 13.00 and 15.00, in the Queluz VII. There's no preselected topic on the table so if you wish to send position papers prior to the meeting please do so to HYPERLINK "mailto:catherine.trautmann at europarl.europa.eu" \ncatherine.trautmann at europarl.europa.eu. The MEPs look forward to hearing your hopes and concerns on Internet governance and the Information society, and having a direct and open discussion.” Philippe Dam 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org" \nwsis at ngocongo.org Website: HYPERLINK "blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org" \nwww.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 HYPERLINK "blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org/" \nwww.ngocongo.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.28/1123 - Release Date: 10/11/2007 15:47 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1126 - Release Date: 12/11/2007 12:56 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From pororoca at e-fem.net Wed Nov 14 06:48:42 2007 From: pororoca at e-fem.net (magaly) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:48:42 -0200 (BRST) Subject: [governance] dynamic caliion on gender and ig - meeting wed at 6pm Message-ID: <53240.189.76.103.158.1195040922.squirrel@webmail.e-fem.net> DYNAMIC COALITION ON GENDER AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE OPEN SESSION MEETING ON WEDNESDAY 14TH - 18:00- 19:00 VERSAILLES I The APC WNSP - Association for Progressive Communications Women's Networking Support Programme, EMERGE-Centro de Pesquisa e Produção em Comunicação e Emergência of Fluminense Federal University in Brazil, and IT for Change are convening the *Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance*. We invite women and men whose interest is to ensure that gender equality principles are not marginalised in internet governance processes to join this coalition. Both organisations and individuals may join the coalition. The *Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance* aims to ensure a gender perspective is included in the key debates around internet governance issues, such as content regulation, privacy, access, freedom of expression among others. It also intends to promote women's visibility at the IGF and related fora; to conduct research and provide input on the main topics of IGF debates; to support capacity building of gender advocates and to promote more effective linkages between local, regional and global initiatives relating to gender and the information society. The statement of objectives is a draft only and will be finalised during the meeting. The initial coalition partners include the following organisations: * WNSP-Women Network Support Programme of APC-Association for Progressive Communications, International * EMERGE-Centro de Pesquisa e Produção em Comunicação e Emergência of Fluminense Federal University, Brazil * G2G Gender and Technology, Brazil * Luleå University of Technology (or LTU) Division Gender, Technology and Organisation, Sweden * ITForChange, India Please write to info at e-fem.net if you are interested to join the coalition, or learn more about the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Nov 14 08:31:34 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:31:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] CS meeting on other post WSIS issues - Thursday 15 November, 13:00-14:00 Message-ID: <200711141331.lAEDVQdq014729@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, After discussing with a number among you, it appeared that there is an interest to discuss about other post WSIS issues and processes, beyond IGF. The IGF Secretariat kindly attributed us a room during lunchtime tomorrow. The meeting will basically take place between the sessions on Taking stock and the way forward and Emerging Issues. Date: Thursday 15 November Time: 13:00-14:00 Venue: Room Queluz VI (Queluz VI is on the lower level of the hotel, one floor down the IGF Internet Point and Village Square). Proposed agenda: a. CSTD (intersession Panel, 28-30 November / 11th session, May 2008) b. Multi-stakeholder implementation at the international level c. GAID d. GK-3 Conference e. Other business ..... Feel free to make additional proposals or suggestions through this list. All the best, Philippe 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 muguet at mdpi.net Wed Nov 14 09:57:44 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:57:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Message-ID: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> Congratulations to the Internet Governance Project (IGP), O Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil (CGI.br), and European Internet Services Providers Association (EuroISPA) organizers of this workshop that allowed the expression of a variety of concerns about the DNSsec. In complement to my short oral remark, there, I would like to underline the possibilities offered by the ( not often know ) fact that BIND ( the standard resolver software ) allows to carry different resolving system ( not to be confused with alternate root servers that are against RFCs ). This made the gist of my proposal that was presented in the workshop # Interoperable multilingual directories and solutions provided by the semantic web ( 12 November , 13H - 14H30, Alhambra II ) * Dr. Francis Muguet Net4D A new class of network to bind people and machines A new opportunity for scientific, cultural, linguistic and economic development In terms of governance, the consequences are quite important, since it allows to create another resolving system independent from ICANN, using the existing infrastructure (yet updated) of DNS servers. Best Francis -- ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Wed Nov 14 10:08:07 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:08:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] European Parliament meeting the Civil Society - 13 November, 13:00-15:00 In-Reply-To: <00a101c82697$84666780$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <00a101c82697$84666780$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <473B0F57.3020108@bertola.eu> Ian Peter ha scritto: > Overall a disappointing involvement of CS and I wonder why this is so. > Is European parliament irrelevant or are we just disorganized? I think we're just too busy, I strongly wanted to attend but I was caught in the aftermath of our workshop. In general, perhaps there are too many things going on at the same time? For example, the schedule does not take into account the fact that people have to meet before workshops to prepare them, prepare reports after them, etc... and then also move back and forth from hotels that are 30-45 mins away, which doesn't encourage to be here from 8:30 to 19:30. Since the IGF started, I barely managed to pop into a few workshops for 15 minutes each, nothing more. I'm possibly busier than usual and maybe there's nothing that can be done about this, but each of us should take note of possible suggestions for next year: I'm starting to note (or get reports of) several open slots and poorly organized / poorly attended workshops, and perhaps there could be less of them, but with a higher attendance and significance. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 10:14:50 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:14:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] CS meeting on other post WSIS issues - Thursday 15 November, 13:00-14:00 In-Reply-To: <200711141331.lAEDVQdq014729@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <000001c826d1$19e35b90$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Hi Philippe, Any chance of an external feed (to and fro) from this meeting... MG Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St. Vancouver BC CANADA v6z 2s1 http://www.communityinformatics.net tel./fax +1-604-602-0624 -----Original Message----- From: CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Sent: November 14, 2007 5:32 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: 'Philippe Dam' Subject: [governance] CS meeting on other post WSIS issues - Thursday 15 November, 13:00-14:00 Dear all, After discussing with a number among you, it appeared that there is an interest to discuss about other post WSIS issues and processes, beyond IGF. The IGF Secretariat kindly attributed us a room during lunchtime tomorrow. The meeting will basically take place between the sessions on Taking stock and the way forward and Emerging Issues. Date: Thursday 15 November Time: 13:00-14:00 Venue: Room Queluz VI (Queluz VI is on the lower level of the hotel, one floor down the IGF Internet Point and Village Square). Proposed agenda: a. CSTD (intersession Panel, 28-30 November / 11th session, May 2008) b. Multi-stakeholder implementation at the international level c. GAID d. GK-3 Conference e. Other business ... Feel free to make additional proposals or suggestions through this list. All the best, Philippe 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 !DSPAM:2676,473af8e586774606287889! -------------- 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 Nov 14 10:55:41 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:55:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] number of workshops and forums In-Reply-To: <473B0F57.3020108@bertola.eu> References: <00a101c82697$84666780$8b00a8c0@IAN> <473B0F57.3020108@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <473B1A7D.2040304@wzb.eu> Hi, open slots are a feature. They meant for people to organize meetings spontaneously. Regarding poorly organized or attended workshops, I would be interested to hear how we could prevent that. My impression is that most people would in the meantime welcome a lower number of workshops. Assuming that the number of applications for workshops won't go down, this would mean that the selection criteria would have to be tightened. Fewer workshops could also conflict with the principle guiding the preparation of Athens and Rio, namely that if we have the space, we should not deny any workshop proposals. I would be interested in getting some feedback from attendees on how they see this issue. Tomorrow morning there will be a taking stock session. This could be one of the issues to be discussed there. jeanette Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Ian Peter ha scritto: >> Overall a disappointing involvement of CS and I wonder why this is so. >> Is European parliament irrelevant or are we just disorganized? > > I think we're just too busy, I strongly wanted to attend but I was > caught in the aftermath of our workshop. > In general, perhaps there are too many things going on at the same time? > For example, the schedule does not take into account the fact that > people have to meet before workshops to prepare them, prepare reports > after them, etc... and then also move back and forth from hotels that > are 30-45 mins away, which doesn't encourage to be here from 8:30 to > 19:30. Since the IGF started, I barely managed to pop into a few > workshops for 15 minutes each, nothing more. > I'm possibly busier than usual and maybe there's nothing that can be > done about this, but each of us should take note of possible suggestions > for next year: I'm starting to note (or get reports of) several open > slots and poorly organized / poorly attended workshops, and perhaps > there could be less of them, but with a higher attendance and significance. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Nov 14 11:09:40 2007 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:09:40 +1000 Subject: [governance] NRO report on Continuing Cooperation Message-ID: <555CC5B943F29369E2C22C28@239.110.wired.igfbrazil2007.br> For the interest of those in this list, the NRO, the Number Resource Organisation, has produced a report entitled "Continuing Cooperation - the NRO's role in Internet Governance". We did this in time for the IGF, but unfortunately the 2,000 copies which were printed and sent across the Pacific Ocean were sent back again at the beginning of this week, due to an administrative error. Fortunately, the report is available for download from the NRO website at this address: http://www.nro.net/archive/news/continuing-cooperation.html If anyone would like to have printed copies posted to them, please let me know the full address details and the number of copies required. All the best Paul ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 11:43:42 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:43:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Result of informal survey on Critical Internet Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Paul I opened the link which is but producing HTML, meaning that my machine cannot open it. For expediency, why not copy the text and paste on the message space. You will be saving time for down loading in this activity packed period. That is workable, isn't it? I hope others in my situation can soon have solace through your generosity Warmly Aaron On 11/14/07, Paul Wilson wrote: > Dear all, > > Some of you will remember a question I posted to this list a while ago, > asking for views on what are "Critical Internet Resources". I received > nearly 100 responses, and have reported them here: > > http://www.apnic.net/news/docs/cir-pwilson-20071112.pdf > > I am well aware of the limitations of this type of approach, and of course > the (intentional) vagueness of the question itself. However I hope some > will find this interesting. I'm sure Google will like it. :-) > > Paul. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 11:39:28 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Real-time kudos - Yes! Loud and clear! Very good audio from Imperial.. Message-ID: <45ed74050711140839g39f4aed6pbbb8cd7504a50e91@mail.gmail.com> Re. Online Dynamic Coalition Meeting, IGGF-II Rio Now... (I was there too early before, better early than not at all!.) Connection excellent Jeremy and All. Collaboration indeed. Hope this excellent quality sustains itself ... thank you for including us remotely participating. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff New York *Respectful Interfaces* -------------- 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 Nov 14 11:45:57 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:45:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <001001c8266b$74958010$5dc08030$@net> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> <001001c8266b$74958010$5dc08030$@net> Message-ID: Norbert bollow wrote "Economically, it's the exact same kind of issue as with phone calls and phone companies. As an end user of the telephony system, I have every right to decide that I don't want to talk with party X, and if party X calls me anyway, I have every right to refuse to talk with them. However, the phone company does not have the right to make that decision for their customers. I don't object to email filtering in ways which are guaranteed to only affect forged email (as determined e.g. by the DomainKeys system) and unsolicited bulk email, but as soon as there is a risk of the filters affecting human-to-human correspondece or solicited bulk email, things are getting problematic, and even a low overall false positives rate is IMO unacceptable if there is a pattern in how the false positives are distributed and the pattern violates "net neutrality" principles." I agree in toto. This is within the context that "net neutrality" bothers on freedom to communicate on the net and have such communication circulate freely without interception and also the liberty for each and every one to receive or reject such writings. Advocating for "filtering devices" is tantamount to invoking spying on the web. That is unsollicited services for the CIA and the KGB and I do not think that they need it I am for a solution to web blocking by autocratic regimes like that of Burma/Myrama clamping on Internet access for weeks How can people cotail this so that the international community can enforce checks and balances on some autocratic and kleptocratic regimes around the world through the powerful tool that is the Internet? Citizens of many countries have been empovrished by most of these autocratic and kleptocratic regime and have caught hypochondria. For them, the net remains that only missile that can wipe out these devils out of their ways to glory. Ask the junta in Burma and they will tell you that the internet is their nightmare Aaron On 11/14/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > You have to be *extremely* careful - the way that the law you cited is > > written makes the outcome very, very tightly tied to the way that the > > factual situation fits the tricky definitions in the code. > > Oh, fully agree - but that is the closest you get to a code that provides > for safe harbor, for good samaritan filtering efforts. And these are on a > best effort basis. > > > (There's an interesting reverse twist to this - companies here in the > > US could be considered liable if they do not filter out bad stuff and it > > causes an employee to consider himself/herself to be thus subject to > > sexual harassment.) > > Under other laws certainly - OSHA regulations on workplace health / safety, > HIPAA / COPPA / Sarbanes Oxley etc .. for businesses. Haven't seen a lot of > those get applied to customers of email services / ISPs providing email. > > > But the picture I have in my mind is packet-forwarding providers, > > whether near the edge or in the core, that decide to move up the stack > > and add spam filtering. > > Well, as I mentioned somewhere upthread, there is precious little or none of > that that goes on. Unless that provider explicitly appears in an MX record, > or is otherwise contracted to do so by the ISP that asks for such a service, > that doesn't go on. > > > stream rate of 5 to 15 mbits/second was heavily multiplied]. I suspect > > that the cumulative bit rate for video on the net is rather larger > > these days, especially since IP multicast has kinda disappeared. > > Yup. See the mrtg graphs for video.google.com / limelight / youtube etc (at > least some of this periodically turns up in nanog presentations) > > > But we're drifting a bit here - the point I started with we need to > > find a way so that users can know what filters are being applied, have > some > > way of saying "no" (which perhaps might mean moving to another carrier), > > It just doesn't scale for ISPs to exempt specific users from a filter and > provide a completely unfiltered feed. A good complaints / false positive > handling process is of course needed, so that when there is a report of > inappropriately blocked email, the filter or block that caused the email to > be inappropriately blocked is addressed, or information given for why the > block was appropriate (for example the blocked server was hacked into and > used to relay spam). > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 14 11:58:20 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:28:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <20071110131557.DBC1822024E@quill.bollow.ch> <20071110133945.GA26595@hserus.net> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> <001001c8266b$74958010$5dc08030$@net> Message-ID: <002d01c826df$9185d9d0$b4918d70$@net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > This is within the context that "net neutrality" bothers on freedom > to communicate on the net and have such communication circulate freely You forget that there is one undeniable limit to freedom of speech and communication - the inalienable right to privacy. Stopping spammers from violating our users privacy is what we do. And what our users generally demand that we do, and complain - loudly - when we slip up on our job. They equally complain just as loudly if they miss even one legitimate email so the job of a responsible spam filtering provider is a tightrope between these two .. with an eye on the ultimate objective of actually getting our users the email they want, have asked for, and would be annoyed and disappointed not to get - while at the same time keeping what they COLLECTIVELY don't want out of their inboxes. note: There's always some fine soul who believes he can attract women if he buys the sex aids being advertised in spam, but when you balance him against the majority of other users who would rather not receive such spam, well, he is outvoted. Spam filtering is not just stopping our users from being pestered by unsolicited marketing of legitimate (or borderline fraudulent / shady) products. Stopping phishers, 419 scam artists etc from defrauding our customers. There's also - Conserving their bandwidth and connectivity costs (earlier it used to be "metered dialup", these days, gprs / 3g on roaming) etc etc. > Advocating for "filtering devices" is tantamount to invoking spying on > the web. That is unsollicited services for the CIA and the KGB and I > do not think that they need it Please don't insult people who actually do this, and work to protect their users privacy when doing so, by comparing them to autocratic regimes trying to censor and restrict their users. And, as a corollary, please don't insult the intelligence of this list by making such a patently wrong comparison. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 14 12:00:20 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:30:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Result of informal survey on Critical Internet Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003101c826df$d8fbc400$8af34c00$@net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > I opened the link which is but producing HTML, meaning that my machine > cannot open it. ?!? If you are using gmail webmail, which produces html, and are able to read / send email, what issues do you have with that pdf? You might want to right click the link below and select "save as" if the pdf is getting displayed as gibberish text with markups in your browser. > > http://www.apnic.net/news/docs/cir-pwilson-20071112.pdf srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Nov 14 12:14:21 2007 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:14:21 +1000 Subject: [governance] Result of informal survey on Critical Internet Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6ED93F98DC728D1B4DFAC288@237.96.wireless.igfbrazil2007.br> Dear Aaron I am sorry that you are having trouble with the file. The link works for me; but it is a PDF file so if you can save it in that format you may have some success. The file contains some explanation and pie charts, as well as the original data for anyone who wants to dig deeper. The summary according to my own categories is as follows. I hope this helps. Paul === Category1 Category2 Total Administration DNS 30 ICANN/IANA 3 Standards 5 Names/Numbers/ASNs 6 IP addresses/RIRs 10 Administration Total 54 Applications Email 25 other 10 Search 22 Communications 11 Information 7 WWW 9 Commerce 12 Applications Total 96 Environment Electricity 2 funding 2 Openness 8 Human Resources 3 Environment Total 15 Infrastructure Connectivity 10 Core 13 Devices 3 International 5 IXP 3 Lastmile 9 Peering 4 QoS 3 Security 9 Ubiquity 3 Routing 16 Infrastructure Total 78 Grand Total 243 --On 14 November 2007 5:43:42 PM +0100 Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Dear Paul > > I opened the link which is but producing HTML, meaning that my machine > cannot open it. > For expediency, why not copy the text and paste on the message space. > You will be saving time for down loading in this activity packed > period. That is workable, isn't it? I hope others in my situation can > soon have solace through your generosity > > Warmly > Aaron > > On 11/14/07, Paul Wilson wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Some of you will remember a question I posted to this list a while ago, >> asking for views on what are "Critical Internet Resources". I received >> nearly 100 responses, and have reported them here: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/news/docs/cir-pwilson-20071112.pdf >> >> I am well aware of the limitations of this type of approach, and of >> course the (intentional) vagueness of the question itself. However I >> hope some will find this interesting. I'm sure Google will like it. :-) >> >> Paul. >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >> http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > ASAFE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 12:14:42 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:14:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> Message-ID: Dear Francis Thanks for the endeavour but I have to point one thing, there is a mangld translation into French of an English text as could be seen from this text from your document. "Il est trais regrettable que ce systaime n'accepte que l'alphabet anglais. Les caractaires franssais sont massacrets. C'est vraiment une parfaite applicassion des principes de diversitet culturelle du SMSI et de l'UNESCO." Vous remarquerez que"systaime, franssais, massacrets, applicassion et diversitet" ne sont pas des mots en français. A moins que vous les utilisiez à titre illustratif. Aaron On 11/14/07, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > Congratulations to the Internet Governance Project (IGP), > O Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil (CGI.br), > and European Internet Services Providers Association (EuroISPA) > organizers of this workshop that allowed > the expression of a variety of concerns about > the DNSsec. > > In complement to my short oral remark, there, > I would like to underline the possibilities offered by the > ( not often know ) fact that BIND ( the standard resolver software ) > allows to carry different resolving system > ( not to be confused with alternate root servers that are against RFCs ). > > This made the gist of my proposal that was presented in the workshop > Interoperable multilingual directories and solutions provided by the > semantic web ( 12 November , 13H - 14H30, Alhambra II ) > Dr. Francis Muguet Net4D > A new class of network to bind people and machines > A new opportunity for scientific, cultural, linguistic and economic > development In terms of governance, the consequences are quite important, > since it allows to create another resolving system independent from ICANN, > using > the existing infrastructure (yet updated) of DNS servers. > > Best > > Francis > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- > create another resolving system independent from ICANN, using > the existing infrastructure (yet updated) of DNS servers. > > Best > > Francis > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Nov 14 12:27:02 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:27:02 -0200 Subject: [governance] CS meeting on other post WSIS issues - Thursday 15 November, 13:00-14:00 In-Reply-To: <000001c826d1$19e35b90$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <200711141726.lAEHQswD003489@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Hi Micheal, I regret that this meeting room is not equipped with audio feed. Ph _____ De : michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 14 novembre 2007 13:15 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : RE: [governance] CS meeting on other post WSIS issues - Thursday 15 November, 13:00-14:00 Hi Philippe, Any chance of an external feed (to and fro) from this meeting... MG Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St. Vancouver BC CANADA v6z 2s1 http://www.communityinformatics.net tel./fax +1-604-602-0624 -----Original Message----- From: CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Sent: November 14, 2007 5:32 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: 'Philippe Dam' Subject: [governance] CS meeting on other post WSIS issues - Thursday 15 November, 13:00-14:00 Dear all, After discussing with a number among you, it appeared that there is an interest to discuss about other post WSIS issues and processes, beyond IGF. The IGF Secretariat kindly attributed us a room during lunchtime tomorrow. The meeting will basically take place between the sessions on Taking stock and the way forward and Emerging Issues. Date: Thursday 15 November Time: 13:00-14:00 Venue: Room Queluz VI (Queluz VI is on the lower level of the hotel, one floor down the IGF Internet Point and Village Square). Proposed agenda: a. CSTD (intersession Panel, 28-30 November / 11th session, May 2008) b. Multi-stakeholder implementation at the international level c. GAID d. GK-3 Conference e. Other business .. Feel free to make additional proposals or suggestions through this list. All the best, Philippe 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 !DSPAM:2676,473af8e586774606287889! -------------- 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 Nov 14 12:43:40 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:43:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: <002d01c826df$9185d9d0$b4918d70$@net> References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> <001001c8266b$74958010$5dc08030$@net> <002d01c826df$9185d9d0$b4918d70$@net> Message-ID: Dear Suresh Apart from the economic aspect of "Stopping phishers, 419 scam artists etc from defrauding our customers. There's also - Conserving their bandwidth and connectivity costs (earlier it used to be "metered dialup", these days, gprs / 3g on roaming)" My argument falls in line with Robert"s assertion and you will agree with me that filtering of spams is infringing on one's right to freedom of choice. Let all the spams flow and the undeserved ones will be discarded. The net will be neutral. I am not advocating that those involved in creating spam blocking wares should be thrown out of job as Suresh's ire at my remark portends. Other arenas like checking internet clamping can be a more income generating sector. BTW, the constant reference to "don't, don't" is hawkish. Does one ned to shout in putting accross a counterpoint on a forum like this one? Aaron On 11/14/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > > > This is within the context that "net neutrality" bothers on freedom > > to communicate on the net and have such communication circulate freely > > You forget that there is one undeniable limit to freedom of speech and > communication - the inalienable right to privacy. > > Stopping spammers from violating our users privacy is what we do. And what > our users generally demand that we do, and complain - loudly - when we slip > up on our job. They equally complain just as loudly if they miss even one > legitimate email so the job of a responsible spam filtering provider is a > tightrope between these two .. with an eye on the ultimate objective of > actually getting our users the email they want, have asked for, and would be > annoyed and disappointed not to get - while at the same time keeping what > they COLLECTIVELY don't want out of their inboxes. > > note: There's always some fine soul who believes he can attract women if he > buys the sex aids being advertised in spam, but when you balance him against > the majority of other users who would rather not receive such spam, well, he > is outvoted. > > Spam filtering is not just stopping our users from being pestered by > unsolicited marketing of legitimate (or borderline fraudulent / shady) > products. > > Stopping phishers, 419 scam artists etc from defrauding our customers. > There's also - > > Conserving their bandwidth and connectivity costs > (earlier it used to be "metered dialup", these days, gprs / 3g on > roaming) > > etc etc. > > > Advocating for "filtering devices" is tantamount to invoking spying on > > the web. That is unsollicited services for the CIA and the KGB and I > > do not think that they need it > > Please don't insult people who actually do this, and work to protect their > users privacy when doing so, by comparing them to autocratic regimes trying > to censor and restrict their users. And, as a corollary, please don't > insult the intelligence of this list by making such a patently wrong > comparison. > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 12:45:03 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:45:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Toward a Future IGF with less CONNECTIVITY fatigue and more fulfillment. Message-ID: <45ed74050711140945l23869242x3c85b5483319d216@mail.gmail.com> Comment from New York: With the difficulties of inclusion presently and the valiant efforts of you there are human beings patching us in when you can via email and chat in spite of your many present pressing duties ... We must and can work toward the Secretariat and U.N. in broad being more involved in remote participation. The IGF can be a "showcase" (forgive word) for the whole world we want to include. Multi-actuality. Perhaps we need to move from "can" to "should" or "must." Linda M F. *Respectful Interfaces*. CCC/UN -------------- 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 Nov 14 14:21:04 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:21:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] NRO report on Continuing Cooperation In-Reply-To: <555CC5B943F29369E2C22C28@239.110.wired.igfbrazil2007.br> References: <555CC5B943F29369E2C22C28@239.110.wired.igfbrazil2007.br> Message-ID: <473B4AA0.7060908@rits.org.br> Thanks, Paul. --c.a. Paul Wilson wrote: > For the interest of those in this list, the NRO, the Number Resource > Organisation, has produced a report entitled "Continuing Cooperation - > the NRO's role in Internet Governance". > > We did this in time for the IGF, but unfortunately the 2,000 copies > which were printed and sent across the Pacific Ocean were sent back > again at the beginning of this week, due to an administrative error. > > Fortunately, the report is available for download from the NRO website > at this address: > > http://www.nro.net/archive/news/continuing-cooperation.html > > If anyone would like to have printed copies posted to them, please let > me know the full address details and the number of copies required. > > All the best > > Paul > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 14:23:09 2007 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:23:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] number of workshops and forums In-Reply-To: <473B1A7D.2040304@wzb.eu> References: <00a101c82697$84666780$8b00a8c0@IAN> <473B0F57.3020108@bertola.eu> <473B1A7D.2040304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0711141123k43f51298rc9d36deec496ea7c@mail.gmail.com> hi jeanette and all My 2 cents on workshop quality and quantity: i think the key criteria for admittance should be the connection to INTERNET GOVERNANCE. I myself have a broad definition and i think selection should be broad but here in Rio are workshops about e.g. education, or e.g. intellectual property law , where not even the attempt is made to connect it to internet governance. If we do not want this innovative political body to become just another conference we do need to be more focused and hence selective. best max On Nov 14, 2007 1:55 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, open slots are a feature. They meant for people to organize meetings > spontaneously. > Regarding poorly organized or attended workshops, I would be interested > to hear how we could prevent that. My impression is that most people > would in the meantime welcome a lower number of workshops. Assuming that > the number of applications for workshops won't go down, this would mean > that the selection criteria would have to be tightened. Fewer workshops > could also conflict with the principle guiding the preparation of Athens > and Rio, namely that if we have the space, we should not deny any > workshop proposals. I would be interested in getting some feedback from > attendees on how they see this issue. > Tomorrow morning there will be a taking stock session. This could be one > of the issues to be discussed there. > jeanette > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Ian Peter ha scritto: > >> Overall a disappointing involvement of CS and I wonder why this is so. > >> Is European parliament irrelevant or are we just disorganized? > > > > I think we're just too busy, I strongly wanted to attend but I was > > caught in the aftermath of our workshop. > > In general, perhaps there are too many things going on at the same time? > > For example, the schedule does not take into account the fact that > > people have to meet before workshops to prepare them, prepare reports > > after them, etc... and then also move back and forth from hotels that > > are 30-45 mins away, which doesn't encourage to be here from 8:30 to > > 19:30. Since the IGF started, I barely managed to pop into a few > > workshops for 15 minutes each, nothing more. > > I'm possibly busier than usual and maybe there's nothing that can be > > done about this, but each of us should take note of possible suggestions > > for next year: I'm starting to note (or get reports of) several open > > slots and poorly organized / poorly attended workshops, and perhaps > > there could be less of them, but with a higher attendance and > significance. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 lists at privaterra.info Wed Nov 14 14:48:53 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:48:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: when, where, how much? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <680974FD-4C1F-4D01-BB16-A6EA667D3A94@privaterra.info> Izumi: if people share taxi's the approx cost (including meal) will be 30-40 USD. Please note that we are expecting people either to leave the conference hotel by 6pm or arrive at the venue on or by 8pm SHARP regards Robert > Rio Scenarium, on Thursday, from 8pm. (http://www.rioscenarium.com.br/ > ). > Rua do Lavradio, 20- Centro Antigo – Rio de Janeiro – RJ (próximo à Praça Tiradentes) Tel:(21)3147-9005 Rio Scenarium - Pavilion of the Culture is a private space, dedicated to the Brazilian culture and entirely financed by the three antiquarians of the group, located in the first block of the street of Lavradio (Lapa). Rio Scenarium occupies two eclectic big houses of Séc XIX, both of 3 (three) walks, interlinked for a metallic catwalk, totaling an useful area of 2.500 m2. On 14-Nov-07, at 5:19 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I have not seen the information on tomorrow's event, could you > please send them in today? Since I am staying at the different, > bit far hotel, I need to know in advance so that I can prepare > the stuff when I leave the hotel in the morning. > > thanks, > > izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 15:20:36 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:20:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Real-Time Bench Mark, happy for 'interfaces' provided which herald more. Message-ID: <45ed74050711141220t1faaf720y632848f88946666f@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, thank you Avri for chat room exchanges, and thank you too Jeremy and Adam et al. Avri was in chat rooms a bit before; interesting what we mean by "in" rooms, the spatial metaphor has worked! And not just among us. I am glad I chose interfaces as point of concentration, not unhappy at all to be here; it's a good start. Hope there are archives aplenty of the main and side events. In various venues there were a lot of very interesting *urls* mentioned fleetingly, and interventions where we were not sure who was presenting. Here's to the whole. Best, L. -- chat posts - *process note*. Avri, clearly you are acting as a good agent and advocate for those online as participants. This is arduous, but enjoyable, and much to be pursued. The chair acknowledges, what, 10 online submitted questions? So thank you once again for piping this forward. Perhaps next year (I do not refer to my own questions in queue, but for all of us) some prioritizing could take place. After all,lacking interactivity, expanding on question (dialogue mode as excellently taking place in Rio on the floor) online participants are already quite hampered, as well as the physical restrictions of extended computer keyboarding. Stay in there for us! We are appreciative. L. *You* talk with *Everybody*: Age 70, > 50 year on Internet and prior nets. So especially privileged in navigating here, but what about novices? We can set up educational resources. :) *You* talk with *Everybody*: *clarification* online submitted questions acknowledged, so thank you much for the delivery. But then they skipped them. Ran out of time. L. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* CCC/UN. International Disability Caucus ITC Task-Force. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From karl at cavebear.com Wed Nov 14 19:24:43 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:24:43 -0800 Subject: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> Since you mentioned DNSSEC: I have a question that has not been clearly answered. Suppose we have an internet with some very large DNSSEC signed zone files - let's use .com as a hypothetical model with roughly 70,000,000 items today. Suppose that due to some systemic failure - for instance a software upgrade gone bad - that all or most of the servers for that zone go down (or worse, crash). How long will it take for those servers to come up again and provide name resolution services? In other words how long for the systems to do the necessary file system checks (fsck) and checking of the zone file signatures? Will it take only a few seconds? Will it take hours? Will it take longer? > In complement to my short oral remark, there, > I would like to underline the possibilities offered by the > ( not often know ) fact that BIND ( the standard resolver software ) > allows to carry different resolving system > ( not to be confused with alternate root servers that are against RFCs ). I tend to use the phrase "competing root systems" rather than "alternate" to indicate that except in the minds of users there is architecturally no primary and no subordinate roots. And we must recognize that many of the non NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zones have been served up by operations for which the word "shoddy" would be an excessively positive assessment. Rather than focusing on whether there is a single root or many roots, the question should be whether they are consistent with one another. There are two broad definitions of consistency. (We all know that DNS even if singular does have short term inconsistencies as various peer servers independently update their contents and as caches expire in separate machines. But what I'm about to write about isn't about this kind of short term inconsistency.) Some hold that "consistency" between root server systems requires that they offer precisely the same set of TLDs and that for each such TLD its contents are precisely the same (i.e. that the TLD delegations are the same, no matter which root system is used.) This is the ORSN model. Very conservative and so far I have not heard of any problems. Then there is the broader view of consistency, a view that I hold: That different root systems may offer different TLDs, but that where a TLD name is in common (e.g. .net or .org or .com, etc) that it has precisely the same contents, i.e. the delegation is the same. Why do I adopt this latter view? Because I believe that self interest will drive root server operators to include in their inventory of TLDs those TLDs that users want - and that means all of the core, legacy TLDs found in the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone. A root server operator would be stupid, and would probably soon go out of business if it failed to include these in the set of TLDs it supported. And here, trademark law is our friend - anybody who tried to create a deviant version of .com or .org or .net, etc would soon find himself/herself at the receiving end of legal actions based on existing laws that prevent the misidentification of goods and services, mainly trademark law. But the looser definition of "consistency" that I advocate, new TLDs could arise - I call them "boutique" TLDs - that strive for sunlight and growth. They would, at first be found only in a few root systems - perhaps because they offer something interesting, perhaps they paid their way in, whatever - that's the normal task of "building a brand" that goes with any new product that seeks space on store shelves. Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain tiny boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root system that offers them, and some will grow to become new members of the "every root must have" club. This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any central ICANN-like authority. This looser definition of consistency allows a system that depends on the efforts of the proponents to make their new TLD a common name rather than on back-room politics. And the ultimate choice comes from users - whether they chose to accept and use the new name or chose to ignore it. Now some will say that "what if I get email from somebody at someplace.boutique-tld, how am I to answer it?" The answer is that "you don't". If someone choses a boutique TLD they must recognize (or be given enough information to recognize) that they are sailing out onto new seas and that not everybody will be able to resolve their name. That's life - And it is part of everyday internet life. For example, am I to be denied my SIP VoIP phone number because most of the existing telephones of the world can not dial my SIP phone "number" (which does not contain a single numeric digit)? Technology grows in part by creating new areas that can't be used by legacy users - rotary dial telephones could not readily use touch-tone keypad services, particularly ones that required "#" or "*". --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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 14 19:40:21 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:40:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <20071113083344.2692722021B@quill.bollow.ch> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> <001001c8266b$74958010$5dc08030$@net> <002d01c826df$9185d9d0$b4918d70$@net> Message-ID: <20071115004021.GD29922@hserus.net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [14/11/07 18:43 +0100]: >My argument falls in line with Robert"s assertion and you will agree >with me that filtering of spams is infringing on one's right to >freedom of choice. Let all the spams flow and the undeserved ones will Yes, and if you vote for candidate 1 in an election and get candidate 2 selected instead, possibly a man that you detest, that is an infringement of your freedom of choice too? I know for a fact that some people buy sex enhancement pills and painkillers online, after seeing them advertised in spam. Or genuinely believe that Prof Charles Soludo of the Nigerian Central Bank is going to give them a multi million dollar contract. And they get very annoyed indeed when they don't get such email. Call it part of a voting system - when I have a large number of people classifying email from a particular source, my filters typically block it (note, I do NOT say "content filtering", of the sort that everybody has been indicating - such as classifying all christian religious content as spam .. that's not filtering, that's stupidity). Every single major ISP does it. And their users, as I said, require them to do it. If you want to do that yourself, why then, any old PC (even a 486), a linux CD, and an internet connection should do (even a dialup - dynamic dns will ensure that you can run your own domain). In essence, your server, your rules, and you can filter or not filter to your heart's content. >I am not advocating that those involved in creating spam blocking >wares should be thrown out of job as Suresh's ire at my remark My dear chap, if spam stops, and I get thrown out of a "job" I would be more than happy. You think I enjoy looking at spam samples day in and day out? My job can go to hell with my blessings, the day spam stops. Checking "internet clamping" - most people that I am aware of using Tor tend not to use it simply to get around an autocratic regime's firewalls and post politically sensitive material .. they download it and use it to get around their office firewall and surf porn. That CAN have its risks - i need hardly remind you of that recent case where someone went out with a sniffer on a tor exit node, managed to get the usernames and passwords of several hundred email addresses at various embassies and government departments. If you aren't being insulting by implying that I was criticizing you simply because of my "fears" of being out of a job, you are simply being silly here. I have been doing this for over a decade, a substantial part of it unpaid and on my own time. Just so you know. >BTW, the constant reference to "don't, don't" is hawkish. Does one ned >to shout in putting accross a counterpoint on a forum like this one? When trying to get a point across to someone whose emails so far have been loaded with bombast, malapropmisms and misplaced ICT buzzwords, but otherwise content free, yes, definitely. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Nov 14 20:38:29 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:38:29 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD18@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Karl very helpful wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Gesendet: Do 15.11.2007 01:24 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dr. Francis MUGUET Cc: WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Since you mentioned DNSSEC: I have a question that has not been clearly answered. Suppose we have an internet with some very large DNSSEC signed zone files - let's use .com as a hypothetical model with roughly 70,000,000 items today. Suppose that due to some systemic failure - for instance a software upgrade gone bad - that all or most of the servers for that zone go down (or worse, crash). How long will it take for those servers to come up again and provide name resolution services? In other words how long for the systems to do the necessary file system checks (fsck) and checking of the zone file signatures? Will it take only a few seconds? Will it take hours? Will it take longer? > In complement to my short oral remark, there, > I would like to underline the possibilities offered by the > ( not often know ) fact that BIND ( the standard resolver software ) > allows to carry different resolving system > ( not to be confused with alternate root servers that are against RFCs ). I tend to use the phrase "competing root systems" rather than "alternate" to indicate that except in the minds of users there is architecturally no primary and no subordinate roots. And we must recognize that many of the non NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zones have been served up by operations for which the word "shoddy" would be an excessively positive assessment. Rather than focusing on whether there is a single root or many roots, the question should be whether they are consistent with one another. There are two broad definitions of consistency. (We all know that DNS even if singular does have short term inconsistencies as various peer servers independently update their contents and as caches expire in separate machines. But what I'm about to write about isn't about this kind of short term inconsistency.) Some hold that "consistency" between root server systems requires that they offer precisely the same set of TLDs and that for each such TLD its contents are precisely the same (i.e. that the TLD delegations are the same, no matter which root system is used.) This is the ORSN model. Very conservative and so far I have not heard of any problems. Then there is the broader view of consistency, a view that I hold: That different root systems may offer different TLDs, but that where a TLD name is in common (e.g. .net or .org or .com, etc) that it has precisely the same contents, i.e. the delegation is the same. Why do I adopt this latter view? Because I believe that self interest will drive root server operators to include in their inventory of TLDs those TLDs that users want - and that means all of the core, legacy TLDs found in the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone. A root server operator would be stupid, and would probably soon go out of business if it failed to include these in the set of TLDs it supported. And here, trademark law is our friend - anybody who tried to create a deviant version of .com or .org or .net, etc would soon find himself/herself at the receiving end of legal actions based on existing laws that prevent the misidentification of goods and services, mainly trademark law. But the looser definition of "consistency" that I advocate, new TLDs could arise - I call them "boutique" TLDs - that strive for sunlight and growth. They would, at first be found only in a few root systems - perhaps because they offer something interesting, perhaps they paid their way in, whatever - that's the normal task of "building a brand" that goes with any new product that seeks space on store shelves. Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain tiny boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root system that offers them, and some will grow to become new members of the "every root must have" club. This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any central ICANN-like authority. This looser definition of consistency allows a system that depends on the efforts of the proponents to make their new TLD a common name rather than on back-room politics. And the ultimate choice comes from users - whether they chose to accept and use the new name or chose to ignore it. Now some will say that "what if I get email from somebody at someplace.boutique-tld, how am I to answer it?" The answer is that "you don't". If someone choses a boutique TLD they must recognize (or be given enough information to recognize) that they are sailing out onto new seas and that not everybody will be able to resolve their name. That's life - And it is part of everyday internet life. For example, am I to be denied my SIP VoIP phone number because most of the existing telephones of the world can not dial my SIP phone "number" (which does not contain a single numeric digit)? Technology grows in part by creating new areas that can't be used by legacy users - rotary dial telephones could not readily use touch-tone keypad services, particularly ones that required "#" or "*". --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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 23:30:49 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:30:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> <001001c8266b$74958010$5dc08030$@net> <002d01c826df$9185d9d0$b4918d70$@net> Message-ID: Dewd, On Nov 14, 2007 8:43 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Dear Suresh > > > Apart from the economic aspect of "Stopping phishers, 419 scam artists > etc from defrauding our customers. > There's also - > > Conserving their bandwidth and connectivity costs > (earlier it used to be "metered dialup", these days, gprs / 3g on > roaming)" > My argument falls in line with Robert"s assertion and you will agree > with me that filtering of spams is infringing on one's right to > freedom of choice. Let all the spams flow and the undeserved ones will > be discarded. The net will be neutral. Look at the mail headers of this mail. The list software seems to use Mailscanner/SpamAssassin, do you want the list to lift those "filters"? Also Gmail uses SPF, how many Spam would you get in a day if they didn't? My guess is 2 orders of magnitude more than you get now. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 14 23:59:23 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:29:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance" In-Reply-To: References: <47319049.2060809@bertola.eu> <47397C60.3040004@cavebear.com> <010201c825e2$010f36b0$032da410$@net> <47398F3B.9090103@cavebear.com> <012901c825ed$4bfa4970$e3eedc50$@net> <473A638D.6030506@cavebear.com> <001001c8266b$74958010$5dc08030$@net> <002d01c826df$9185d9d0$b4918d70$@net> Message-ID: <003e01c82744$4bed2030$e3c76090$@net> McTim wrote: > Also Gmail uses SPF, how many Spam would you get in a day if they > didn't? My guess is 2 orders of magnitude more than you get now. Well, they don't use it as much - and that is a good thing http://www.circleid.com/posts/spf_loses_mindshare/ You need to read that. Really. Before you start believing in the spf koolaid (somewhat worse than the v6 koolaid, that) srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 15 04:43:58 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:43:58 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> Karl, I'm in full agreement with your views on alternate (I do prefer the concept of existing alternatives, rather than competition, generally speaking and specially in this context) root systems, except on one point, dealing with how to ensure consistency: Le 15 nov. 07 à 01:24, Karl Auerbach a écrit : > [...] > But the looser definition of "consistency" that I advocate, new > TLDs could arise - I call them "boutique" TLDs - that strive for > sunlight and growth. They would, at first be found only in a few > root systems - perhaps because they offer something interesting, > perhaps they paid their way in, whatever - that's the normal task > of "building a brand" that goes with any new product that seeks > space on store shelves. > > Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain > tiny boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root > system that offers them, and some will grow to become new members > of the "every root must have" club. > > This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any central > ICANN-like authority. There is no such "natural" growth, taking into account the fact that not all TLDs, and specially "boutique" TLDs can afford "building a brand", which is very costly, or even are intererested in building such brand. There are alternatives to a "laissez-faire", marked-oriented approach. Since this list is - sometimes - discussing global governance issues, why not elaborating and discussing a way to guarantee that any - "boutique" or not - TLD should be found in any root system, *provided* that they obey some simple rules to ensure overall consistency (like, e.g., a TLD string should be unique: a unique .com, a unique .org, etc., but also a unique .karl if anyone finds any interest in such a TLD. And any other needed rule to ensure that everything works fine, technically -- and to ensure only this objective). It's typically a network neutrality issue. Who would check that these rules are obeyed? Well, isn't this exactly the role of a global internet governance institution? Yes, I know, this requires a lot of elaboration and discussion, not that simple, but a huge step forward would be accomplished if only we could agree on the principle that such a discussion should be started. > Now some will say that "what if I get email from > somebody at someplace.boutique-tld, how am I to answer it?" > > The answer is that "you don't". [...] > > That's life Not, that's not life. That's free market instead of global public policy in view of the general interest. And that's certainly not network neutrality. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pr+governance at x0.dk Thu Nov 15 05:18:41 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:18:41 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> Karl Auerbach > Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain tiny > boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root system that > offers them, and some will grow to become new members of the "every root > must have" club. > > This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any central > ICANN-like authority. No, this system permits snake oil vendors to exploit gullible customers into believing that the TLD they just bought is actually visible by the rest of the world. Like it or not, the current root model is "the least worst". Any alternatives so far (and I've heard about this for over 10 years) have had more to do with exploiting non-tech-savvy/naive customers than providing "political alternatives". There's two meaning to "alternative" in this context: some people want a technological alternative to the hierarchical current model, but still believe in a unique namespace, while others are promoting, litterally, alternative roots and namespaces. The confusion serve the political purposes of the latter quite well. Some interesting work is being done on P2P and distributed DNS -- but it may be a while before the technology is ready to do this, and the kinks ironed out. Meryem Marzouki (marzouki) writes: > There is no such "natural" growth, taking into account the fact that not all > TLDs, and specially "boutique" TLDs can afford "building a brand", which is > very costly, or even are intererested in building such brand. Correct. > There are alternatives to a "laissez-faire", marked-oriented approach. Since > this list is - sometimes - discussing global governance issues, why not > elaborating and discussing a way to guarantee that any - "boutique" or not - > TLD should be found in any root system, *provided* that they obey some > simple rules to ensure overall consistency (like, e.g., a TLD string should > be unique: a unique .com, a unique .org, etc., but also a unique .karl if > anyone finds any interest in such a TLD. You're actually inferring what some of the P2P DNS projects are working on. > And any other needed rule to ensure > that everything works fine, technically -- and to ensure only this > objective). It's typically a network neutrality issue. If you under "neutrality" as "not messing with your customer's expectation of what DNS should return", then yes. > Who would check that these rules are obeyed? Well, isn't this exactly the > role of a global internet governance institution? Yes, I know, this requires > a lot of elaboration and discussion, not that simple, but a huge step > forward would be accomplished if only we could agree on the principle that > such a discussion should be started. It's already happening. > > Now some will say that "what if I get email from > > somebody at someplace.boutique-tld, how am I to answer it?" > > > > The answer is that "you don't". > [...] > > > > That's life > > Not, that's not life. That's free market instead of global public policy in > view of the general interest. > And that's certainly not network neutrality. It's not network neutrality, it's "I broke the network deal with it". It's like emitting RFC1918 sourced IP packets on the net. I would refuse those on the ingress to my network, just like I refuse mail from unknown (no MX, NXDOMAIN) domains. How am I going to validate ".boutique-tld" if my nameservers don't know about it ? Spammers reading this thread are probably rubbing their grubby hands at this point. P. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 15 06:19:54 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:19:54 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> Le 15 nov. 07 à 11:18, Phil Regnauld a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki (marzouki) writes: >> There are alternatives to a "laissez-faire", marked-oriented >> approach. Since >> this list is - sometimes - discussing global governance issues, >> why not >> elaborating and discussing a way to guarantee that any - >> "boutique" or not - >> TLD should be found in any root system, *provided* that they obey >> some >> simple rules to ensure overall consistency (like, e.g., a TLD >> string should >> be unique: a unique .com, a unique .org, etc., but also a >> unique .karl if >> anyone finds any interest in such a TLD. > > You're actually inferring what some of the P2P DNS projects are > working on. No. More exactly, I'm inferring that there must be an enforceable global public policy implementing these principles, so that centralized or P2P or any other DNS architecture does not matter w.r.t. to this policy. If P2P appears to technically better meet this objective than many coordinated centralized systems, then fine: at this step, I don't care. What I don't want is to have "niche" (P2P or anything else -- there are already alternative roots) DNS systems, that are not resolved everywhere, and specially not at mainstream nodes. Because, in the end, what only matters is that x at x-place.x-boutique- tld, y at y-place@y-boutique-tld AND z at mainstream-place.mainstream-tld can communicate, with their only concern being what they want to tell each other. >> Who would check that these rules are obeyed? Well, isn't this >> exactly the >> role of a global internet governance institution? Yes, I know, >> this requires >> a lot of elaboration and discussion, not that simple, but a huge >> step >> forward would be accomplished if only we could agree on the >> principle that >> such a discussion should be started. > > It's already happening. Then please tell me where it's happening at global level, with all interested parties involved and with prior agreement on the principle that such global public policy is desirable. For sure, it's not at IGF. And it's not even on this list. Unless I missed something. Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 06:28:14 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:58:14 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Then please tell me where it's happening at global level, with all > interested parties involved and with prior agreement on the principle > that such global public policy is desirable. For sure, it's not at > IGF. And it's not even on this list. Unless I missed something. I wish you luck * Finding organizations that can offer viable and well managed alternate roots / TLDs * And that can actually achieve consensus on the mechanisms these are published with * So that you don't wind up getting the same TLD on different roots * So that a consistent mechanism is followed (keywords? No. browser plugins? No) * So that the different players can cooperate and interoperate * to the extent the current root operators do. Tough? Yes. Stick to the existing root server model? Definitely, yes. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 15 07:05:28 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:05:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Dates for IGF 2008? Message-ID: <20071115120528.8EBD122021B@quill.bollow.ch> Have the dates of the 2008 IGF been announced yet? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Nov 15 07:27:35 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:27:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] Dates for IGF 2008? In-Reply-To: <20071115120528.8EBD122021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <005401c82782$e8a88890$e0654cbd@IAN> I think December 8-11, New Delhi Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: 15 November 2007 23:05 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Dates for IGF 2008? Have the dates of the 2008 IGF been announced yet? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 14/11/2007 16:54 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 14/11/2007 16:54 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Thu Nov 15 08:34:49 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:34:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dates for IGF 2008? In-Reply-To: <20071115120528.8EBD122021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20071115123450.C8B9128465@srv1.igfbrazil2007.br> Yes, it will be 8 - 11 December See http://www.igf2008.in/ Guru _____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:05 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Dates for IGF 2008? Have the dates of the 2008 IGF been announced yet? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 07:53:01 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:23:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft ITU botnet mitigation toolkit background paper Message-ID: <00bb01c82786$765d8340$631889c0$@net> Hi I spent the last few months helping prepare this - it is an ITU-D BDT project that I am consulting for, with public private partnership, focused on botnet mitigation in developing countries. The project page is at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html Presentation: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-toolki t.pdf Background paper (draft): http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-toolki t-background.pdf In 2008 there'll be two national level pilots based on it, the first in Malaysia (1Q08), with their communications regulator (MCMC), and the second (tbd, with CERT-IN) in India around the 2nd quarter of 2008. Comments welcome. regards suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Nov 15 08:53:03 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:53:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes Message-ID: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> hi everyone some initial reflections as IGF II draws to a close.. karen ===== APC statement on the second Internet Governance Forum Rio de Janeiro, Brazil November 12-15 2007 15 November 2007 RIO DE JANEIRO, 15 November 2007 – As the second Internet Governance Forum (IGF) draws to a close, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is taking stock and formulating suggestions for action, as a way to move the IGF forward. The Rio IGF, like the first IGF, succeeded as a space for inclusive policy dialogue. The openness of the format of the event, and the quality and diversity of the participants created an opportunity for reaching common understanding of complex and controversial issues. It builds understanding of differences in positions and opinions. It is this that enables the IGF to influence and inform policy without the constraints of needing to create consensus on negotiated text. We appreciate the impressive effort of the Brazilian Internet Steering Group in organising the event, and in particular want to recognise their inclusion of civil society organisations in the preparatory process. This being said, the IGF can and should make further progress in fulfilling its mandate. Here are APC’s suggestions to the IGF for consolidating its mechanism. - Establish a self-regulatory mechanism to ensure participation, access to information and transparency in internet governance: APC recommends that a mechanism is created to ensure that all the institutions which play a role in some aspect of governing the internet commit to ensuring transparency, public participation, including participation of all stakeholders, and access to information in their activities. - Establish regional and national IGFs: Listening to the proposals of many Latin American and African delegates, including from leading governments and the private sector, APC would like to support the idea of establishing regional IGFs to define regional priorities and to enable greater participation from developing countries. . We also believe that national IGFs are a powerful mechanism for learning, problem solving, collective action and building partnership among different stakeholders at national level. - Convene ‘IGF Working Groups’: APC recommends that the IGF uses the format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) to convene working groups to address complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with the necessary expertise, and drawn from different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to specific institutions. . These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions for action from the individuals in the Working Group.These working groups have a different role from the self-organised dynamic coalitions which we believe should continue. Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on the following five issues might be valuable: a) WG on the definition of illegal and harmful content; d) WG on self and co-regulation in internet governance; c) WG on business models for access; d) WG on a development agenda for internet governance; e) WG on open standards. - Effectively resource the IGF secretariat: We want to express our admiration of Markus Kummer and his team for accomplishing so much with so little human and financial resources. We recognise the extensive investment made by the government of Brazil, and also by the previous host country, Greece, as well as other contributions made by governments, sponsors and donors. However, if the IGF is to continue to succeed and make further strides in fulfilling its mandate, the secretariat needs to be properly resourced. The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. - Strengthen the capacity and legitimacy of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group: We recommend that one third of the membership of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group rotates every year; that it is formally appointed by Secretary General by the end of January of every year; that the mandate of the MAG is clarified and that it considers electing some form of management committee to streamline its internal decision-making processes. We recognise the right of the MAG to have closed discussions (Chatham House Rules) but it needs to adhere to basic principles of transparency and accountability. We propose that the MAG provides routine reports on its meetings and decisions. - On the thematic areas of the IGF, acknowledging that access, openness, security, critical internet resources and diversity have been explored extensively, APC does not see the value in recycling these themes in the plenary format. We encourage the IGF III organisers to consider a different format for the plenary panels. Such a format should allow for in depth discussion of specific issues and can draw on the outcomes of workshops and inputs of working groups. - Increase participation in agenda setting: We suggest that the IGF secretariat and the MAG (Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group) convene working groups for each of the main themes of the next forum to help shape the agenda and identify speakers well in advance of the event. These groups can assist the MAG and the secretariat to address gender balance and diversity in the composition of the panels. - Learning from experience: We encourage the secretariat and the hosts of the first two IGFs, Greece and Brazil, to engage in active sharing of lessons learned with the next host country of the IGF, India. This process should include representatives of all stakeholder groups. In conclusion, we would like to extend our thanks to the host people and government, the Executive Coordinator of the IGF secretariat and its chairperson, and all participants. We wish India well in it's preparations for IGF III and express our commitment to the process and willingness to provide support in the process where we can. The Association for Progressive Communications Rio de Janeiro, 15 November 2007 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Thu Nov 15 09:48:33 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:48:33 -0200 Subject: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <473C5C41.9060808@bertola.eu> karen banks ha scritto: > - Establish a self-regulatory mechanism to ensure participation, access > to information and transparency in internet governance: APC recommends > that a mechanism is created to ensure that all the institutions which > play a role in some aspect of governing the internet commit to ensuring > transparency, public participation, including participation of all > stakeholders, and access to information in their activities. Question - have you thought about starting a dynamic coalition or some other working process to get to a written document detailing participatory requirements for IG processes? I'm sure that many here would be delighted to contribute, and this is an important element of what we think should be part of the Bill of Rights framework. Perhaps the group could also start bilateral talks with the affected institutions so that they accept to discuss and come up with something that is reasonable to them as well. In any case, get the ball rolling - so for example: > - Convene ‘IGF Working Groups’: APC recommends that the IGF uses the > format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet Engineering > Task Force) to convene working groups to address complex issues that > emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with > the necessary expertise, and drawn from different stakeholder groups. > These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if > they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be > communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to > specific institutions. . what difference does it make if they are called DCs or WGs? In the end, they can't bind anyone but those who voluntarily accept to participate. So let's just roll our sleeves up, try to involve as many stakeholders as possible, convince them to participate and to sign up to the results, and do something. -- 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 15 09:50:13 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:50:13 +0100 Subject: April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Karen, and all, Many comments to be made on APC press release of Nov. 15, but this one below is of major concern: Le 15 nov. 07 à 14:53, karen banks a écrit : > APC statement on the second Internet Governance Forum > RIO DE JANEIRO, 15 November 2007 – As the second Internet > Governance Forum (IGF) draws to a close, the Association for > Progressive Communications (APC) is taking stock and formulating > suggestions for action, as a way to move the IGF forward. [...] > > - Convene ‘IGF Working Groups’: APC recommends that the IGF uses > the format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet > Engineering Task Force) to convene working groups to address > complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made > up of individuals with the necessary expertise, and drawn from > different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific > issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop > recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community > at large, or addressed to specific institutions. . > > [...] > Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups > on the following five issues might be valuable: a) WG on the > definition of illegal and harmful content; Is APC seriously proposing that such a group work on a *definition* of illegal content at international level? i.e. a *harmonization* of all national laws? I cannot believe this.. Is APC also seriously proposing same thing for harmul content? i.e. a *harmonization* of all cultures, religions, beliefs, morals, etc.? I cannot believe this either! May I remind this very famous quote from the European Court of Human Rights case law (Handyside v. UK, 1976): "(…) it is not possible to find in the domestic law of the various Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals. The view taken by their respective laws of the requirements of morals varies from time to time and from place to place, especially in our era which is characterised by a rapid and far-reaching evolution of opinions on the subject. (…) Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no 'democratic society'(...)" This, to simply talk about Europe, a region which at least share some more or less common cultural roots and, above all, has adopted a regional Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), has set up a regional Court to enforce it (Strasbourg Court), which has developed a comprehensive case law. I cannot even imagine what APC proposal would mean at the world global level.. And, if this was not enough, APC is suggesting that an IGF working group "in the format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF" develop such a definition of illegal and harmful content? When even the European Court of Human Rights says, in the same Handyside judgement, that "State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements [of morals] as well as on the 'necessity' of a 'restriction' or 'penalty' intended to meet them"? So a handful of WGIG-like or MAG-like members, with the selection process that we've experienced till now, would do it with more legitimacy than the international judge? Again, I can't even believe this.. Is it a typo in APC press release or what?! Or is today April fool's day in Brazil? 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Nov 15 09:58:40 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:58:40 -0200 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: References: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20071115145842.3FD17271EA4@mail.gn.apc.org> hi meryem >Karen, and all, > >Many comments to be made on APC press release of Nov. 15, but >this one below is of major concern: > > > - Convene 'IGF Working Groups': APC recommends that the IGF uses > > the format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet > > Engineering Task Force) to convene working groups to address > > complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made > > up of individuals with the necessary expertise, and drawn from > > different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific > > issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop > > recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community > > at large, or addressed to specific institutions. . > > > > [...] > > Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups > > on the following five issues might be valuable: a) WG on the > > definition of illegal and harmful content; > >Is APC seriously proposing that such a group work on a >*definition* of illegal content at international level? i.e. a >*harmonization* of all national laws? I cannot believe this.. firstly - they are initial reflections, and certainly we'll be doing some further reflection.. and having your reaction right now is great.. as the proposals for working groups - or rather what they night focus on - is definitely one for discussion - if there isn't sufficient interest from enough people in forming a WG around a particular issue, then it clearly wouldn't have any traction.. secondly - the proposal that you're particularly concerned about, 'definition of illegal and harmfil content' - is certainly not intended to come up with a definition - but rather the contrary (at least in my mind) - that the phrase 'illegal and harmful content' is at the centre now of so much policy and legislation - in both hard and soft forms, compulsory, voluntary, self and co-regulation - that you can't move for fear of banging up against it.. there was an interesting discussion about 'illegal' and 'harmful' content.. and that, irrespecive of how anyone might feel about the illegaility of specific content, it is illegal - but 'harmful' content, is essentially content that some interested group wishes to make illegal - and the raod to that, is largely via self and co-regulatory schemes - and often implemented by inappropraite parties.. >Is APC also seriously proposing same thing for harmul content? i.e. a >*harmonization* of all cultures, religions, beliefs, morals, etc.? I >cannot believe this either! of course not meryem ;) karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Nov 15 10:01:09 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:01:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <473C5F35.50108@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Hi Karen, Willie, Anriette and others, karen banks schrieb: > APC statement on the second Internet Governance Forum Very good statement in general, thanks for pushing our thinking forward as usual. A quick feedback on one important point: > - Convene ‘IGF Working Groups’: APC recommends that the IGF uses the > format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet Engineering > Task Force) to convene working groups to address complex issues that > emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with > the necessary expertise, and drawn from different stakeholder groups. > These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if > they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be > communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to > specific institutions. . This is a really interesting proposal and a good way to use the potential of para 72g of the Tunis Agenda. > These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed > recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions for > action from the individuals in the Working Group.These working groups > have a different role from the self-organised dynamic coalitions which > we believe should continue. Just to be clear: In which way would they be different? Do you envisage them as being set up by the chairman? Would they have a limited lifespan? A closed membership? Or what? (I am not familiar with the working details of IETF WGs). > Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on > the following five issues might be valuable: a) WG on the definition of > illegal and harmful content; d) WG on self and co-regulation in > internet governance; c) WG on business models for access; d) WG on a > development agenda for internet governance; e) WG on open standards. Just to point at an intrisic difficulty if you have these things not done bottom-up: By this, you open the fight over what should be in the pipeline for recommendations and what should not (privacy, anyone?). I can already hear government delegates crying foul... The important question remains: Who exactly would make the decisions on working groups? 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Nov 15 10:03:48 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:03:48 -0200 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes Message-ID: <20071115150348.40F9227C389@mail.gn.apc.org> ps.. and meryem, to some extent you are right, not a typo so much, ut open to misinterpretation - the word 'definition' shouldn't be in the phrase, as it creates just this kind of misundertanding.. we will edit the statement > > - Convene 'IGF Working Groups': APC recommends that the IGF uses > > the format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet > > Engineering Task Force) to convene working groups to address > > complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made > > up of individuals with the necessary expertise, and drawn from > > different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific > > issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop > > recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community > > at large, or addressed to specific institutions. . > > > > [...] > > Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups > > on the following five issues might be valuable: a) WG on the > > definition of illegal and harmful content; -------------- 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 Nov 15 10:18:06 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:18:06 -0500 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <20071115150348.40F9227C389@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20071115150348.40F9227C389@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <45ed74050711150718j7bcbea88g1d1bc87eaa9f2873@mail.gmail.com> Greetings: For one, here, I am very much interested in joining any group discussing the notion of illegal and harmful content. I see the proposal as a *meta* level and not an *object* level one. To explore the issues from the start, and frame the relevant questions, so please sign me up. One notes that the current cordiality in IGF-II Rio toward the topic itself is refreshing given early 'policy't edicts that *disinformation* wanted to be as free as *information* on the Internet, and had a right to be. Perhaps we will swing back and forth between both views or visit others, but at least now there is dialogue apace. Free Expression? License? Not the same? So ...(?)... As a P.S., it would be good to have posted some links that you consider particularly helpful to learn about the European or other regional courts mentioned, as per the initial quote in this thread: "This, to simply talk about Europe, a region which at least share some more or less common cultural roots and, above all, has adopted a regional Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), has set up a regional Court to enforce it (Strasbourg Court), which has developed a comprehensive case law. I cannot even imagine what APC proposal would mean at the world global level" Thank you and best wishes, LDMF Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff * Respectful Interfaces* . On 11/15/07, 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! > _______________________________________ > > > ps.. and meryem, to some extent you are right, not a typo so much, ut open > to misinterpretation - the word 'definition' shouldn't be in the phrase, as > it creates just this kind of misundertanding.. we will edit the statement > > > - Convene 'IGF Working Groups': APC recommends that the IGF uses > > the format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet > > Engineering Task Force) to convene working groups to address > > complex issues that emerge during a forum. These groups can be made > > up of individuals with the necessary expertise, and drawn from > > different stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage specific > > issues in greater depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop > > recommendations that can be communicated to the internet community > > at large, or addressed to specific institutions. . > > > > [...] > > Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups > > on the following five issues might be valuable: a) WG on the > > definition of illegal and harmful content; > > > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary > -------------- 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 Nov 15 10:23:33 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:23:33 +0100 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <20071115150348.40F9227C389@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20071115150348.40F9227C389@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Le 15 nov. 07 à 16:03, karen banks a écrit : > ps.. and meryem, to some extent you are right, not a typo so much, > ut open to misinterpretation - the word 'definition' shouldn't be > in the phrase, as it creates just this kind of misundertanding.. we > will edit the statement Please do if indeed this was not what was meant. There are so many people and groups and institutions.. that would be more than happy to understand it as it actually reads in this first version. If indeed APC understanding is what you specified in your previous reply ("irrespecive of how anyone might feel about the illegaility of specific content, it is illegal - but 'harmful' content, is essentially content that some interested group wishes to make illegal - and the raod to that, is largely via self and co-regulatory schemes - and often implemented by inappropraite parties.."), then may I suggest other wordings that you may or may not use: "WG on the impact of content regulation by technical and soft law measures on human rights and the rule of law" And this working group would actually be able to build on huge existing work. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 10:37:23 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:07:23 +0530 Subject: April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: References: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <012b01c8279d$6c769a80$4563cf80$@net> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Is APC also seriously proposing same thing for harmul content? i.e. a To some extent, this is expressed in the Council of Europe's Convention of Cybercrime, with an additional protocol concerning criminalization fo acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. Not all countries are party to this of course - the USA, while a signatory to the Convention on Cybercrime, has specifically opted out of signing this additional protocol. What Karen touches on goes a bit deeper 1. Law enforcement, and ISP / email providers in the USA (which is generally the case) are going to be answerable to US law – not to Indian law or various other countries’ laws, especially as their servers are physically located in the USA. 2. Long arm legislation or enforcement is a fantasy. 3. What is a reality is well defined mechanisms for cooperation between different LE agencies, and policies at ISPs (most of which are good at responsible enforcement). For law enforcement people that are investigating cybercrime related stuff like hacking, espionage, as well as things like threat to life situations (ransom notes sent by kidnappers, stalking etc), they can easily use MLATs, conventions like the CoE convention etc to get very quick action indeed. There's even a 24x7 POC provided for (extending the G8 network that provided for this) What will NOT get the same kind of quick action is content related cases. For example from Thailand reporting a blog that has an insulting photo of their king on it (a recent real case). Or something from India where an orkut page that calls a famous historical figure a coward [so that a hindu right wing + regional political party that idolizes the man, call him a local hero both for fighting against the Mughals, who happened to be Muslim, and for being as famous as anybody from their state is ever going to get, decides to go around smashing up cybercafés, calling for orkut to be banned etc]. Such content is not easy or feasible for US law enforcement to prosecute due to first amendment free speech protections, unless the free speech is of the sort that is defined as “shouting fire in a crowded theater” – or more precisely, speech that incites imminent lawless action (such as incitement to riot, etc) – a test for free speech expressed by the US Supreme Court in 1969, in Brandenburg vs Ohio. Note: if the content really DOES have the risk that it will cause a riot, explaining that might be one way to proceed. At the most, in cases where the content is not illegal in the USA, they can forward the complaint to the provider. After which it becomes a question of 1. Whether the provider deems the content contrary to the terms of use of their service, and takes action on it a. Providers need to have mature processes in place. Most large providers do. Some don’t and will learn – but the way they will learn is not really by having law enforcement go after them for prosecuting the exercise of (quite possibly silly, or even hateful) free speech. e&oe the imminent lawless action exception of course, or that other limit to free speech (not infringing on others privacy). b. Providers wont learn either if the law doesn’t have safe harbor for providers, and do something silly (like the Indian police who arrested the CEO of eBay India because someone was selling a pornographic MMS video) - something that attracted quite high level US attention as the arrested man was a US citizen, CEO of the Indian subsidiary of a US corporation etc etc. The publicity hound police officer who arrested that man even went and called a press conference to boast about it - something he is apparently regretting now.. c. Case in point where providers don’t have mature processes in place and courts / law enforcement are quite justified in going after them - Google is in hot water in Brazil, with the Brazilian head of Google facing criminal contempt charges in court – for their inaction in allowing Orkut to be overrun with child abuse and similar content. See an article in the WSJ a few weeks back about this. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119273558149563775-6_LyeLHpy85P7ZUe7r yt_g_bfMI_20081018.html d. That is mainly, as I said, because Orkut, with lots of Brazilian users, has got itself a huge infestation of pages with explicit child porn, racist content, violations of privacy (hidden cam nude photos of a Brazilian actress some years back), etc – and their Google Ads program was doing assorted silly things like putting pet store ads in a page dedicated to sadists who like photos of animals being stabbed to death - so running into Brazil's advertising standards body guidelines e. In that specific case, Google did not, in my opinion, have mature or adequate processes in place to handle abuse issues. They do have quite good ideas on privacy – and are vocal on this in forums including APEC. Doesn’t change the fact that their abuse handling procedures either were grossly inadequate, or slipped up (or both) in this case. --- OR --- 2. Whether the country complaining –has the pull required to pressure the ISP into disgorging data. a. Technically - and in fact - a company incorporated in a particular country, managed / owned / staffed by that country's citizens, is subject to that country's laws. In the case of an international company, the situation gets more complex, with local subsidiaries subject to the local country's laws. b. Disgorging content that is not locally hosted by that subsidiary still doesn’t usually work that easily, especially in free speech cases. In fact, any results are *not* likely unless that country is an autocratic government with a market that is seen as a yet largely untapped, massive source of revenue. b. The consequence of a subsidiary in that country disgorging data due to a subpoena from that country’s government can be quite embarrassing (being hauled up in front of a senate subcommittee among other things, as recent headlines show). Interesting questions to consider, in the light of Karen's remarks. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 15 11:01:05 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:01:05 +0100 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <45ed74050711150718j7bcbea88g1d1bc87eaa9f2873@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071115150348.40F9227C389@mail.gn.apc.org> <45ed74050711150718j7bcbea88g1d1bc87eaa9f2873@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <88F3C6DC-8519-4673-8E27-5E0EA30C2171@ras.eu.org> Linda, Le 15 nov. 07 à 16:18, linda misek-falkoff a écrit : > As a P.S., it would be good to have posted some links that you > consider particularly helpful to learn about the European or other > regional courts mentioned, as per the initial quote in this thread: > There are many of them, not to mention websites of official institutions. These may certainly be helpful: - http://www.hrni.org - http://www.huridocs.org - http://www.pdhre.org (see re: Internet, PDHRE Statement on Human Rights, Human Dignity and the Information Society: http:// www.pdhre.org/wsis/statement.doc) Website of the European court is at: http://www.echr.coe.int And, I don't want to advertise, but there is this book, too: http:// mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10871 It covers, chapter by chapter, rights most impacted in the information society. Some chapters available online: - Foreword: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262101157forw1.pdf - Intro: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262101157intro1.pdf - Freedom of expression: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/ 0262101157chap1.pdf - Privacy: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/HOSEIN/pubs/mit_chapter_gus.pdf - Political participation: http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/research/ Right_to_Political_Participation.pdf - Guarantee rights/rule of law: http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/ article.php3?id_article=82 I would also recommend having a look at the WSIS human rights caucus work (2003-2006, all docs archived at: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/ actions/smsi/hr-wsis/) Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 15 11:18:05 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:18:05 +0100 Subject: April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <012b01c8279d$6c769a80$4563cf80$@net> References: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> <012b01c8279d$6c769a80$4563cf80$@net> Message-ID: <3A1462FC-DD03-4577-8085-64B24C4A07C8@ras.eu.org> Le 15 nov. 07 à 16:37, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Is APC also seriously proposing same thing for harmul content? i.e. a > > To some extent, this is expressed in the Council of Europe's > Convention of > Cybercrime, with an additional protocol concerning criminalization > fo acts > of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. > > Not all countries are party to this of course - the USA, while a > signatory > to the Convention on Cybercrime, has specifically opted out of > signing this > additional protocol. Right, and this is because racist and xenophobic content is considered illegal in most CoE countries and more generally speaking in signatory countries. But the issue with harmful content is not the differences among national legislations, but rather content that is felt harmful for some categories of people (e.g. children) within a same jurisdiction. > What Karen touches on goes a bit deeper I know, but this needed the reformulation that she acknowledged. The first formulation is really dangerous, from my experience - both as academic and NGO rep. - for more than 10 years, at National (French), European Union, Council of Europe, and UN (WSIS) levels. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Nov 15 11:37:42 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:37:42 -0200 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: References: <20071115150348.40F9227C389@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20071115163741.D03AB1F8445@mail.gn.apc.org> hi meryem >>ps.. and meryem, to some extent you are right, not a typo so much, >>ut open to misinterpretation - the word 'definition' shouldn't be >>in the phrase, as it creates just this kind of misundertanding.. we >>will edit the statement > >Please do if indeed this was not what was meant. There are so many >people and groups and institutions.. that would be more than happy to >understand it as it actually reads in this first version. we will indeed (and in fact already have) removed the word definition.. but i see you've formulated another below.. which i'll come to below >If indeed APC understanding is what you specified in your previous >reply ("irrespecive of how anyone might feel about the illegaility >of specific content, it is illegal - but 'harmful' content, >is essentially content that some interested group wishes to make illegal >- and the raod to that, is largely via self and co-regulatory schemes >- and often implemented by inappropraite parties.."), then may >I suggest other wordings that you may or may not use: and yes, that is certainly my understanding of what several of us are interested in pursuing.. but, i'd like to take a breath and suggest that we use this topic to finetune exactly what it is, we might focus on.. you know well meryem, the frenetic pace and nature of these events, and it is easy for a word or phrase to be inadvertantly used in a public document due to the hectic nature of writing quickly etc.. >"WG on the impact of content regulation by technical and soft >law measures on human rights and the rule of law" > >And this working group would actually be able to build on huge existing work. for now, we're going to remove that particular WG proposal altogether - as you see we have another: "WG on self and co-regulation in internet governance" (which is more in line with what you're proposing) and we may even fine tune that, using yours and others input.. thanks meryem karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 11:45:40 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:15:40 +0530 Subject: April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <3A1462FC-DD03-4577-8085-64B24C4A07C8@ras.eu.org> References: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> <012b01c8279d$6c769a80$4563cf80$@net> <3A1462FC-DD03-4577-8085-64B24C4A07C8@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <015c01c827a6$f6641e30$e32c5a90$@net> > I know, but this needed the reformulation that she acknowledged. The > first formulation is really dangerous, from my experience - both as > academic and NGO rep. - for more than 10 years, at National (French), > European Union, Council of Europe, and UN (WSIS) levels. Could certainly have been worded better, I agree. I was just highlighting a few additional angles to this question, at least from a service provider perspective thanks srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 15 12:20:16 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:20:16 +0100 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <20071115163741.D03AB1F8445@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20071115150348.40F9227C389@mail.gn.apc.org> <20071115163741.D03AB1F8445@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <0C4748FE-42E1-4CD8-87FE-455FEB286C60@ras.eu.org> Hi Karen, Le 15 nov. 07 à 17:37, karen banks a écrit : >> If indeed APC understanding is what you specified in your >> previous reply ("irrespecive of how anyone might feel about the >> illegaility of specific content, it is illegal - but 'harmful' >> content, is essentially content that some interested group wishes >> to make illegal >> - and the raod to that, is largely via self and co-regulatory schemes >> - and often implemented by inappropraite parties.."), then may I >> suggest other wordings that you may or may not use: > > and yes, that is certainly my understanding of what several of us > are interested in pursuing.. but, i'd like to take a breath and > suggest that we use this topic to finetune exactly what it is, we > might focus on.. you know well meryem, the frenetic pace and > nature of these events, and it is easy for a word or phrase to be > inadvertantly used in a public document due to the hectic nature of > writing quickly etc.. Yes, of course I do know, and I don't have any doubt about APC's intentions.. That's the reason why I said that I couldn't believe this. And I said it twice:) > >> "WG on the impact of content regulation by technical and soft law >> measures on human rights and the rule of law" >> >> And this working group would actually be able to build on huge >> existing work. > > for now, we're going to remove that particular WG proposal > altogether - as you see we have another: uh oh:) > "WG on self and co-regulation in internet governance" (which is > more in line with what you're proposing) Yes and no, but the good thing with this formulation is that it leaves entirely open the definition of this WG, its topics, etc. and it doesn't even take any a priori position on what this could/should -- or shouldn't be. > and we may even fine tune that, using yours and others input.. Sure. On technical filtering, e.g., if everything goes well, a new recommendation and an explanatory report should be adopted soon by the Council of Europe on "measures to promote respect for freedom of expression and information with regard to Internet filters". Of course, there could still be some changes made, but the text as it has been prepared, discussed and delivered by the CoE group of specialists on human rights in the information society is quite good in my opinion. And I hope this would counterbalance, at least regarding the issue of technical filtering, the formerly adopted recommendation on "promoting freedom of expression and information in the new information and communications environment", against which EDRi (European Digital Rights) has campaigned, as you know (http:// www.edri.org/coerec200711). > thanks meryem thanks to you, Karen, for your understanding and quick reaction! Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Nov 15 12:47:02 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:47:02 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> Phil Regnauld wrote: > Karl Auerbach >> Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain tiny >> boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root system that >> offers them, and some will grow to become new members of the "every root >> must have" club. >> >> This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any central >> ICANN-like authority. > > No, this system permits snake oil vendors to exploit gullible > customers into believing that the TLD they just bought is actually > visible by the rest of the world. Let's go back to my premise - consistency. Competing DNS roots that are consistent will lead to minimal degrees of user surprise. Are you surprised when you go into a super market and it has some extra boutique products on its shelves in addition to all of the standard, expected brands? No, you aren't. So why should users be surprised when they find that through a competing root they get the familiar .com, .net, .org, .arpa, .biz, .info and the 250 ccTLDs plus a few new boutique TLDs? Instant reachability is hardly the sine qua non of a valid idea: Is it "snake oil" if I hand someone a business card and say call me - and the telephone number on that card is "sip://1234 at cavebear.com"? Which raises the question - are we inventing yet another consumer protection body? If so, why? And under what authority? Moreover there are more than enough laws on the books about misrepresentation and fraud. And do we want to assume that buyers are increasingly stupid and non-informed? What about the intelligent and knowledgeable person who wants to, to usurp a marketing phrase, "think different"? Do we deny that person in order to protect the rest? The logic being expressed is the logic that would deny IPv6 - for the most part people can not use IPv6 beyond their local nets. So, should IPv6 be banned as "snake oil"? And perhaps we even ought to ban 4 letter TLDs because so much of the Javascript in web page forms around the world refuses to accept user contacts with 4+ letter TLDs in their email. (Just wait until internationalized, IDN, TLDs come along - perhaps we ought to ban those too because they will also, in the eyes of some, be "snake oil.") On top of this there is no technical way to deny the rise of competing roots. One might ask "why in the world would one want to establish a competing root" (apart from the obvious answer that it escapes the USA hegemony over the current DNS)? One reason is that it can be a money making proposition. It is possible to derive a very valuable stream of marketing data from the query stream that hits root and TLD servers. In fact, Verisign has express permission from ICANN to do this. (And one can guess that those root servers operated by the US military and US government agencies are not quietly ignoring all the potential intelligence data that could be derived by watching the queries [and perhaps manipulating the responses.]) A prospective operator of a competing root system might induce people (or more likely their providers) to switch to their service by paying people to use it. Imagine if you (or your ISP) were to get a check for $100 (the same unit of payment used in Google's AdSense program) every time you (or the ISP) resolved a million names? I mention Google AdSense because it is a good model - Just as Google pays web site operators to post Google provided advertising (for which Google is paid by the advertisers), a competing root server operator could attract DNS query traffic by peeling off a portion of the revenue from sales of marketing data derived from the query stream and paying that peeled-off part to those users that send traffic. I never cease to be amazed at how quickly people want to suppress the innovative and created spirit that created the internet in the first place. When we started the net back in the 1970's - I was there - we were not able to interact with anybody else. The common wisdom of that era was that data networks would be based on the then up and coming ISDN and that this packet switching stuff was ... well to use some words I've read recently, "snake oil". In the 1980's when I formed my first two internet based companies not many people could send email to "karl at epilogue.com" or "karl at empirical.com" - in those days "real" email was from MCI or IBM and others. Internet email addresses were, again to use some recent words "snake oil". > How am I going to validate ".boutique-tld" if my nameservers don't > know about it ? What means this word "validate"? How does one today "validate" gdfkjljd.xn-r5tyk8dkjui.com? DNS is not a system of "validation". Attempts to use it as one are like attempts to build balloons out of stones. If you want more, then one needs to move to mutual identification and authentication mechanisms such as IPsec. If you don't like TLDs not approved by then don't accept 'em. Gaining that acceptance is part of the gauntlet that a boutique TLD needs to run - at its own expense and through its own efforts. Which gets to a point raised by Mereyem - the cost of "building the brand in a new TLD". I see no reason to institutionalize any kind of help or assistance to any new TLD aspirant. The costs to set up a new TLD are small. Take for example my .ewe TLD - http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html - It operates on the basis of public-key certificates, permanent ownership of names, rather than the yearly rental cycle required by ICANN. Thus my registration systems do not have to provide all those engines to do yearly cycles. And on the name server side - it's really not all that expensive to set up servers in will connected facilities all over the world - one hardly needs to begin operation on day one with a resolver capacity equal to that of Verisign for .com. And for those who want public assistance to start new TLDs: Perhaps it is useful to remember one lesson that one learns very quickly here in the Silicon Valley area: be careful of the outside funding you accept: Startup funding often comes with Faustian strings. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Nov 15 12:58:06 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:58:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: C3550278.E4BB%drake@hei.unige.ch Message-ID: Bill, If you have the opportunity, please convey these thought to the IGF Secretariat (Nitin & Markus): The World Expo 2010 will be held in Shanghai May 1st - October 31st 2010. In order to reduce the "IGF carbon-footprint" I suggest that the IGF-2010 be held in Shanghai, in conjunction with the World Expo. I further suggest that ICANN also plan their annual event to coincide with the Expo as well. (say for example: The week of August 1st- August 7th 2010 |Icann Annual meeting Aug. 1-3 | IGF2010 Aug. 4-7 / within the Expo2010 event) This would take three events which would normally be held in separate venues, and reduce them to one , thus reducing the footprint. Further the Expo (Worlds Fair) has always been a Technological event, and it seen natural to me that the two (possibly all three) are synergistic. Diplomatically this would also "put the ball in China's court", wherein the opportunities to access and develop (strengthen IGF agendas) within China would be favorable, as they are the Host. Please pass it on at the appropriate moment. If things develop, please let us know here on the CPSR Groups maillist. Regards, Yehuda -- Ref.: World Expo 2010 Shanghai (Worlds Fair 2010) May 1st - October 31st http://en.expo2010china.com/ - The Bureau of Shanghai World Expo Coordination add: No. 3588, Pudong Rd. (S) Shanghai, China postal code: 200125 tel: 8621-22062010 fax: 8621-22060670 Email: Land at expo2010.gov.cn http://www.expo2010china.com/expo/expoenglish/ps/Contacts/index.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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 15 13:14:22 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:14:22 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> Message-ID: <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> Le 15 nov. 07 à 12:28, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Then please tell me where it's happening at global level, with all >> interested parties involved and with prior agreement on the principle >> that such global public policy is desirable. For sure, it's not at >> IGF. And it's not even on this list. Unless I missed something. > > I wish you luck > > * Finding organizations that can offer viable and well managed > alternate > roots / TLDs Unless there is a misunderstanding on the "alternate to what" meaning, you're not really saying that this is an issue, are you? Imagine simply, in the current situation, if the current 15 gTLD were under, let's say, 3 different roots, and all current ccTLDs were grouped into, e.g. 5 additional roots, or even just one. Don't you think that these 8 roots would be well managed and viable ? Don't you think this could also be the case for additional roots (it is, already)? If there are currently registries able to operate TLDs, why wouldn't there be more organizations able to operate roots? Let's talk about coordinated distinct roots, if "alternate" or "competing" may lead to misunderstandings. > * And that can actually achieve consensus on the mechanisms these are > published with That's the main, tougher issue, and it's a global governance issue. But there are no chance to achieve consensus if we don't start drafting the possible options, or even start thinking we could have such a discussion.. Let's suppose that we engage in such a discussion. What should be the rules to achieve consensus on? I see three sets of rules: - One set of technical rules, that form the basis of a technical (and only technical) commitment (or MoU, if anyone prefers). We need to identify the set of #T1 to #Tn technical conditions such that, if not met, may endanger the operation of the whole system. Honestly, I don't know how they can translate, I'm not competent to enter this discussion, but these conditions are already well known by relevant people. - One set of "behavioral" rules that form the "behavioral" MoU. Let's start drafting some of them: Rule #B1: each TLD should be unique, whatever root it is operating under. This is the sine qua non condition to have the whole system working. (NB. yes, it's a behavioral rule, not a technical rule) Rule #B2: any TLD under any root in the system should be resolved by all roots part of the coordinated system. Rule #B3: all roots part of the coordinated system should stop resolving TLDs under a root that has been banned from the coordinated system Rule #B4: any root part of the coordinated system may stop resolving TLDs under a root against which x% of all roots has voted etc. I'm not sure these rules are good or bad or even necessary (apart from #B1 and #B2). My point is to show what such rules could look like. - One set of global cooperation rules that form the global cooperation MoU: Rule #C1: the coordinated system is open to any new root, provided that it signs the technical and the behavioral MoUs Rule #C2: defines the decision making system (one root one vote? or any other to be discussed) Rule #C2: a root infringing any of the behavioral rules is automatically banned from the system Rule #C3: banning a root from the system for any other reason than a behavioral rule infringement requires unanimous decision Rule #C4: a root infringing any of the technical rules should be let aside of the system until things are fixed. etc. same disclaimer as above for the "behavioral" rules. Many, many, many issues are still unresolved. Like is there a rule favoring or not preemption of TLDs (if you see what I mean:)) or is it first come first served basis? How could we avoid (policy, not technical) deadlocks? What is a root, i.e. we shouldn't end with one TLD == one root! And, the mother of all issues: how many IGFs would it take to have such a discussion on the table.. > Tough? Yes. Yes, indeed! > Stick to the existing root server model? Definitely, yes. Not necessarily. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 15 13:52:06 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:52:06 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Le 15 nov. 07 à 18:47, Karl Auerbach a écrit : > Which gets to a point raised by Mereyem - the cost of "building the > brand in a new TLD". > > I see no reason to institutionalize any kind of help or assistance > to any new TLD aspirant. The costs to set up a new TLD are small. Simply to avoid any misunderstanding: what is costly is not setting up and technically managing a new TLD; it's rather - in the system of "natural growth" you're advocating - how to build a brand out of it, so that this TLD doesn't remain a boutique- or a niche- TLD and becomes resolved everywhere (in case we agree this is the final objective). Moreover, I'm not advocating any public assistance (except, of course, for public/public service TLDs) to set up, manage, or build such TLD as a brand. I'm rather advocating the removal of any (political) obstacle to reaching the final objective, i.e. I'm advocating to remove the need for building the brand. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 13:50:23 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:50:23 -0500 Subject: April fool's day? Was Re: [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes In-Reply-To: <012b01c8279d$6c769a80$4563cf80$@net> References: <20071115135304.1130C27C0CB@mail.gn.apc.org> <012b01c8279d$6c769a80$4563cf80$@net> Message-ID: <45ed74050711151050h74b9b2fbj4f45500fa26f91d3@mail.gmail.com> Hi Mereym, and all, this listing is great for us all and thank you so much for taking the time to transmit it, busy as you must be. The multiplexing, throughout IGF-II Rio, of those here has been amazing, or e-mazing! . We can all surf independently but it is very helpful to have a starter set on important subjects where we know who is mentioning them. Just as e.g. for medical matters we do not trust totally scattered visits to sites. So thanks again. I also want to let you know that it has been extremely interesting to be a registered IGF-II Rio participant, who actually participated online throughout and hopped among chat rooms, blogs, email, webcasts, and more. I wonder if the "powers," which surely are multi-lateral, might email us our badges! E-badges, forecasting a future of more and more access for more and more people. We really must thank Jeremy and Adam and Avri and all, who miraculously found the time to discourse with us throughout - through the various windows. After Athens I planned to return. But circumstances intervened, and how fortunate that we could hook in and in so many ways. But we really should I think get behind Jose's proposal and demonstrated instance of projecting online participants onto a screen, especially as he has ideas for filtering (though detents or otherwise, I do not know but look forward to hearing). I collected a fair amount of documentation, and hope to contribute it toward education for future online participants, so write if you would like to participate in this too. The sharing here is immense, fueled by heart and mind and conviction. Well met! At your service as well, and *respectfully interfacing,* Linda. On 11/15/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > > Is APC also seriously proposing same thing for harmul content? i.e. a > > To some extent, this is expressed in the Council of Europe's Convention of > Cybercrime, with an additional protocol concerning criminalization fo acts > of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. > > Not all countries are party to this of course - the USA, while a signatory > to the Convention on Cybercrime, has specifically opted out of signing > this > additional protocol. > > What Karen touches on goes a bit deeper > > 1. Law enforcement, and ISP / email providers in the USA (which is > generally the case) are going to be answerable to US law – not to Indian > law > or various other countries' laws, especially as their servers are > physically > located in the USA. > > 2. Long arm legislation or enforcement is a fantasy. > > 3. What is a reality is well defined mechanisms for cooperation between > different LE agencies, and policies at ISPs (most of which are good at > responsible enforcement). > > For law enforcement people that are investigating cybercrime related stuff > like hacking, espionage, as well as things like threat to life situations > (ransom notes sent by kidnappers, stalking etc), they can easily use > MLATs, > conventions like the CoE convention etc to get very quick action indeed. > There's even a 24x7 POC provided for (extending the G8 network that > provided > for this) > > What will NOT get the same kind of quick action is content related cases. > For example from Thailand reporting a blog that has an insulting photo of > their king on it (a recent real case). Or something from India where an > orkut page that calls a famous historical figure a coward [so that a hindu > right wing + regional political party that idolizes the man, call him a > local hero both for fighting against the Mughals, who happened to be > Muslim, > and for being as famous as anybody from their state is ever going to get, > decides to go around smashing up cybercafés, calling for orkut to be > banned > etc]. > > Such content is not easy or feasible for US law enforcement to prosecute > due > to first amendment free speech protections, unless the free speech is of > the > sort that is defined as "shouting fire in a crowded theater" – or more > precisely, speech that incites imminent lawless action (such as incitement > to riot, etc) – a test for free speech expressed by the US Supreme Court > in > 1969, in Brandenburg vs Ohio. Note: if the content really DOES have the > risk that it will cause a riot, explaining that might be one way to > proceed. > > At the most, in cases where the content is not illegal in the USA, they > can > forward the complaint to the provider. After which it becomes a question > of > > 1. Whether the provider deems the content contrary to the terms of > use > of their service, and takes action on it > > a. Providers need to have mature processes in place. Most large > providers do. Some don't and will learn – but the way they will learn is > not really by having law enforcement go after them for prosecuting the > exercise of (quite possibly silly, or even hateful) free speech. e&oe the > imminent lawless action exception of course, or that other limit to free > speech (not infringing on others privacy). > > b. Providers wont learn either if the law doesn't have safe harbor for > providers, and do something silly (like the Indian police who arrested the > CEO of eBay India because someone was selling a pornographic MMS video) - > something that attracted quite high level US attention as the arrested man > was a US citizen, CEO of the Indian subsidiary of a US corporation etc > etc. > The publicity hound police officer who arrested that man even went and > called a press conference to boast about it - something he is apparently > regretting now.. > > c. Case in point where providers don't have mature processes in place and > courts / law enforcement are quite justified in going after them - Google > is > in hot water in Brazil, with the Brazilian head of Google facing criminal > contempt charges in court – for their inaction in allowing Orkut to be > overrun with child abuse and similar content. See an article in the WSJ a > few weeks back about this. > > http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119273558149563775-6_LyeLHpy85P7ZUe7r > yt_g_bfMI_20081018.html > > d. That is mainly, as I said, because Orkut, with lots of Brazilian users, > has got itself a huge infestation of pages with explicit child porn, > racist > content, violations of privacy (hidden cam nude photos of a Brazilian > actress some years back), etc – and their Google Ads program was doing > assorted silly things like putting pet store ads in a page dedicated to > sadists who like photos of animals being stabbed to death - so running > into > Brazil's advertising standards body guidelines > > e. In that specific case, Google did not, in my opinion, have mature or > adequate processes in place to handle abuse issues. They do have quite > good ideas on privacy – and are vocal on this in forums including APEC. > Doesn't change the fact that their abuse handling procedures either were > grossly inadequate, or slipped up (or both) in this case. > > --- > OR > --- > > 2. Whether the country complaining –has the pull required to pressure the > ISP into disgorging data. > > a. Technically - and in fact - a company incorporated in a particular > country, managed / owned / staffed by that country's citizens, is subject > to > that country's laws. In the case of an international company, the > situation > gets more complex, with local subsidiaries subject to the local country's > laws. > > b. Disgorging content that is not locally hosted by that subsidiary still > doesn't usually work that easily, especially in free speech cases. In > fact, > any results are *not* likely unless that country is an autocratic > government > with a market that is seen as a yet largely untapped, massive source of > revenue. > > b. The consequence of a subsidiary in that country disgorging data > due > to a subpoena from that country's government can be quite embarrassing > (being hauled up in front of a senate subcommittee among other things, as > recent headlines show). > > Interesting questions to consider, in the light of Karen's remarks. > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. For I.D. only here: Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability (IDC Steering). Persons With Pain International. National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus. IDC-ICT Taskforce. Respectful Interfaces* - Communications Coordination Committee For The United Nations; CCC/UN Board Member and Secretary; Chr., Online Committee.. Vita Summary: . Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From pr+governance at x0.dk Thu Nov 15 16:17:34 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:17:34 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> Karl Auerbach (karl) writes: > > Let's go back to my premise - consistency. Competing DNS roots that are > consistent will lead to minimal degrees of user surprise. Are you surprised > when you go into a super market and it has some extra boutique products on > its shelves in addition to all of the standard, expected brands? Supermarkets and global, distributed information systems are not comparable. Not everything can be brought back to free market analogies. > No, you > aren't. So why should users be surprised when they find that through a > competing root they get the familiar .com, .net, .org, .arpa, .biz, .info > and the 250 ccTLDs plus a few new boutique TLDs? It makes it harder for the user, not easier. > Is it "snake oil" if I hand someone a business card and say call me - and > the telephone number on that card is "sip://1234 at cavebear.com"? No it's a standard, but just like the fax, it only was *useful* when many other people had a fax. In the same fashion, I didn't hand out my email address to people around me in 1992 -- most didn't know what email was. > Which raises the question - are we inventing yet another consumer protection > body? No. > If so, why? And under what authority? That's your premise. > Moreover there are more than enough laws on the books about > misrepresentation and fraud. Yes. > And do we want to assume that buyers are increasingly stupid and > non-informed? What about the intelligent and knowledgeable person who wants > to, to usurp a marketing phrase, "think different"? Do we deny that person > in order to protect the rest? Feel free to create your own TLD locally, no one can keep you from doing that. > The logic being expressed is the logic that would deny IPv6 - for the most > part people can not use IPv6 beyond their local nets. So, should IPv6 be > banned as "snake oil"? See my example above. > And perhaps we even ought to ban 4 letter TLDs because so much of the > Javascript in web page forms around the world refuses to accept user > contacts with 4+ letter TLDs in their email. (Just wait until > internationalized, IDN, TLDs come along - perhaps we ought to ban those too > because they will also, in the eyes of some, be "snake oil.") Find me one website that accepts all valid RFC2822 addresses. It doesn't exist. It's besides the point. > On top of this there is no technical way to deny the rise of competing > roots. There's a long way between not denying them and promoting them as a good thing. Changes may be needed, but solutions looking for customers, we have plenty of. > One might ask "why in the world would one want to establish a competing > root" (apart from the obvious answer that it escapes the USA hegemony over > the current DNS)? > > One reason is that it can be a money making proposition. It is possible to > derive a very valuable stream of marketing data from the query stream that > hits root and TLD servers. In fact, Verisign has express permission from > ICANN to do this. Oh, and alternative root outfits are doing this for the benefit of humanity ? > (And one can guess that those root servers operated by the US military and > US government agencies are not quietly ignoring all the potential > intelligence data that could be derived by watching the queries [and perhaps > manipulating the responses.]) Yes, I've heard of this. Remind how many of these servers (the anycasted total, not which of A - L) are outside US territory ? No doubt the military are doing stats. So would I :) > A prospective operator of a competing root system might induce people (or > more likely their providers) to switch to their service by paying people to > use it. Imagine if you (or your ISP) were to get a check for $100 (the same > unit of payment used in Google's AdSense program) every time you (or the > ISP) resolved a million names? It might be good business model indeed, just like spam. > I mention Google AdSense because it is a good model - Just as Google pays > web site operators to post Google provided advertising (for which Google is > paid by the advertisers), a competing root server operator could attract DNS > query traffic by peeling off a portion of the revenue from sales of > marketing data derived from the query stream and paying that peeled-off part > to those users that send traffic. Google does not manipulate people's traffic (yet). > I never cease to be amazed at how quickly people want to suppress the > innovative and created spirit that created the internet in the first place. Re-read what I wrote earlier to Meryem: alternative technologies to continue to promote a unique namespace (single root) does not equate promoting alternate (multiple) roots. And please don't try to infer that people who, while they might not be favorable to the current administrative model and to ICANN's disputed independence, don't see the necessity of having alternate roots, are trying to suppress the innovation and creative spirit that indeed led to the Internet. > When we started the net back in the 1970's - I was there - we were not able > to interact with anybody else. The common wisdom of that era was that data > networks would be based on the then up and coming ISDN and that this packet > switching stuff was ... well to use some words I've read recently, "snake > oil". And now we're at a point where many, many people are depending on the current system as it is implemented -- experiments are good, we don't have to be in the 70's do so, and finding new ways to explore unique namespace is one of them. But fragmenting the current namespace is not helping. > In the 1980's when I formed my first two internet based companies not many > people could send email to "karl at epilogue.com" or "karl at empirical.com" - in > those days "real" email was from MCI or IBM and others. Internet email > addresses were, again to use some recent words "snake oil". What's your point ? Are you saying that email, which was open, replaced the arachic MCI Mail, Bitnet, and Compuserve ? Well, at first we had UUCP maps, which didn't scale that well, and guess what displaced _them_ ? An addressing mechanism based on a unique hierarchical namespace. Shall we go back to Fidonet ? > > How am I going to validate ".boutique-tld" if my nameservers don't > > know about it ? > > What means this word "validate"? How does one today "validate" > gdfkjljd.xn-r5tyk8dkjui.com? Validate: look it up, confirm it exists. > DNS is not a system of "validation". Attempts to use it as one are like > attempts to build balloons out of stones. > If you want more, then one needs to move to mutual identification and > authentication mechanisms such as IPsec. That was not what I was talking about. Using DNS as a validation framework for other application may be awkward, but I was talking about testing the validity (as in: is it registered ? does it have an MX ?) of the domain _itself_. > If you don't like TLDs not approved by body name here> then don't accept 'em. Indeed, that's easy. > Gaining that acceptance is part of > the gauntlet that a boutique TLD needs to run - at its own expense and > through its own efforts. Good luck to them. > I see no reason to institutionalize any kind of help or assistance to any > new TLD aspirant. The costs to set up a new TLD are small. I agree with you on that. Many more TLDs should easily be accomodated by the current model. > Take for example my .ewe TLD - I would call it "side level domain", I can't find a delegation for it. What mechanism should I use to locate 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Nov 15 17:17:21 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:17:21 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> I can see that we are diametrically of different minds on the desirability of competing root systems - provided that they are consistent with one another (I suspect that neither of us want inconsistent root systems to arise and, if they did, we would both hope that internet users would shun them back into non-existence.) I'm glad you did not raise the non-issue that competing roots are technologically impossible or would cause the internet sky to fall, the stock markets to collapse, and the internet revert to paper tape carried by pigeons (IP over Avian Carrier - RFC1149). The main point that I draw from our discussion is that competing roots, while clearly subject to disagreement about their merits, are feasible and, indeed, can not be technically prevented should someone undertake the effort (and risk to their money) to give it a try. Nor does there seem to be any legal way to prevent 'em, apart from the obvious matter that any misrepresentation about their visibility and usability would violate local laws found in pretty much every jurisdiction around the world. But if consumers are given the information to make knowing and informed choices - then such laws would not usually apply. As for my .ewe TLD - it runs and resolves names. It is in several of the non NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zones. However, as I mentioned, many, if not all, of those are abysmally run and do not have accurate delegation records. The .ewe online registration system is only partially formed, but I have provided several registrations using the same method used when I originally got my domain names (usually from the NIC at SRI) - by direct contact. That hardly makes .ewe invalid. It is only because ICANN acts as a combination in restraint of trade that .ewe - and for that matter IOD's .web - have not had a chance to succeed (or flop) on their own merits. If we were to simply change our mental attitudes - remove the dogma that says that we have to knee jerk condemn any attempt to create a new root system outside the NTIA/Verisign/ICANN root zone definition - then perhaps we might see whether the natural forces of innovation would give us a way out of the centralized, single point of failure for the internet caused by the NTIA/ICANN approach. We should recognize that NTIA/ICANN have poisoned the soil by anathametizing any attempt to exist outside their catholic [lower case 'c'] NTIA/ICANN church-of-the-single-root. After ICANN's year 2000 expropriation of $2,000,000 in TLD application fees and the 7 year limbo for those 40 applicants, investment interest has shifted elsewhere. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Thu Nov 15 18:03:07 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, adjectives and perorations aside, do you have a view on the coordination of alternative roots that does not either devolve to the ICANN model or create a new, additional, yet-to-be-designed entity to manage the coordination? A large number of people in the technology, policy, and interface fields have not taken a dogmatic view about alt-roots, just answered that question in a logical, thorough way, carrying the reasoning thoroughly, and repeatedly found that, as a previous posting said, the single-root system in use is the "best worst", and some even find it good. Can you provide the argumentation for the opposite case you advocate, and thus an answer to the question? Please note that in advance exchange for your sparing me the "poisoning" etc. rhetoric I am not quoting any of the adjectives expressed today in arguments contrary to yours. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:17:21 -0800 > From: Karl Auerbach > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Karl Auerbach > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Phil Regnauld > Cc: Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: > [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system > > > I can see that we are diametrically of different minds on the desirability of > competing root systems - provided that they are consistent with one another > (I suspect that neither of us want inconsistent root systems to arise and, if > they did, we would both hope that internet users would shun them back into > non-existence.) > > I'm glad you did not raise the non-issue that competing roots are > technologically impossible or would cause the internet sky to fall, the stock > markets to collapse, and the internet revert to paper tape carried by pigeons > (IP over Avian Carrier - RFC1149). > > The main point that I draw from our discussion is that competing roots, while > clearly subject to disagreement about their merits, are feasible and, indeed, > can not be technically prevented should someone undertake the effort (and > risk to their money) to give it a try. > > Nor does there seem to be any legal way to prevent 'em, apart from the > obvious matter that any misrepresentation about their visibility and > usability would violate local laws found in pretty much every jurisdiction > around the world. But if consumers are given the information to make knowing > and informed choices - then such laws would not usually apply. > > As for my .ewe TLD - it runs and resolves names. It is in several of the non > NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zones. However, as I mentioned, many, if not all, > of those are abysmally run and do not have accurate delegation records. The > .ewe online registration system is only partially formed, but I have provided > several registrations using the same method used when I originally got my > domain names (usually from the NIC at SRI) - by direct contact. > > That hardly makes .ewe invalid. It is only because ICANN acts as a > combination in restraint of trade that .ewe - and for that matter IOD's .web > - have not had a chance to succeed (or flop) on their own merits. > > If we were to simply change our mental attitudes - remove the dogma that says > that we have to knee jerk condemn any attempt to create a new root system > outside the NTIA/Verisign/ICANN root zone definition - then perhaps we might > see whether the natural forces of innovation would give us a way out of the > centralized, single point of failure for the internet caused by the > NTIA/ICANN approach. > > We should recognize that NTIA/ICANN have poisoned the soil by anathametizing > any attempt to exist outside their catholic [lower case 'c'] NTIA/ICANN > church-of-the-single-root. After ICANN's year 2000 expropriation of > $2,000,000 in TLD application fees and the 7 year limbo for those 40 > applicants, investment interest has shifted elsewhere. > > --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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 18:29:36 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:29:36 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> Meryem Marzouki [15/11/07 19:14 +0100]: >> Stick to the existing root server model? Definitely, yes. > > Not necessarily. Sincerely, I fail to see how or where altering the current root server structure is going to help with improving and/or modifying gTLD and ccTLD governance processes, creation of additional TLDs etc. Yes, people have advanced various arguments for this but I remain unconvinced. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 18:32:03 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:32:03 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> Phil Regnauld [15/11/07 22:17 +0100]: >Karl Auerbach (karl) writes: This is starting to feel like deja vu from several such arguments on circleid.com, tell you the truth. Karl's got a fixed set of opinions that arent going to change - not after long, long argument (and I seem to recall drawing your analogy about uucp maps in a discussion with him on circleid not too long back, so this thread is proceeding along entirely too familiar lines, I assure you) srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Nov 15 19:38:49 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:38:49 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > ... do you have a view on the coordination > of alternative roots that does not either devolve to the ICANN model or > create a new, additional, yet-to-be-designed entity to manage the > coordination? The mechanism that I have suggested - a mechanism that can be done today without anyone asking permission of anyone - requires no external coordination at all. Those who run root systems that provide inconsistent contents will create user surprise. Users directly or via their proxies (i.e. their ISP's) will avoid those root systems that create such surprises. Users do not need some $50,000,000 a year bureaucracy to "coordinate" away surprise any more than they need a bloated bureaucracy to tell 'em to avoid a stinky skunk. Remember Monty Python's Tobacconist Sketch? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Hungarian_Phrasebook - A competing root that surprises users would be like that ill mannered phrasebook. Once its character became known its use would plummet (except as a novelty.) As for the "coordination" of making sure that .com (and the other TLDs found in the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone) remain "pure" - that's the province of trademark law - Verisign, for example, plenty of legal tools to ensure that no body markets a TLD product using the .com name. PIR, similarly, has the power to use trademark law to shut down anybody who offers a ".org" that isn't PIR's version. > A large number of people in the technology, policy, and interface fields > have not taken a dogmatic view about alt-roots, just answered that > question in a logical, thorough way, carrying the reasoning thoroughly, > and repeatedly found that, as a previous posting said, the single-root > system in use is the "best worst", and some even find it good. I strongly disagree. ICANN's own statement on this matter was simply a self-protective creation based on thin air. And the IAB's statement is social engineering based on what they would like the internet to look like rather than a document filled with compelling technical arguments. Such statements are typically filled with the "logic" that knows what users need and want more than do the users themselves. The paternalism in these statements resembles the kind of thing that came out of King Leopold of Belgium and Queen Victoria of England in their systems of colonial governance during the the 19th century when the standards of the European upper classes were applied, often quite ruthlessly, onto indigenous cultures in Asia, the Pacific islands, and especially Africa. It is long past time when the US, NTIA, and NTIA's creation, ICANN, ceased telling internet users how to use the internet. The internet is not some creation to enforce Borg-like uniformity, rather it is an instrumentality that we hope will empower individual creativity, group cohesion, and bring human aspirations closer to fruition. Users of the net have every right to shape their view of the internet landscape in accord with their values and ideas. If that means that some people outside their group have a hard time reaching in then so be it. Do we condemn the Amish communities in Pennsylvania because they chose not to have telephones and thus deny telemarketer the ability to call and interrupt their evening prayer? Yet that seems to be the logic underlying many of the catholic [again, lower case 'c'] singular root arguments. Moreover, competing roots have existed for years - I went forth and used them for several years for myself and my company - they do not cause things to break. Look at the ORSN, a competing root system - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Root_Server_Network - is it dangerous and to be condemned? Remember, the key word here is "consistency". Taiwan ran for about a year using its own root system - it was so transparent that they forgot they were using it and it was only when I discovered it and bought that fact to the attention of ICANN was it disabled. By-the-way, it has long been my position that the internet runs best when run on the basis of the End-to-End principle and when users at the edges make the choices, not centralized bureaucracies, such as ICANN. That is why I have proposed this ( http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html ) First Law of the Internet + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. Consequently, those who are on the side of demanding the suppression of competing roots have the burden to demonstrate, with clear and convincing evidence, that competing roots cause public detriment. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Nov 15 19:47:45 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:47:45 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> Message-ID: <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Phil Regnauld [15/11/07 22:17 +0100]: > Karl's got a fixed set of opinions that arent going to change Yup. But that hardly means that my arguments are wrong. If tenacity is proof that an idea is wrong, then I guess you would also have to say that ICANN's idea of one catholic root is also wrong. Ultimately it comes down to this: Where is the source of power, of legal authority, to deny existence to those who wish to offer competing DNS roots? There is none. --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 pr+governance at x0.dk Thu Nov 15 19:59:01 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:59:01 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071116005901.GE10033@macbook.catpipe.net> Karl Auerbach (karl) writes: > > Where is the source of power, of legal authority, to deny existence to those > who wish to offer competing DNS roots? > > There is none. Indeed, but that still doesn't make the alternatives more useful or practical for most if not all users. You could argue that ICANN knows this, that the inertia of the existing system makes it very hard to come up with an alternative (and rightly so -- it works very well as it is), but then that wouldn't be anything new, would it ? You might even go further and say that the reason why ccTLDs are strongly encouraged to enter a contract with ICANN is that it helps ICANN add much needed support to its questioned legitimacy. And I wouldn't argue. So no, no source of power, or legal authority, can deny existence of these roots. And ? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Thu Nov 15 20:04:45 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:04:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, thanks a lot for putting in the effort. You even managed to use disqualifying terminology very scarcely. When followed consequently your argument still doesn't hold. And, there may be some among us who even enjoy your note more when you once again go into the Victorian and so on but the logic stopped earlier. The coordination layer, the avoidance of "user surprise" or at least keeping it within acceptable levels, etc. are more fraught than you suggest. As Suresh has already stated, we've come full circle yet again. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:38:49 -0800 > From: Karl Auerbach > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Karl Auerbach > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: > [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system > > Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > >> ... do you have a view on the coordination of alternative roots that does >> not either devolve to the ICANN model or create a new, additional, >> yet-to-be-designed entity to manage the coordination? > > The mechanism that I have suggested - a mechanism that can be done today > without anyone asking permission of anyone - requires no external > coordination at all. > > Those who run root systems that provide inconsistent contents will create > user surprise. Users directly or via their proxies (i.e. their ISP's) will > avoid those root systems that create such surprises. Users do not need some > $50,000,000 a year bureaucracy to "coordinate" away surprise any more than > they need a bloated bureaucracy to tell 'em to avoid a stinky skunk. > > Remember Monty Python's Tobacconist Sketch? - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Hungarian_Phrasebook - A competing root > that surprises users would be like that ill mannered phrasebook. Once its > character became known its use would plummet (except as a novelty.) > > As for the "coordination" of making sure that .com (and the other TLDs found > in the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone) remain "pure" - that's the province of > trademark law - Verisign, for example, plenty of legal tools to ensure that > no body markets a TLD product using the .com name. PIR, similarly, has the > power to use trademark law to shut down anybody who offers a ".org" that > isn't PIR's version. > > >> A large number of people in the technology, policy, and interface fields >> have not taken a dogmatic view about alt-roots, just answered that question >> in a logical, thorough way, carrying the reasoning thoroughly, and >> repeatedly found that, as a previous posting said, the single-root system >> in use is the "best worst", and some even find it good. > > I strongly disagree. ICANN's own statement on this matter was simply a > self-protective creation based on thin air. And the IAB's statement is > social engineering based on what they would like the internet to look like > rather than a document filled with compelling technical arguments. > > Such statements are typically filled with the "logic" that institution name here> knows what users need and want more than do the users > themselves. The paternalism in these statements resembles the kind of thing > that came out of King Leopold of Belgium and Queen Victoria of England in > their systems of colonial governance during the the 19th century when the > standards of the European upper classes were applied, often quite ruthlessly, > onto indigenous cultures in Asia, the Pacific islands, and especially Africa. > > It is long past time when the US, NTIA, and NTIA's creation, ICANN, ceased > telling internet users how to use the internet. The internet is not some > creation to enforce Borg-like uniformity, rather it is an instrumentality > that we hope will empower individual creativity, group cohesion, and bring > human aspirations closer to fruition. > > Users of the net have every right to shape their view of the internet > landscape in accord with their values and ideas. If that means that some > people outside their group have a hard time reaching in then so be it. Do we > condemn the Amish communities in Pennsylvania because they chose not to have > telephones and thus deny telemarketer the ability to call and interrupt their > evening prayer? Yet that seems to be the logic underlying many of the > catholic [again, lower case 'c'] singular root arguments. > > Moreover, competing roots have existed for years - I went forth and used them > for several years for myself and my company - they do not cause things to > break. > > Look at the ORSN, a competing root system - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Root_Server_Network - is it dangerous and > to be condemned? > > Remember, the key word here is "consistency". > > Taiwan ran for about a year using its own root system - it was so transparent > that they forgot they were using it and it was only when I discovered it and > bought that fact to the attention of ICANN was it disabled. > > By-the-way, it has long been my position that the internet runs best when run > on the basis of the End-to-End principle and when users at the edges make the > choices, not centralized bureaucracies, such as ICANN. > > That is why I have proposed this ( > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html ) > > First Law of the Internet > > + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately > beneficial without being publicly detrimental. > > - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish > to prevent the private use. > > - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of > public detriment. > > - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the > suppression of the private activity. > > Consequently, those who are on the side of demanding the suppression of > competing roots have the burden to demonstrate, with clear and convincing > evidence, that competing roots cause public detriment. > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Nov 15 20:07:34 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:07:34 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071116005901.GE10033@macbook.catpipe.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> <20071116005901.GE10033@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <473CED56.9010702@cavebear.com> Phil Regnauld wrote: > So no, no source of power, or legal authority, can deny existence of > these roots. And ? Three things: 1. It becomes a matter of competitive pressures rather than governance. 2. Statements such as ICANN's condemnation of new.net and ICP3 are more readily perceived as attempts to preserve ICANN's rather privileged position through means that could, depending on the jurisdiction, be construed as "unfair" and even "unlawful". 3. In the forums of internet governance it them becomes clear that there are alternatives to a singular worldwide overlording bureaucracy of names. --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 narten at us.ibm.com Thu Nov 15 20:19:08 2007 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:19:08 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <200711160119.lAG1J8XG031801@localhost.localdomain> Karl Auerbach writes: > Let's go back to my premise - consistency. Competing DNS roots that > are consistent will lead to minimal degrees of user surprise. If they are consistent, in effect, there is only a single root. > Are you surprised when you go into a super market and it has some > extra boutique products on its shelves in addition to all of the > standard, expected brands? No, you aren't. So why should users be > surprised when they find that through a competing root they get the > familiar .com, .net, .org, .arpa, .biz, .info and the 250 ccTLDs > plus a few new boutique TLDs? The only case that matters, is when they things are inconsistent -- what one user sees differs from what another one sees. Or what works in one place, doesn't work the same way in another. And without someone or something resolving disputes -- deciding who gets to own ".ewe", there will be problems for users. A more apt supermarket analogy would be to go into a supermarket, buy the package labeled "applepie.mytld", but later find that what was in the package wasn't what you expected. And when you go to a different supermarket, and see a package with the exact same label, it's yet again something different. I suspect that most consumers would not find shopping in such an environment very pleasant. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 20:25:07 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:55:07 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <002101c827ef$875c76b0$96156410$@net> Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Where is the source of power, of legal authority, to deny existence to > those who wish to offer competing DNS roots? > > There is none. > No legal authority as such. However, there's no shortage of crackpot alternate roots already out there. Like there's no shortage of people holding up signs that the world is going to end sometime before next Saturday .. or is it the Saturday after that. And there's no legal requirement that such crackpot alternate roots be adopted, or endorsed by a global operator community either. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Thu Nov 15 20:28:20 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:28:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473CED56.9010702@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> <20071116005901.GE10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CED56.9010702@cavebear.com> Message-ID: I would distinguish between new.net & IPC3. The new.net issue was difficult -- consumers were being sold something that for man wasn't what they thought they were getting unless they read the fine print very very carefully. I have no beef with people who were dubious and who counseled against it. And new.net was very greedy about gobbling names and causing collisions of its own. It did not play nice. ICP3, on the other hand, was odd and not at all admirable in its gestation. See http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/10/130744 for details. On the underlying issue, it's clear that alternate roots, if properly managed and properly promoted, are safe and legal, but not of interest to most people at present. They are not all that useful for most people due to the network effects (the root's value is tied to the size of the installed user base). It's also clear that ICANN does not feel at all shy about name collisions, further casting a cloud over a monied deployment of any new namespace. It's hard at present to see the value proposition given the risks for investors, which is why it's not happening. Economics, not law, I think. On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Phil Regnauld wrote: > >> So no, no source of power, or legal authority, can deny existence of >> these roots. And ? > > Three things: > > 1. It becomes a matter of competitive pressures rather than governance. > > 2. Statements such as ICANN's condemnation of new.net and ICP3 are more > readily perceived as attempts to preserve ICANN's rather privileged position > through means that could, depending on the jurisdiction, be construed as > "unfair" and even "unlawful". > > 3. In the forums of internet governance it them becomes clear that there > are alternatives to a singular worldwide overlording bureaucracy of names. > -- 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Nov 15 20:47:53 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:47:53 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> <20071116005901.GE10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CED56.9010702@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <473CF6C9.9090507@cavebear.com> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > I would distinguish between new.net & IPC3. I agree that new.net did a poor job informing consumers about what they were getting - which makes it a consumer mis/representation issue rather than a matter of internet governance. I was thinking of some of the statements made by ICANN management that went beyond that and tried to create an image in the press that new.net offered technology that was dangerous - which it was not - and thus was bordering (to my mind on the wrong side of the border) of commercial defamation or interference with another's contractual relationships. (I vaguely remember some legal action being contemplated against ICANN on this basis. I do not know if it ever occurred or not.) > On the underlying issue, it's clear that alternate roots, ... It's hard at present to see the value > proposition given the risks for investors, which is why it's not > happening. Economics, not law, I think. And that is precisely the point of my discussion - competing roots are an economic and business matter, not a matter of internet governance. As I have suggested before, there is a potential commercial value: Most people forget that the traffic that hits root servers almost always contains the full domain name being queried. Consequently root servers are in an admirable position to do data gathering and apply statistical methods to produce a real-time stream of "what's hot and what's not" on the internet. For example, by using the queries coming into a root server, an advertiser during the US Superbowl game could evaluate the effectiveness of its competitor's adds (at least those that contain URL's) and react with counter-ads before the game is over. Of course that marketing data is of value and accuracy in accord with the number of queries going to those roots. And thus there is a startup issue: How to drive queries to those roots? The answer is to take a cue from Google - pay people to use the competing root. Send a check for $100 for every million queries that a user/ISP sends to a given root system. That, just like Google's AdSense program, could prove a real attractant. (Of course, like Google's AdSense there would have to be protection against synthetic clicks or queries and an caching would have to be taking into account [i.e. a user should not receive more $$ if he/she turned of caching in his/her DNS resolver.] But those are problems that I am sure could be constrained, if not completely eliminated.) There are other commercial forces that would be unleashed by relaxing the dogma that the internet must have one catholic root. For example, the current TLD business model is filled with rather expensive ICANN mandated bells and whistles - yearly cycling being the most obvious, whois and the use of registrars being next in line. I figure that a streamlined business model could get the cost of names down to a few cents per year, or less - rather less than the $7 level that ICANN has gifted unto Verisign. The savings to internet users could be enormous - by my estimate ICANN has created a system that extracts over 1/2 of a billion dollars every year as a gift to the registry operators - Versign, PIR, etc. It would be nice if internet users had a choice. And yes, there should be enough information so that it could be an informed choice. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Nov 15 21:08:43 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:08:43 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <002101c827ef$875c76b0$96156410$@net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> <002101c827ef$875c76b0$96156410$@net> Message-ID: <473CFBAB.9060304@cavebear.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> Where is the source of power, of legal authority, to deny existence to >> those who wish to offer competing DNS roots? > No legal authority as such. > > However, there's no shortage of crackpot alternate roots already out there. I agree completely. This whole issue has been colored by the absolutely terrible operational behavior of most competing root operators. They have often been completely disorganized and sometimes engaged in overt violation of broadly accepted and practiced written internet technical standards. I was quite disgusted with many of them. And in contrast the behavior of the legacy root operators has been so superlative (yet under appreciated) that they have created a gold standard that any other should strive to attain. But none of this vitiates the fact that consistent - again I stress the word consistent - competing roots are a valid tool. --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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 21:14:29 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:44:29 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473CFBAB.9060304@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> <002101c827ef$875c76b0$96156410$@net> <473CFBAB.9060304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <003401c827f6$6d5d0570$48171050$@net> Karl Auerbach wrote: > And in contrast the behavior of the legacy root operators has been so > superlative (yet under appreciated) that they have created a gold > standard that any other should strive to attain. > > But none of this vitiates the fact that consistent - again I stress the > word consistent - competing roots are a valid tool. This is like that old recipe for rabbit pie - first catch your rabbit In other words, find an alternate root that is not run by a loon, has a well designed operational model + interoperability (and the "cred" to interoperate, in the operator community) + ensures uniqueness etc. One that actually exists, not a gedankenexperiment like Schrodingers cat. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 23:43:57 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:43:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Query: do we have a sense of how many were participating online? Message-ID: <45ed74050711152043i756df188l1de84e6a11d2ac3d@mail.gmail.com> 1. I guess many in Rio were also participating online, from The Venue... and we out here were interacting with them too, quite nice. 2. But do we have a sense of how many were participating online from elsewhere? Could be quite helpful, this or any related data. Or guestimates. Many thanks, LDMF. *Respectful Interfaces* -------------- 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 Fri Nov 16 05:21:53 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:21:53 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> Message-ID: <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> Le 16 nov. 07 à 00:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki [15/11/07 19:14 +0100]: >>> Stick to the existing root server model? Definitely, yes. >> >> Not necessarily. > > Sincerely, I fail to see how or where altering the current root server > structure is going to help with improving and/or modifying gTLD and > ccTLD > governance processes, creation of additional TLDs etc. The point is that I don't see any other workable way to de(-) construct the "one root, one ICANN (, one government)" rethoric -- and actual situation. Frankly, I fail to see how a "better", while still unique, ICANN can be achieved. The key is in decentralization: many roots, many "ICANNs", many governements and non-governement entities, each root being sovereign in defining its own policies (TLD creation, rules related to content, property, dispute resolution, etc.: one can list here all the problems seen with ICANN till now and for the decades to come), while ensuring at global governance level consistency and neutrality in resolving and routing. In current situation, the whole system is working good from a technical point of view. The change may not improve it, but it wont make it worse. But from the policy side, it can certainly not be worse from a general interest point of view. So, the only obstacles to try decentralization - or, as a start, to discuss it - are the strong lobbies of those defending their privileges on the one hand and inertia on the other hand. None is negligible. Inertia is really hard to fight. But the idea of decentralizing different roots, sovereign in defining their internal policies, may find many strong allies. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Nov 16 05:49:45 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:49:45 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> Meryem, While I am not a technical expert, and would not go into discussion on that level, I'd strongly argue from a policy maker's perspective against multiple roots, multiple DNS, where every country or may be even more - every group, or every individual (as Karl would probably add) have their own root, domains, IP address issuing, etc. Why? There are several concerns: 1. The current model is working. The Russian saying is "if it is working, don't touch it". It is not an accident that this is a Russian saying. Think about it. 2. While some people, mainly driven from theoretical experience, say that "there is a better model" and advice to build it on the ground of the experience built during the ICANN era, I have not seen a software that will show us how the "new" model will work. Something like a cover version of a softwae game (sorry, forgot its name) where one starts asd a mayor and has to build a whole city. And every move makes different things happening. Do we really want to move into a new model, without knowing what is going to happen? 3. Law and law-enforcement problems 4. Spam, phishing, pharming and everything else that the IGF doesn't really want to address seriously (and there are many arguments why it doesn't) I am not defending ICANN for the sake of defending it. I speak based on my own experience in creating an internet-friendly environment in a whole country. Those of you who have been at the Best Practices Forum on Wednesday have heard what a vital model it is, and how it provides both economic growth and protects the human rights. I wish we could see more countries like Bulgaria vis-à-vis the governance of the Internet. While I don't have anything against discussing theoretical models, the attempts to push forward one or another model built on theories I find extremly dangerous. When we were building our IG model in Bulgaria, we had everyone on the rouns table. Noone was excluded, and each opinion was taken into account. The most difficult part - making sure the government in 1999 understood what are the benefits. Since then we have now third government in a row, which understands better the way the Internet works. ISOC-Bulgaria did a lot to educate our government. Sometimes I wish we have done more of this education on an international level. So, to wrap up the discussion - before we push things for a change, let us see where is this change leading us, and - more importantly - what are the motives behind the proposed changes. Only then we'll be able to reach to the answer of the question "who is to benefit of that?". That is how we made our model working in Bulgaria, and I don't think we should eliminate this practical experience just because someone may not like the fact that it means writing off their theories. Best, Veni Via blackberry On 11/16/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 16 nov. 07 à 00:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > > > Meryem Marzouki [15/11/07 19:14 +0100]: > >>> Stick to the existing root server model? Definitely, yes. > >> > >> Not necessarily. > > > > Sincerely, I fail to see how or where altering the current root server > > structure is going to help with improving and/or modifying gTLD and > > ccTLD > > governance processes, creation of additional TLDs etc. > > The point is that I don't see any other workable way to de(-) > construct the "one root, one ICANN (, one government)" rethoric -- > and actual situation. > Frankly, I fail to see how a "better", while still unique, ICANN can > be achieved. > The key is in decentralization: many roots, many "ICANNs", many > governements and non-governement entities, each root being sovereign > in defining its own policies (TLD creation, rules related to content, > property, dispute resolution, etc.: one can list here all the > problems seen with ICANN till now and for the decades to come), while > ensuring at global governance level consistency and neutrality in > resolving and routing. > > In current situation, the whole system is working good from a > technical point of view. The change may not improve it, but it wont > make it worse. > But from the policy side, it can certainly not be worse from a > general interest point of view. > So, the only obstacles to try decentralization - or, as a start, to > discuss it - are the strong lobbies of those defending their > privileges on the one hand and inertia on the other hand. None is > negligible. Inertia is really hard to fight. But the idea of > decentralizing different roots, sovereign in defining their internal > policies, may find many strong allies. > > Best, > Meryem > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Nov 16 06:47:26 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:47:26 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41F7667D-77F0-4BA9-8AD8-43BEADF400F9@ras.eu.org> Le 16 nov. 07 à 11:49, Veni Markovski a écrit : > Meryem, > While I am not a technical expert, and would not go into discussion on > that level, I'd strongly argue from a policy maker's perspective > against multiple roots, multiple DNS, where every country or may be > even more - every group, or every individual (as Karl would probably > add) have their own root, domains, IP address issuing, etc. Why? > > There are several concerns: > > 1. The current model is working. The Russian saying is "if it is > working, don't touch it". It is not an accident that this is a Russian > saying. Think about it. My dear Veni, I'm afraid this kind of saying exists almost everywhere. It simply illustrates conservatism, inertia, lazziness, fear of any new idea, defense of privilege, etc. No, the current model is not working. It's technically working, but it's not politically working. From a general interest public policy view, it's an entire failure. And, while I'm fair in acknowledging that it is politically working in the views of some, I'd appreciate same fairness in ackowledging that for many others it doesn't work. Consequently, there is no reason to stop a discussion on how it should be changed. > 2. While some people, mainly driven from theoretical experience, say > that "there is a better model" and advice to build it on the ground of > the experience built during the ICANN era, I have not seen a software > that will show us how the "new" model will work. Something like a > cover version of a softwae game (sorry, forgot its name) where one > starts asd a mayor and has to build a whole city. And every move makes > different things happening. Do we really want to move into a new > model, without knowing what is going to happen? We don't need software simulations: thinking and exchanging arguments, including devil's advocate arguments - provided that it's in good faith - would be enough to put to the proof any proposal. And I would recommend here to consider the Russian's genius in chess rather than in sayings. > 3. Law and law-enforcement problems What does that mean exactly? It needs precision. Which law, where to enforce it, for which crime or offence? And do you really think these problems are currently solved? > 4. Spam, phishing, pharming and everything else that the IGF doesn't > really want to address seriously (and there are many arguments why it > doesn't) Do you seriously mean that such problems would be created, that they don't already exist? > I am not defending ICANN for the sake of defending it. Certainly not.. > While I don't have anything against discussing theoretical models, the > attempts to push forward one or another model built on theories I find > extremly dangerous. Like what? > So, to wrap up the discussion - before we push things for a change, > let us see where is this change leading us, yes, let's do this. > and - more importantly - > what are the motives behind the proposed changes. Have been largely explained. > Only then we'll be > able to reach to the answer of the question "who is to benefit of > that?". What is granted, is that we already know the answer to this question in the current situation. That's a good start. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 16 06:54:05 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:24:05 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <41F7667D-77F0-4BA9-8AD8-43BEADF400F9@ras.eu.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <41F7667D-77F0-4BA9-8AD8-43BEADF400F9@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <008001c82847$65239940$2f6acbc0$@net> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > My dear Veni, I'm afraid this kind of saying exists almost > everywhere. It simply illustrates conservatism, inertia, lazziness, > fear of any new idea, defense of privilege, etc. No, the current > model is not working. It's technically working, but it's not > politically working. From a general interest public policy view, it's Umm.. if it doesn't work technically, it just doesn't work, period. If it doesn't work politically, what globally scoped / international initiative "works" in that sense? Especially when, if you herd most of the IGF attendees into a room, shut your eyes and pick any four, oh let's see .. Auerbach, Mueller, me and (say) our friend the Cameroonian journalist, getting them to achieve consensus among each other is going to be almost impossible (assuming that all the parties even have an idea of just how to do it - ideals, ideology and rhetoric don't quite qualify) > in good faith - would be enough to put to the proof any proposal. And > I would recommend here to consider the Russian's genius in chess > rather than in sayings. Oh, it is not just Russian. The Americans tend to say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Oooh, look.. consensus. If at least in folk wisdom. > What does that mean exactly? It needs precision. Which law, where to > enforce it, for which crime or offence? And do you really think these > problems are currently solved? And what, in this new and hopefully decentralized system of igov, is going to lead to a solution for this? Criminal law enforcement tends to work and has evolved along fairly sound lines, over decades before there was an Arpanet even. > Do you seriously mean that such problems would be created, that they > don't already exist? No. Just entirely that much harder to solve. regards suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Nov 16 08:06:32 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:06:32 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <41F7667D-77F0-4BA9-8AD8-43BEADF400F9@ras.eu.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <41F7667D-77F0-4BA9-8AD8-43BEADF400F9@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071116130856.5028C2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 12:47 11/16/2007 +0100, you wrote: >>1. The current model is working. The Russian saying is "if it is >>working, don't touch it". It is not an accident that this is a Russian >>saying. Think about it. > >My dear Veni, I'm afraid this kind of saying exists almost >everywhere. No, actually it doesn't. The western world has a different one - "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". A little differene, but an important one. >fear of any new idea, defense of privilege, etc. No, the current >model is not working. It's technically working, but it's not >politically working. From a general interest public policy view, it's >an entire failure. And, while I'm fair in acknowledging that it is >politically working in the views of some, I'd appreciate same >fairness in ackowledging that for many others it doesn't work. Well, Meryem, but then... everything goes under this line, right? People would always agree on their disagreement. What I mean, though, and I tried to make it clear, is that there are places, where the public-private partnership is working. And if there are such places, perhaps one could try to study them. >Consequently, there is no reason to stop a discussion on how it >should be changed. Discussions are alwyas good, especially if people have questions, and there is someone to answer them. If the discussion is taking place for the sake of the discussion, then I have some objections to that. >We don't need software simulations: thinking and exchanging >arguments, including devil's advocate arguments - provided that it's >in good faith - would be enough to put to the proof any proposal. And Well, you have several points here: a) you say you don't need software simulations, I say you need one. b) you want the thinking to be "in good faith", and it will be quite difficult to define that "good" and that "faith". I am sure there are people who do in "good faith" terrible things. c) there's a simple example from the game - do you think military bases are good for the city, or bad? >I would recommend here to consider the Russian's genius in chess >rather than in sayings. Well, you may have different recommendations. Some would say they prefer Bobby Fisher to Gary Kasparov. I'd say - take a look at his book "How life imitates chess" and see which of his thousands of games he consideres the best. >>3. Law and law-enforcement problems > >What does that mean exactly? It needs precision. Which law, where to >enforce it, for which crime or offence? And do you really think these >problems are currently solved? What I think is in the following lines: do you think these problems will be easier to solve in a DNS world which is not coordinated? Or which is, relying on "good faith" >>4. Spam, phishing, pharming and everything else that the IGF doesn't >>really want to address seriously (and there are many arguments why it >>doesn't) > >Do you seriously mean that such problems would be created, that they >don't already exist? Do you seriously think such problems will not escalate in times, considering they already exist? >>While I don't have anything against discussing theoretical models, the >>attempts to push forward one or another model built on theories I find >>extremly dangerous. > >Like what? Like screwing something that is working. I hear you "the current model doesn't work", but a) I don't see you offering an alternative b) explaining what is that you think doesn't work (and let's save the users' interests - the users are interested that they have Internet connection. I bet 99% of them don't know that there's ISOC, ICANN, IETF, IAB, EDRI, etc.) >>Only then we'll be >>able to reach to the answer of the question "who is to benefit of >>that?". > >What is granted, is that we already know the answer to this question >in the current situation. That's a good start. You say you know the answer. I don't know it. I may have some doubts that there are people who are interested to have this constant discussion for the sake of the discussion, but since I have no proofs, I can't put it in writing. It's only driven by experience and talks to people. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Nov 16 08:21:37 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:21:37 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <008001c82847$65239940$2f6acbc0$@net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <41F7667D-77F0-4BA9-8AD8-43BEADF400F9@ras.eu.org> <008001c82847$65239940$2f6acbc0$@net> Message-ID: Le 16 nov. 07 à 12:54, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> My dear Veni, I'm afraid this kind of saying exists almost >> everywhere. It simply illustrates conservatism, inertia, lazziness, >> fear of any new idea, defense of privilege, etc. No, the current >> model is not working. It's technically working, but it's not >> politically working. From a general interest public policy view, it's > > Umm.. if it doesn't work technically, it just doesn't work, period. > > If it doesn't work politically, what globally scoped / international > initiative "works" in that sense? One that is based on (1) decentralization, (2) minimal global consistency and neutrality rules and (3) sovereignty in policy making at its terminal nodes. Doesn't this kind of architecture sound familiar? >> What does that mean exactly? It needs precision. Which law, where to >> enforce it, for which crime or offence? And do you really think these >> problems are currently solved? > > And what, in this new and hopefully decentralized system of igov, > is going > to lead to a solution for this? Let's follow some common sense methodology: first, what is exactly the new problem? >> Do you seriously mean that such problems would be created, that they >> don't already exist? > > No. Just entirely that much harder to solve. I'm amazed at how one can come to such a conclusion while not even considering the situation where the problems could occur.. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Nov 16 09:32:59 2007 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:32:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <200711161433.lAGEWxpe019402@localhost.localdomain> Karl Auerbach writes: > Since you mentioned DNSSEC: I have a question that has not been clearly > answered. > Suppose we have an internet with some very large DNSSEC signed zone > files - let's use .com as a hypothetical model with roughly 70,000,000 > items today. > Suppose that due to some systemic failure - for instance a software > upgrade gone bad - that all or most of the servers for that zone go down > (or worse, crash). Note: DNSSEC is irrelevant to this question. The above is a potential problem for any large zone. That said, the operators of large zones of course know about this and go to great lengths to ensure it doesn't happen. This is no different than any significant service that has to run 7x24 with NO downtime allowed, for any reason. That .com hasn't had such an outage is no accident, I would bet. > How long will it take for those servers to come up again and provide > name resolution services? In other words how long for the systems to do > the necessary file system checks (fsck) and checking of the zone file > signatures? Again, in the context of DNSSEC, the answer is still mostly the same. First, it should be pointed out that restarting a zone after a failure does NOT require the checking (or rechecking) of ANY of the zone signatures. The DNSSEC design is such that the signing of the data can be done offline on another machine, with the zone data itself (including all DNSSEC signatures) being treated as just normal data when a nameserver restarts. (If the server did the signing itself, the keys would need to be available to the server, which means the keys themselves would be open to compromise should the nameserver become compromised.) My understanding is that the additional data that goes with a signed zone typically increases the overall size of the zone by only a factor of 2-4, though YMMV. Even an order of magnitude increase in the size of the zone file would not add that much. And, w.r.t. your point about needing to run "fsck" on the disc data, you are making the assumption that the zone file is stored in a typical Unix file system, an assumption that is probably false. In this day and age (and for the requirements) it may well be that the zone data is stored in other ways, precisely so that reloading can be faster. But now you are asking about details that I do not have direct knowledge of. You need to ask an operator of a large zone. But a final point that should be made is that running fsck (if it is needed) is only a small part of restarting a zone after catastrophic failure. So I doubt DNSSEC changes the overall picture very much. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Nov 16 09:48:04 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:48:04 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071116130856.5028C2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <41F7667D-77F0-4BA9-8AD8-43BEADF400F9@ras.eu.org> <20071116130856.5028C2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <9F4059A1-4CA3-4CA2-9AA2-6E59953BC02A@ras.eu.org> Le 16 nov. 07 à 14:06, Veni Markovski a écrit : > At 12:47 11/16/2007 +0100, you wrote: >>> 1. The current model is working. The Russian saying is "if it is >>> working, don't touch it". It is not an accident that this is a >>> Russian >>> saying. Think about it. >> >> My dear Veni, I'm afraid this kind of saying exists almost >> everywhere. > > No, actually it doesn't. The western world has a different one - > "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". A little differene, but an > important one. As you're well aware, there are other parts of the world. And even the western world is not restricted to what you seem to think it is. Since we are in our folk wisdom discovering session, next time you can use the French: "On ne change pas une équipe qui gagne" (never change a winning team) or even the Arabic, at least the Tunisian saying, probably better fitting our current case: (warning: bad phonetics) "ched mchumek la yjik ma achwem" -- very defeatist, actually. >> What I mean, though, and I tried to make it clear, is that there >> are places, where the public-private partnership is working. And >> if there are such places, perhaps one could try to study them. What we are discussing has nothing to do with public-private partnership. You can do with or without them, that's not the point. >> We don't need software simulations: thinking and exchanging >> arguments, including devil's advocate arguments - provided that it's >> in good faith - would be enough to put to the proof any proposal. And > > Well, you have several points here: > a) you say you don't need software simulations, I say you need one. > b) you want the thinking to be "in good faith", and it will be > quite difficult to define that "good" and that "faith". I am sure > there are people who do in "good faith" terrible things. > c) there's a simple example from the game - do you think military > bases are good for the city, or bad? When we would need another folk wisdom session, just let me know, as there are other French sayings for this kind of answer. >>> 3. Law and law-enforcement problems >> >> What does that mean exactly? It needs precision. Which law, where to >> enforce it, for which crime or offence? And do you really think these >> problems are currently solved? > > What I think is in the following lines: do you think these problems > will be easier to solve in a DNS world which is not coordinated? Or > which is, relying on "good faith" What do you mean by "coordinated"? Having the same laws everywhere? Having one world LEA? If you don't mean this, then I don't see what a decentralized root architecture would change anything w.r.t. to current situation, with current laws and (cooperating, BTW) law enforcement systems. Again, could you please make your question more precise, showing some specific examples? >>> 4. Spam, phishing, pharming and everything else that the IGF doesn't >>> really want to address seriously (and there are many arguments >>> why it >>> doesn't) >> >> Do you seriously mean that such problems would be created, that they >> don't already exist? > > Do you seriously think such problems will not escalate in times, > considering they already exist? For sure, they will. With current centralized root system or with a different one. The solution (if any) to this problem has nothing to do with this. >>> While I don't have anything against discussing theoretical >>> models, the >>> attempts to push forward one or another model built on theories I >>> find >>> extremly dangerous. >> >> Like what? > > Like screwing something that is working. I hear you "the current > model doesn't work", but > > a) I don't see you offering an alternative Speaking of good faith, that's not true. Or you may have missed some mails. > b) explaining what is that you think doesn't work (and let's save > the users' interests - the users are interested that they have > Internet connection. I bet 99% of them don't know that there's > ISOC, ICANN, IETF, IAB, EDRI, etc.) "let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think many governments are not happy with current situation? And there are plenty of other issues, that are documented everywhere, and that you perfectly know. >>> I may have some doubts that there are people who are interested >>> to have this constant discussion for the sake of the discussion, >>> but since I have no proofs, I can't put it in writing. It's only >>> driven by experience and talks to people. Who's saying this is only for the sake of the discussion, apart from those who don't want this discussion opened? Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Nov 16 10:11:46 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:11:46 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <9F4059A1-4CA3-4CA2-9AA2-6E59953BC02A@ras.eu.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <41F7667D-77F0-4BA9-8AD8-43BEADF400F9@ras.eu.org> <20071116130856.5028C2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <9F4059A1-4CA3-4CA2-9AA2-6E59953BC02A@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071116151355.A88F62BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 15:48 11/16/2007 +0100, you wrote: >"let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think many I can advise you reading Joi's thoughts on that: http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/11/12/three_years_with_icann.html "The other problem is that most of the people who are affected by the decisions, the average users, don't know or care about ICANN. Trying to figure out an better way to get their input has always been an issue, but is one that is not unique for ICANN. All of politics and collective action share the difficulty in getting the public to care about issues that affect them." And there are many like this. You can't force your ideas (neither can I do with mine) on the 1 billion Internet users, and make them care about their representation at the global level. People in my country don't really care about ICANN; they stopped caring even about the ccTLD administrator after the implementation of prices 6 times higher than the ones existing in 2000. So, why do you think the users' interests should be focused on domains and IP addresses? I agree - let's have a discussion, but let us not try to define what the discussion should be about, but discuss everything, equal time for everything. >governments are not happy with current situation? And there are Could you define what you mean by happiness of a government? >Who's saying this is only for the sake of the discussion, apart from >those who don't want this discussion opened? I don't think there are people here who don't want a discussion open. But I also think there are people who would like to keep the discussion going on for quite a while, without any results. And I can talk about this freely, as I was part of the small governmental working group, which reached to the solution just before the first WSIS in Geneva. I don't recall anyone else from our IG list there. And I know what I saw, what I heard, and what happened afterwards. So, when you say there are people who don't have a discussion opened, I am not sure who you have in mind. I know who are the ones who wanted the discussion. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 16 10:24:31 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:24:31 +1100 Subject: PPIGD proven - Was RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071116151355.A88F62BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <08c401c82864$ca945ae0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Well, its now proven true, after being tested in many forums at Rio and also on this list, and I can now announce that the Peter Principle of Internet Governance Discussions has been fully tested and proven. The Peter Principle of Internet Governance Discussions states.... As any discussion around Internet governance grows longer, the probability of it drifting into a discussion about ICANN approaches one. With thanks to Godwin's law for the formulation! Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Sent: 17 November 2007 02:12 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system At 15:48 11/16/2007 +0100, you wrote: >"let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think many I can advise you reading Joi's thoughts on that: http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/11/12/three_years_with_icann.html "The other problem is that most of the people who are affected by the decisions, the average users, don't know or care about ICANN. Trying to figure out an better way to get their input has always been an issue, but is one that is not unique for ICANN. All of politics and collective action share the difficulty in getting the public to care about issues that affect them." And there are many like this. You can't force your ideas (neither can I do with mine) on the 1 billion Internet users, and make them care about their representation at the global level. People in my country don't really care about ICANN; they stopped caring even about the ccTLD administrator after the implementation of prices 6 times higher than the ones existing in 2000. So, why do you think the users' interests should be focused on domains and IP addresses? I agree - let's have a discussion, but let us not try to define what the discussion should be about, but discuss everything, equal time for everything. >governments are not happy with current situation? And there are Could you define what you mean by happiness of a government? >Who's saying this is only for the sake of the discussion, apart from >those who don't want this discussion opened? I don't think there are people here who don't want a discussion open. But I also think there are people who would like to keep the discussion going on for quite a while, without any results. And I can talk about this freely, as I was part of the small governmental working group, which reached to the solution just before the first WSIS in Geneva. I don't recall anyone else from our IG list there. And I know what I saw, what I heard, and what happened afterwards. So, when you say there are people who don't have a discussion opened, I am not sure who you have in mind. I know who are the ones who wanted the discussion. 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: 15/11/2007 20:57 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: 15/11/2007 20:57 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Nov 16 10:41:59 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:41:59 +0100 Subject: PPIGD proven - Was RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <08c401c82864$ca945ae0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <08c401c82864$ca945ae0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <1AA5E4E8-1C48-45F4-9558-BD4575B9681B@ras.eu.org> We rather have a tautology here: "100% of discussions on alternatives to ICANN are discussions about ICANN". Meryem Le 16 nov. 07 à 16:24, Ian Peter a écrit : > Well, its now proven true, after being tested in many forums at Rio > and also > on this list, and I can now announce that the Peter Principle of > Internet > Governance Discussions has been fully tested and proven. > > The Peter Principle of Internet Governance Discussions states.... > > As any discussion around Internet governance grows longer, the > probability > of it drifting into a discussion about ICANN approaches one. > > With thanks to Godwin's law for the formulation! > > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] > Sent: 17 November 2007 02:12 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: > [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system > > At 15:48 11/16/2007 +0100, you wrote: >> "let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think many > > I can advise you reading Joi's thoughts on that: > http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/11/12/three_years_with_icann.html > "The other problem is that most of the people who are affected by the > decisions, the average users, don't know or care about ICANN. Trying > to figure out an better way to get their input has always been an > issue, but is one that is not unique for ICANN. All of politics and > collective action share the difficulty in getting the public to care > about issues that affect them." And there are many like this. You > can't force your ideas (neither can I do with mine) on the 1 billion > Internet users, and make them care about their representation at the > global level. People in my country don't really care about ICANN; > they stopped caring even about the ccTLD administrator after the > implementation of prices 6 times higher than the ones existing in > 2000. So, why do you think the users' interests should be focused on > domains and IP addresses? I agree - let's have a discussion, but let > us not try to define what the discussion should be about, but discuss > everything, equal time for everything. > >> governments are not happy with current situation? And there are > > Could you define what you mean by happiness of a government? > >> Who's saying this is only for the sake of the discussion, apart from >> those who don't want this discussion opened? > > I don't think there are people here who don't want a discussion open. > But I also think there are people who would like to keep the > discussion going on for quite a while, without any results. And I can > talk about this freely, as I was part of the small governmental > working group, which reached to the solution just before the first > WSIS in Geneva. I don't recall anyone else from our IG list there. > And I know what I saw, what I heard, and what happened afterwards. > So, when you say there are people who don't have a discussion opened, > I am not sure who you have in mind. I know who are the ones who > wanted the discussion. > > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: > 15/11/2007 > 20:57 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: > 15/11/2007 > 20:57 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 16 10:45:26 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:45:26 +1100 Subject: PPIGD proven - Was RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <1AA5E4E8-1C48-45F4-9558-BD4575B9681B@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <097301c82867$b717c530$8b00a8c0@IAN> ICANN = Internet Governance?? Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] Sent: 17 November 2007 02:42 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: PPIGD proven - Was RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system We rather have a tautology here: "100% of discussions on alternatives to ICANN are discussions about ICANN". Meryem Le 16 nov. 07 à 16:24, Ian Peter a écrit : > Well, its now proven true, after being tested in many forums at Rio > and also > on this list, and I can now announce that the Peter Principle of > Internet > Governance Discussions has been fully tested and proven. > > The Peter Principle of Internet Governance Discussions states.... > > As any discussion around Internet governance grows longer, the > probability > of it drifting into a discussion about ICANN approaches one. > > With thanks to Godwin's law for the formulation! > > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] > Sent: 17 November 2007 02:12 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: > [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system > > At 15:48 11/16/2007 +0100, you wrote: >> "let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think many > > I can advise you reading Joi's thoughts on that: > http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/11/12/three_years_with_icann.html > "The other problem is that most of the people who are affected by the > decisions, the average users, don't know or care about ICANN. Trying > to figure out an better way to get their input has always been an > issue, but is one that is not unique for ICANN. All of politics and > collective action share the difficulty in getting the public to care > about issues that affect them." And there are many like this. You > can't force your ideas (neither can I do with mine) on the 1 billion > Internet users, and make them care about their representation at the > global level. People in my country don't really care about ICANN; > they stopped caring even about the ccTLD administrator after the > implementation of prices 6 times higher than the ones existing in > 2000. So, why do you think the users' interests should be focused on > domains and IP addresses? I agree - let's have a discussion, but let > us not try to define what the discussion should be about, but discuss > everything, equal time for everything. > >> governments are not happy with current situation? And there are > > Could you define what you mean by happiness of a government? > >> Who's saying this is only for the sake of the discussion, apart from >> those who don't want this discussion opened? > > I don't think there are people here who don't want a discussion open. > But I also think there are people who would like to keep the > discussion going on for quite a while, without any results. And I can > talk about this freely, as I was part of the small governmental > working group, which reached to the solution just before the first > WSIS in Geneva. I don't recall anyone else from our IG list there. > And I know what I saw, what I heard, and what happened afterwards. > So, when you say there are people who don't have a discussion opened, > I am not sure who you have in mind. I know who are the ones who > wanted the discussion. > > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: > 15/11/2007 > 20:57 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: > 15/11/2007 > 20:57 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: 15/11/2007 20:57 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: 15/11/2007 20:57 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Nov 16 10:56:19 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:56:19 +0100 Subject: PPIGD proven - Was RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <097301c82867$b717c530$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <097301c82867$b717c530$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <725EB99D-F372-4EFA-9830-3F71772A30E0@ras.eu.org> the current discussion didn't start on IG in general. Le 16 nov. 07 à 16:45, Ian Peter a écrit : > ICANN = Internet Governance?? > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: 17 November 2007 02:42 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: PPIGD proven - Was RE: Alternative DNS systems and net > neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system > > We rather have a tautology here: "100% of discussions on alternatives > to ICANN are discussions about ICANN". > Meryem > > Le 16 nov. 07 à 16:24, Ian Peter a écrit : > >> Well, its now proven true, after being tested in many forums at Rio >> and also >> on this list, and I can now announce that the Peter Principle of >> Internet >> Governance Discussions has been fully tested and proven. >> >> The Peter Principle of Internet Governance Discussions states.... >> >> As any discussion around Internet governance grows longer, the >> probability >> of it drifting into a discussion about ICANN approaches one. >> >> With thanks to Godwin's law for the formulation! >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] >> Sent: 17 November 2007 02:12 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >> Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: >> [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system >> >> At 15:48 11/16/2007 +0100, you wrote: >>> "let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think >>> many >> >> I can advise you reading Joi's thoughts on that: >> http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/11/12/three_years_with_icann.html >> "The other problem is that most of the people who are affected by the >> decisions, the average users, don't know or care about ICANN. Trying >> to figure out an better way to get their input has always been an >> issue, but is one that is not unique for ICANN. All of politics and >> collective action share the difficulty in getting the public to care >> about issues that affect them." And there are many like this. You >> can't force your ideas (neither can I do with mine) on the 1 billion >> Internet users, and make them care about their representation at the >> global level. People in my country don't really care about ICANN; >> they stopped caring even about the ccTLD administrator after the >> implementation of prices 6 times higher than the ones existing in >> 2000. So, why do you think the users' interests should be focused on >> domains and IP addresses? I agree - let's have a discussion, but let >> us not try to define what the discussion should be about, but discuss >> everything, equal time for everything. >> >>> governments are not happy with current situation? And there are >> >> Could you define what you mean by happiness of a government? >> >>> Who's saying this is only for the sake of the discussion, apart from >>> those who don't want this discussion opened? >> >> I don't think there are people here who don't want a discussion open. >> But I also think there are people who would like to keep the >> discussion going on for quite a while, without any results. And I can >> talk about this freely, as I was part of the small governmental >> working group, which reached to the solution just before the first >> WSIS in Geneva. I don't recall anyone else from our IG list there. >> And I know what I saw, what I heard, and what happened afterwards. >> So, when you say there are people who don't have a discussion opened, >> I am not sure who you have in mind. I know who are the ones who >> wanted the discussion. >> >> 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 >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: >> 15/11/2007 >> 20:57 >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: >> 15/11/2007 >> 20:57 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: > 15/11/2007 > 20:57 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: > 15/11/2007 > 20:57 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Nov 16 12:02:33 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:02:33 -0300 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> I keep trying to think long-term, considering the Internet is still in its infancy in a fast process of very complex growth (we still see a lof of debris of the initial late nineties' explosion passing by). I asked Vint and Bob (Kahn), yesterday at the IGF Emerging Issues panel, about the current names-and-numbers paradigm and whether there will be a paradigm shift (along the lines described by Thomas Kuhn) -- a scenario in which a "semantic Web" will dominate finding of any information space (the largest significant glimpse of it being Google search) and eventually totally replacing the URL approach (at least at the user level) to locate information and services. Thus, domain to number resolution will we pushed so far in the background that it will become irrelevant regarding the current business model on top of which the Icann system sits. Vint of course agreed this is already happening somehow, and so did Bob. --c.a. Karl Auerbach wrote: > Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > >> ... do you have a view on the coordination of alternative roots that >> does not either devolve to the ICANN model or create a new, >> additional, yet-to-be-designed entity to manage the coordination? > > The mechanism that I have suggested - a mechanism that can be done today > without anyone asking permission of anyone - requires no external > coordination at all. > > Those who run root systems that provide inconsistent contents will > create user surprise. Users directly or via their proxies (i.e. their > ISP's) will avoid those root systems that create such surprises. Users > do not need some $50,000,000 a year bureaucracy to "coordinate" away > surprise any more than they need a bloated bureaucracy to tell 'em to > avoid a stinky skunk. > > Remember Monty Python's Tobacconist Sketch? - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Hungarian_Phrasebook - A competing > root that surprises users would be like that ill mannered phrasebook. > Once its character became known its use would plummet (except as a > novelty.) > > As for the "coordination" of making sure that .com (and the other TLDs > found in the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone) remain "pure" - that's the > province of trademark law - Verisign, for example, plenty of legal tools > to ensure that no body markets a TLD product using the .com name. PIR, > similarly, has the power to use trademark law to shut down anybody who > offers a ".org" that isn't PIR's version. > > >> A large number of people in the technology, policy, and interface >> fields have not taken a dogmatic view about alt-roots, just answered >> that question in a logical, thorough way, carrying the reasoning >> thoroughly, and repeatedly found that, as a previous posting said, the >> single-root system in use is the "best worst", and some even find it >> good. > > I strongly disagree. ICANN's own statement on this matter was simply a > self-protective creation based on thin air. And the IAB's statement is > social engineering based on what they would like the internet to look > like rather than a document filled with compelling technical arguments. > > Such statements are typically filled with the "logic" that institution name here> knows what users need and want more than do the > users themselves. The paternalism in these statements resembles the > kind of thing that came out of King Leopold of Belgium and Queen > Victoria of England in their systems of colonial governance during the > the 19th century when the standards of the European upper classes were > applied, often quite ruthlessly, onto indigenous cultures in Asia, the > Pacific islands, and especially Africa. > > It is long past time when the US, NTIA, and NTIA's creation, ICANN, > ceased telling internet users how to use the internet. The internet is > not some creation to enforce Borg-like uniformity, rather it is an > instrumentality that we hope will empower individual creativity, group > cohesion, and bring human aspirations closer to fruition. > > Users of the net have every right to shape their view of the internet > landscape in accord with their values and ideas. If that means that > some people outside their group have a hard time reaching in then so be > it. Do we condemn the Amish communities in Pennsylvania because they > chose not to have telephones and thus deny telemarketer the ability to > call and interrupt their evening prayer? Yet that seems to be the logic > underlying many of the catholic [again, lower case 'c'] singular root > arguments. > > Moreover, competing roots have existed for years - I went forth and used > them for several years for myself and my company - they do not cause > things to break. > > Look at the ORSN, a competing root system - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Root_Server_Network - is it dangerous > and to be condemned? > > Remember, the key word here is "consistency". > > Taiwan ran for about a year using its own root system - it was so > transparent that they forgot they were using it and it was only when I > discovered it and bought that fact to the attention of ICANN was it > disabled. > > By-the-way, it has long been my position that the internet runs best > when run on the basis of the End-to-End principle and when users at the > edges make the choices, not centralized bureaucracies, such as ICANN. > > That is why I have proposed this ( > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html ) > > First Law of the Internet > > + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is > privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. > > - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who > wish to prevent the private use. > > - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing > evidence of public detriment. > > - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to > justify the suppression of the private activity. > > Consequently, those who are on the side of demanding the suppression of > competing roots have the burden to demonstrate, with clear and > convincing evidence, that competing roots cause public detriment. > > --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 veni at veni.com Fri Nov 16 11:08:43 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:08:43 -0500 Subject: PPIGD proven - Was RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <725EB99D-F372-4EFA-9830-3F71772A30E0@ras.eu.org> References: <097301c82867$b717c530$8b00a8c0@IAN> <725EB99D-F372-4EFA-9830-3F71772A30E0@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071116160856.90616336966@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:56 11/16/2007 +0100, you wrote: >the current discussion didn't start on IG in general. that's the point - it starts on something else, and ends up on iCANN ;-) 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Fri Nov 16 11:09:06 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - IS) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:09:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council - need more volunteers and more candidates Message-ID: <1195229346-933465e57c5d5d929dc052b8520d71a7@ngocongo.org> Dear all, This is to remind you the on going CS self-nomination process to the GAID Strategy Council. Now that the IGF has come to an end, I would like to encourage you once more to volunteer for the Nominations Committee, as well as nominate valuable candidates. So far we have only 9 volunteers for the NomCom – much less than half way to go since we would need 25 to make the random selection process really random. More critically we have a very small number of candidates. I think I only have 2. Best, Ph ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ De : CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mercredi 7 novembre 2007 16:15 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] On line information on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council Dear all, Note that we created an information page on the CS Self Nomination process for the GAID Strategy Council Membership: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news&id=10462 The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, is published HERE. We have 6 volunteers so far (all men! Not gender balanced at all…), we would need 25 to make the selection process really random. Let me remind you the calendar of this process: 20 November 2006: deadline for volunteering to the Nomination Committee 21 November 2006: random selection of the Nom Com members 25 November 2006: deadline for candidatures to the CS NomCom for membership to the GA Strategy Council 25-30 November 2006: on-line work on the nomination committee 30 November 2006: submission on the CS Nom Com recommendation the GAID Secretariat Best, Ph Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 16 11:09:40 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:39:40 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <00da01c8286b$1a310110$4e930330$@net> Carlos Afonso wrote: > paradigm shift (along the lines described by Thomas Kuhn) -- a scenario > in which a "semantic Web" will dominate finding of any information > space Web, yes probably Email? No. Lots of other things - No. etc etc etc. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asmatali at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 11:12:17 2007 From: asmatali at yahoo.com (asmatali at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:12:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Public Private Partnership Message-ID: hi, marzouki You look too much French centric . Pls, explain your point of view coming out of this particular sphere. 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Nov 16 11:24:04 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:24:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Public Private Partnership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We've had sayings, now "whatever centric" lookings: we definitely need a 3rd Peter principle, as we're now drifting to folklore discussions.. FYI, I've not discussed public-private parnerships, and thus have expressed no point of view on this. Le 16 nov. 07 à 17:12, asmatali at yahoo.com a écrit : > hi, marzouki > You look too much French centric . Pls, explain your point of view > coming out > of this particular sphere. > regards > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asmatali at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 11:31:01 2007 From: asmatali at yahoo.com (asmatali at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:31:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Around the globe Message-ID: What actually, I mean you gave most of the french examples. To speice up the discussion and make it useful, talk globally with examples and quotes around the globe ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Nov 16 12:29:29 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:29:29 -0300 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <00da01c8286b$1a310110$4e930330$@net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> <00da01c8286b$1a310110$4e930330$@net> Message-ID: <473DD379.1070603@rits.org.br> Why not? I am talking about the web in general, ie, the Internet (maybe I should have used lowercase). In the same way, there might be new approaches to generating personal/institutional identifiers so that a message will reach the intended destination without anyone having to worry about purchasing/having a domain name. Particularly with the possibility of anyone (and anything) having a real IP address in the IPv6 universe. --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> paradigm shift (along the lines described by Thomas Kuhn) -- a scenario >> in which a "semantic Web" will dominate finding of any information >> space > > Web, yes probably > > Email? No. Lots of other things - No. etc etc etc. > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 16 11:38:15 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:08:15 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473DD379.1070603@rits.org.br> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> <00da01c8286b$1a310110$4e930330$@net> <473DD379.1070603@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <00de01c8286f$1786cbd0$46946370$@net> > Why not? I am talking about the web in general, ie, the Internet (maybe > I should have used lowercase). In the same way, there might be new > approaches to generating personal/institutional identifiers so that a > message will reach the intended destination without anyone having to > worry about purchasing/having a domain name. Particularly with the > possibility of anyone (and anything) having a real IP address in the > IPv6 universe. Not really - but some things can be done. For example ensuring that the next "T.R.A.F.F.I.C" conference is held at a Days' Inn and catered out of Wendy's rather than a Marriott at a beach resort? Like if Yahoo Overture / Google Ads decide they can do without ppc revenue from tasted / parked domains .. Google seems to be considering this for example. That'd make the domain bubble explode for sure (something Karl would love, I know what he feels about add grace, and it is one of the few areas I agree with him) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 16 11:55:07 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:55:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Bulgarian Government presentation in Rio Message-ID: <20071116165458.83FD92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> The Bulgarian government's presentation during the Best Practices Forum is to be found here: http://intgovforum.org/BPP2.php?went=17 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 ronda.netizen at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 12:12:50 2007 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:12:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Update on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council - need more volunteers and more candidates In-Reply-To: <1195229346-933465e57c5d5d929dc052b8520d71a7@ngocongo.org> References: <1195229346-933465e57c5d5d929dc052b8520d71a7@ngocongo.org> Message-ID: Its a bit disheartening to see that there is only a nomination issue rather than a discussion of what the state is of what is happening and what the views are on what it would be good to see happening. It would be more appropriate to think of nominations coming out of a process of some serious discussion. Just yesterday I asked the General Assembly President at a press briefing at the UN about what was happening as the follow up to WSIS. The 2nd committee has a resolution to be taken up today asking for a report on the state of affairs since the World Summit activities in Geneva and Tunis. Resolutions A/C.2/62/L.28 and A/C.2/62/L.35 are draft resolutions for the General Assembly 2nd commmittee on "Information and communication technologies for development" which are to be taken up this afternoon in the 2nd committee. They essentially call for a report "on the status of implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society." Otherwise very little attention and activity is in general being given to the issues that were raised in the WSIS despite the fact there was lots of excitement during the Geneva and Tunis events. One issue I see as important is a serious discussion over whether the problem of spreading the Internet is merely a problem of lack of resources or is it that the way the problem is being framed is not appropriate. In my research and writing about the history and impact of the Internet I have seen that the early efforts at spreading the Internet was generally a question of a research and development group doing the work to apply the knowledge to the particular circumstances of the situation. In general the more people interested in development issues know of this background and history the more they can learn from and build on what has been done. Yet in the current activity regarding spreading the Internet in development situations it seems that emphasis instead is on how to get business involved. This seems to assume that the knowledge of what is appropriate for development is already understood and only a matter of getting the proper products to this new market. With regard to the continuing spread of the Internet I was to propose this is a detour from what is a more appropriate direction forward. with best wishes Ronda See for example the articles on the spread of Unix in http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook On 11/16/07, CONGO - IS 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 all, > > > > This is to remind you the on going CS self-nomination process to the GAID > Strategy Council. Now that the IGF has come to an end, I would like to > encourage you once more to volunteer for the Nominations Committee, as well > as nominate valuable candidates. > > > > So far *we have only 9 volunteers* for the NomCom – much less than half > way to go since we would need 25 to make the random selection process really > random. > > > > More critically we have a very small number of candidates. I think I *only > have 2*. > > > > Best, > > > > Ph > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *De :* CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] > *Envoyé :* mercredi 7 novembre 2007 16:15 > *À :* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Objet :* [governance] On line information on the CS self-nomination > process for GAID Strategy Council > > > > Dear all, > > > > Note that we created an information page on the CS Self Nomination process > for the GAID Strategy Council Membership: > > http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news&id=10462 > > > > The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message > indicating interest, is published *HERE > *. > > We have *6 volunteers so far* (all men! Not gender balanced at all…), we > would need 25 to make the selection process really random. > > > > Let me remind you the calendar of this process: > > > > *20 November 2006: deadline for volunteering to the Nomination Committee* > > 21 November 2006: random selection of the Nom Com members > > > > 25 November 2006: deadline for candidatures to the CS NomCom for > membership to the GA Strategy Council > > 25-30 November 2006: on-line work on the nomination committee > > 30 November 2006: submission on the CS Nom Com recommendation the GAID > Secretariat > > > > Best, > > > > Ph > > *Philippe Dam** > CONGO - Information Society & > Human Rights Coordinator > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: **philippe.dam at ngocongo.org* * > Website: www.ngocongo.org *** > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- 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 Fri Nov 16 13:44:34 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:34 -0300 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <00de01c8286f$1786cbd0$46946370$@net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> <00da01c8286b$1a310110$4e930330$@net> <473DD379.1070603@rits.org.br> <00de01c8286f$1786cbd0$46946370$@net> Message-ID: <473DE512.30701@rits.org.br> Hard to say... it is truly difficult, except for those exceptional visionaires, to clearly formulate a new paradigm when our minds are dominated by the current one. I try to imagine how Galileo felt :) --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Why not? I am talking about the web in general, ie, the Internet (maybe >> I should have used lowercase). In the same way, there might be new >> approaches to generating personal/institutional identifiers so that a >> message will reach the intended destination without anyone having to >> worry about purchasing/having a domain name. Particularly with the >> possibility of anyone (and anything) having a real IP address in the >> IPv6 universe. > > Not really - but some things can be done. For example ensuring that the next > "T.R.A.F.F.I.C" conference is held at a Days' Inn and catered out of Wendy's > rather than a Marriott at a beach resort? Like if Yahoo Overture / Google > Ads decide they can do without ppc revenue from tasted / parked domains .. > > Google seems to be considering this for example. That'd make the domain > bubble explode for sure (something Karl would love, I know what he feels > about add grace, and it is one of the few areas I agree with him) > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Nov 16 13:04:12 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:04:12 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <20071115233203.GB21483@hserus.net> <473CE8B1.4060601@cavebear.com> <20071116005901.GE10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CED56.9010702@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <5EF469A1-9B83-439D-ABF8-E2AD7B5A1044@internet.law.pro> Just to pile on with what Michael wrote below. People are already comfortable with an Internet experience inside a walled garden. A great many users, especially the newest Internet users, communicate not by email but by facebook and myspace messages. All of those people had to take certain steps to register and enter the walled community space, which isn't really that different than what New.net tried to get people to do by adding the plugin. This idea that we all need to be able to talk to each other is belied every day by the way people inside discrete communities are really using the net. On Nov 15, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > On the underlying issue, it's clear that alternate roots, if > properly managed and properly promoted, are safe and legal, but not > of interest to most people at present. They are not all that useful > for most people due to the network effects (the root's value is tied > to the size of the installed user base). It's also clear that ICANN > does not feel at all shy about name collisions, further casting a > cloud over a monied deployment of any new namespace. It's hard at > present to see the value proposition given the risks for investors, > which is why it's not happening. Economics, not law, I think. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4140 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 13:41:13 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:41:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposal, Next IGF: Cyberlibel and Internet Governance. / Cyberjurisdiction in Broad. Message-ID: <45ed74050711161041v5cccc34ew5d17c741534bf674@mail.gmail.com> Greetings: I am interested in some partnering on the subject line topic, in a workshop or otherwise. I was interested today in noticing that Michael Geist does some nice work in the field; I have many years of litigating actual cases, and came up against *jurisdictional reach* issues and real-world judges with some pretty "firm" positions. So anyone interested in cyberjurisdiction matters in broad, also please wave. (Copying Jeremy for his legal/other input as well). Very best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda. D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces*. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Nov 16 15:25:11 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:25:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 5:49 AM -0500 11/16/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >1. The current model is working. The Russian saying is "if it is >working, don't touch it". It is not an accident that this is a Russian >saying. Think about it. Sorry for a late entry into this amusing subthread, and I'll refrain from comment on the various dialects of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (yes, Veni, they're all really about the same principle). But how exactly do you determine that "the current model is working"? For whom is it working, and for whom is it not working? Apparently for many who wish to operate TLDs that have not currently been allowed into root, it is not working. And perhaps in a larger sense (in terms of public policy for the general public that might wish to use those rejected TLDs by registering 2LDs in them) it is not really working either, though they may not be aware of it if they are not ICANN insiders. Your very first proclamation here is precisely what is n dispute here, as a matter of policy. You can't just state it as an axiom and move on (well, you can try, but eventually someone will call you on it). If it really were working for everyone, then there would be no controversy about it. Conversely, the controversy demonstrates that it is not working for everyone. Just everyone *in power right now*. That is, this is ultimately a political issue, as usual. Dan PS -- As for the PPIGD, it follows from ICANN's status as "the elephant in the living room." Nothing wrong with it, in fact. Back in the days of the Roman Empire, it was said that "all roads lead to Rome," right? As long as ICANN continues to aspire to the role of Rome during the Empire, then PPIGD will continue in force. ;-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 16 15:32:44 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:32:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Hi, Dan. At 12:25 11/16/2007 -0800, you wrote: >But how exactly do you determine that "the current model is working"? For >whom is it working, and for whom is it not working? It is working for anyone who wants to get online, and go to any web site. For whom it is not working, is a question determined mainly by national or regional policies. E.g. in France Yahoo had to stop access to those pages of their web site, where there was sale of nazi symbols. Perhaps others can give other examples. >Apparently for many who wish to operate TLDs that have not currently been >allowed into root, it is not working. Let's try to be more detailed here: how many? what are they doing now? why do they want to have alternative roots? >If it really were working for everyone, then there would be no controversy >about it. Conversely, the controversy demonstrates that it is not working >for everyone. What it demonstrates is, that there are people who are not happy with the current model, not that it is not working. But, then, ICANN's task is not to make people happy, but to make sure the small segment of the Internet it is responsible for, is working. Which it does. 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 dan at musicunbound.com Fri Nov 16 16:13:04 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:13:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Whatever, Veni. This is just rhetorical jousting. For those for whom the current root system is not working, it is simply not working, there is no argument. Some of them know it explicitly (those who wish to include new TLDs in the root), many others do not (those who would use the new TLDs if they were made available to register 2LDs -- an "unproven" market, but one that ICANN itself assumes to be fairly huge). There are enough people for whom it is not working to take that failure seriously, regardless of your personal doubts. You can try to minimize their numbers and their relative importance, but when you do that you will just infuriate them more. No one likes to be marginalized by those in power. It just doesn't feel "fair" -- rather, it feels like the heavy hand of power. And excuse me, how is ICANN "responsible for" only a "small segment of the Internet"?? Isn't ICANN responsible for the *entire DNS* over the *entire Internet*? Everyone and everything on the Internet uses the DNS, because DNS is in effect the main gatekeeper to any content or applications on the net (until Google takes over everything). That would be 100%, which I would not characterize as a "small segment"... Perhaps the difference of opinion here derives from the fact that you still want to talk in terms of technical function and run away from political policy issues. When one defines root operation in purely functional terms, you can possibly get away with claiming it works, but when one frames it instead as a policy issue (as I would argue is the correct framing) it becomes clear that there is justified disagreement about how well the system works. Face it, ICANN has become an irreversibly political institution by now (perhaps it always was?), notwithstanding its increasingly unsupportable public claim to address a merely technical mandate of authority. So, actually, I will amend my previous statement about "the elephant in the living room": it is *politics in Internet governance* that is the real elephant in the living room. ICANN just happens to have stumbled into embodying that role, so perhaps ICANN is merely the *rider* of the elephant in the living room. But as always, you can't get away from politics in IG. It is here to stay, as long as the Internet serves as an essential platform for information transmission. Politically speaking, the current root system is not working for those not in power. That is simply the issue at hand, and distracting away from that discussion by appealing to technical details will not remove the elephant from the living room, though it might distract people from looking at the elephant. But if we are to resolve this, we can't avoid dealing with the political elephant. Better to look straight at it and deal with it on its own terms, however inconvenient it may be to those in power for everyone else to actually see it. But be realistic: elephants are too big to sweep under the rug. Dan At 3:32 PM -0500 11/16/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >Hi, Dan. > >At 12:25 11/16/2007 -0800, you wrote: >>But how exactly do you determine that "the current model is working"? For >>whom is it working, and for whom is it not working? > >It is working for anyone who wants to get online, and go to any web >site. For whom it is not working, is a question determined mainly by >national or regional policies. E.g. in France Yahoo had to stop >access to those pages of their web site, where there was sale of nazi >symbols. Perhaps others can give other examples. > >>Apparently for many who wish to operate TLDs that have not currently been >>allowed into root, it is not working. > >Let's try to be more detailed here: how many? what are they doing >now? why do they want to have alternative roots? > >>If it really were working for everyone, then there would be no controversy >>about it. Conversely, the controversy demonstrates that it is not working >>for everyone. > >What it demonstrates is, that there are people who are not happy with >the current model, not that it is not working. But, then, ICANN's >task is not to make people happy, but to make sure the small segment >of the Internet it is responsible for, is working. Which it does. > >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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Nov 16 10:06:34 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:06:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071116150634.GA25525@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:24:43PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote a message of 116 lines which said: > Then there is the broader view of consistency, a view that I hold: > That different root systems may offer different TLDs, but that where > a TLD name is in common (e.g. .net or .org or .com, etc) that it has > precisely the same contents, i.e. the delegation is the same. That's a reasonable thing to do but you never provided a way to implement it. At the present time, there are two different ".home" and two different ".mp3" in wide use in various alternative roots. Who will say which one is to be dropped? And how will it enforce it? If there is a body in charge of this enforcement, congratulations, you have invented a new ICANN and we have one root again. If you rely on the good will and coordination of the root operators, may I say that the lessons of the history push me towards pessimisim? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Nov 16 10:19:22 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:19:22 -0200 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 05:49:45AM -0500, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 119 lines which said: > While I am not a technical expert, No need to be. Unlike what ICANN pretends from time to time, there are zero technical issues with alternative roots. It is purely a political problem. > 2. While some people, mainly driven from theoretical experience, say > that "there is a better model" and advice to build it on the ground > of the experience built during the ICANN era, I have not seen a > software that will show us how the "new" model will work. That's strange rhetorics. With such demands (that there is a proof something will work before we deploy it), the Internet would never have existed. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Nov 16 10:17:10 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:17:10 -0200 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071116151710.GC25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 04:38:49PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote a message of 115 lines which said: > Users do not need some $50,000,000 a year bureaucracy to > "coordinate" away surprise any more than they need a bloated > bureaucracy to tell 'em to avoid a stinky skunk. People may be more familiar with skunks than with the DNS. Yes, it is partly an issue of consumer protection. A lot of providers do bad things with the DNS (RFC 4924, section 2.5.2 gives a good example), relying on the fact that the poor user is not in a good position to understand what is going on. > Moreover, competing roots have existed for years - I went forth and > used them for several years for myself and my company - they do not > cause things to break. Because they are very small and used only by a small minority. > Consequently, those who are on the side of demanding the suppression of > competing roots I don't remember asking for a genocide. Just that we do not suggest alternative roots as a solution to Internet governance problems. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 17 07:13:14 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:13:14 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> At 13:19 11/16/2007 -0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >That's strange rhetorics. With such demands (that there is a proof >something will work before we deploy it), the Internet would never >have existed. Actually it was tested for quite a while, before it was open to the public. And the WWW, if it was created in another country, or in another company, or by another defence ministry, would have never been made in the way it was made, and open to the public. It is good to think about the way the Internet came to the current day, if it was created by the... let's say the Bulgarian Ministry of Defence. It would have still been used only by the Ministry of Defence within their main building in Sofia. 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 Sat Nov 17 07:14:25 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:14:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 13:13 11/16/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Whatever, Veni. This is just rhetorical jousting. I am sorry to hear you say that. >seriously, regardless of your personal doubts. You can try to minimize >their numbers and their relative importance, but when you do that you will I didn't try to minimize the numbers. I was asking a question "how many", not "how little". Therfore the following conclusions of yours are also incorrect. >just infuriate them more. No one likes to be marginalized by those in >power. It just doesn't feel "fair" -- rather, it feels like the heavy hand >of power. >And excuse me, how is ICANN "responsible for" only a "small segment of the >Internet"?? Isn't ICANN responsible for the *entire DNS* over the *entire >Internet*? Is the DNS the whole Internet? I think the DNS is a small part of it. There are many more, and more relevant, parts of the Internet that makes it run today. >Everyone and everything on the Internet uses the DNS, because >DNS is in effect the main gatekeeper to any content or applications on the >net (until Google takes over everything). Which may very well happen soon, and then the domain names will lose its value. >Perhaps the difference of opinion here derives from the fact that you still >want to talk in terms of technical function and run away from political >policy issues. This is exactly what I am not running away from. >it becomes clear that there is justified disagreement about how well the >system works. the fact that there's a disagreement does not make the system NOT working. It just makes an argument HOW it is working. Not IF it is working. >Face it, ICANN has become you make a statement, but there's no evidence to support it. >transmission. Politically speaking, the current root system is not working >for those not in power. Can you define "power" here? >actually see it. But be realistic: elephants are too big to sweep under >the rug. I could accept that, if a) there was indeed an elephant in the room, which you still have not convinced me into believing, and b) you are sure there's no enough big rug ;) veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 17 08:43:05 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:43:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> (message from Veni Markovski on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:13:14 -0500) References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071117134305.6E27C22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > And the WWW, if it was created in another country, or in > another company, or by another defence ministry, would have never > been made in the way it was made, and open to the public. The WWW was created neither by a company nor by a defence ministry, but at a research institution, CERN, in Geneva, Switzerland. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Nov 17 08:37:48 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:37:48 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071117134305.6E27C22021B@quill.bollow.ch> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117134305.6E27C22021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20071117133754.01B212BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 14:43 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Veni Markovski wrote: > > > And the WWW, if it was created in another country, or in > > another company, or by another defence ministry, would have never > > been made in the way it was made, and open to the public. > >The WWW was created neither by a company nor by a defence ministry, >but at a research institution, CERN, in Geneva, Switzerland. I know, Norbert. My point is that the Internet is not created by the "evil American imperialists" so that one day they can "switch it off" or threaten the world they might do that, but rather it is created by many many people, institutions, companies, etc. And the right questions is not "who governs the Internet", but "what governs the Internet". Once people start to understand that the "governer" are the standards, the policy processes, and they can be part of this, then the IGF may even start to produce something positive, not just headlines in the newspapers. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sat Nov 17 08:40:46 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:40:46 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Le 17 nov. 07 à 13:13, Veni Markovski a écrit : > > It is good to think about the way the Internet came to the current > day, if it was created by the... let's say the Bulgarian Ministry > of Defence. It would have still been used only by the Ministry of > Defence within their main building in Sofia. I'm confident that, thanks to ISOC Bulgaria and public-private partnership, this wouldn't have developed this way:) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 17 09:02:16 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:02:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] non-ICANN TLDs (was Re: DNSsec..) In-Reply-To: <20071116150634.GA25525@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> (message from Stephane Bortzmeyer on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:06:34 -0200) References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <20071116150634.GA25525@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <20071117140216.3037122021B@quill.bollow.ch> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:24:43PM -0800, > Karl Auerbach wrote > a message of 116 lines which said: > > > Then there is the broader view of consistency, a view that I hold: > > That different root systems may offer different TLDs, but that where > > a TLD name is in common (e.g. .net or .org or .com, etc) that it has > > precisely the same contents, i.e. the delegation is the same. > > That's a reasonable thing to do but you never provided a way to > implement it. At the present time, there are two different ".home" and > two different ".mp3" in wide use in various alternative roots. Who > will say which one is to be dropped? And how will it enforce it? I would suggest that when someone wants to introduce a new TLD they can choose a name that is not already in use (either as an ICANN accepted domain name, or in a proposal that someone else has submitted to ICANN, or in the alternative roots community) and then register the TLD name as a trademark with the trademark offices of one or more countries (the more countries the better), then make it clear that they'll sue anyone else offering a different TLD with the same name. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Nov 17 08:56:02 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:56:02 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Hmmm... What was the system in France, which was created before the WWW? Did it make it on the world arena, or it remained only in France? Let's be more precise. If it wasn't for the DoD to give it up to the DoC, and then to ICANN, we would not be able to exchange these emails today. veni At 14:40 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Le 17 nov. 07 Ю 13:13, Veni Markovski a Иcrit : >> >> It is good to think about the way the Internet came to the current >>day, if it was created by the... let's say the Bulgarian Ministry >>of Defence. It would have still been used only by the Ministry of >>Defence within their main building in Sofia. > >I'm confident that, thanks to ISOC Bulgaria and public-private >partnership, this wouldn't have developed this way:) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 08:59:32 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:29:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] non-ICANN TLDs (was Re: DNSsec..) In-Reply-To: <20071117140216.3037122021B@quill.bollow.ch> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <20071116150634.GA25525@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117140216.3037122021B@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <004f01c82922$17130b10$45392130$@net> Norbert Bollow wrote: > I would suggest that when someone wants to introduce a new TLD they > can choose a name that is not already in use (either as an ICANN > accepted domain name, or in a proposal that someone else has submitted TLDs, are by their nature, sufficiently generic that trademark offices are going to be hesitant over registering the name. "travel", "hotel" etc (or Karl's favorite "ewe") for that matter You can do it but the only people who will profit out of this are the lawyers. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 09:00:26 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:30:26 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <005001c82922$361b12f0$a25138d0$@net> Veni Markovski wrote: > Hmmm... What was the system in France, which was > created before the WWW? Did it make it on the > world arena, or it remained only in France? Minitel you mean? Yes, but I think it was more of a bbs style, and focused on French topics, solely in French - so that's a huge handicap to internationalizing it. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 17 09:24:39 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:24:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> (message from Veni Markovski on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:32:44 -0500) References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071117142439.6984922021B@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > At 12:25 11/16/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >But how exactly do you determine that "the current model is working"? For > >whom is it working, and for whom is it not working? > > It is working for anyone who wants to get online, and go to any web > site. It is working for everyone who considers it acceptable when powerful corporations prevent the creation of alternatives to the currently-dominating mode of internet use where cultural expression has become strongly influenced by the interests of greedy profit-oriented corporations. However, there currently seems to be no way in which a group of people who want to try implementing an economic model for a TLD which differs significantly from "pay a recurring fee for the privilege of having a second-level domain name" could get a TLD delegated to them. For example, I think that it would be interesting and potentially worthwhile to experiment with some kind of community processes for operating second- level domain names identified by generic terms, such as e.g. . Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sat Nov 17 09:28:49 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:28:49 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Le 16 nov. 07 à 18:02, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > I keep trying to think long-term, considering the Internet is still > in its infancy in a fast process of very complex growth (we still > see a lof of debris of the initial late nineties' explosion passing > by). > > I asked Vint and Bob (Kahn), yesterday at the IGF Emerging Issues > panel, about the current names-and-numbers paradigm and whether > there will be a paradigm shift (along the lines described by Thomas > Kuhn) -- a scenario in which a "semantic Web" will dominate finding > of any information space (the largest significant glimpse of it > being Google search) and eventually totally replacing the URL > approach (at least at the user level) to locate information and > services. Thus, domain to number resolution will we pushed so far > in the background that it will become irrelevant regarding the > current business model on top of which the Icann system sits. > > Vint of course agreed this is already happening somehow, and so did > Bob. From what I read on IGF website (sequence reproduced below), they didn't gave exactly the same answer. While Cerf quickly agreed - his answer was not that elaborated -, specially since the question you asked directly referred to search engines and to your observation that "we very seldom use URLs, domain names" (any stats or study actually showing such trend, BTW? Would be interested in any pointer), Kahn referred to the "Handle" system, which is a resolving system and not a search engine, and this makes a big difference. And, frankly, I don't see how navigating between Scylla and Charybdis would solve the problem.. If it's all about getting rid of ICANN to have no other option than Google, thus going through the whole list of results that DoubleClick wants me to access instead of the content I'm looking for, then no, thanks! Meryem ====== Excerpt from http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2- EmergingIssues-15NOV07.txt (Nik Gowing moderating the session): >>CARLOS AFONSO: I am Carlos Afonso from RITS Brazil and the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil. I would like to ask Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn two questions. >>NIK GOWING: Can you keep it very brief? I want to hear your view on emerging issues. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Today we navigate and get information using search engines, and we very seldom use URLs, domain names. I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg pointing to a new structure of addressing in which we no longer need domain names to find what we need. Is this a new paradigm we are going to? And how this will evolve. My question is to Vint and to Bob Kahn. >>NIK GOWING: Can you give very quick answers, Vint and Bob. >>VINT CERF: My quick answer is, yes, it's very possible that will happen. And I point out that URLs have the bad characteristic that things disappear off of the Net. They're not permanent references. What we need are permanent references over time. So, in fact, I'm much in favor of reexamining how we identify things in the network so that no matter where they are, no matter which host they're on, we can find them, even if the domain names have changed. >>ROBERT KAHN: This was a perfect opportunity for Vint to help plug our Handle System, but I see he didn't do that. So let me just say that that's actually an area that I've been working on for many years. In fact, Vint and I started working on it back in the '80s in terms of mobile programs in the Internet. And part of that, we came up with a digital object architect that I think was my attempt at a reconceptualization around managing content. And it involves unique identifiers. And there is a system on the net called the Handle System, it's on the handle.net site, that allows you to do exactly what you're talking about. It's got many potential applications. I won't try and even list a few of them today. But the fact of the matter is that URLs do have a very short half-lifetime. And in five or ten years, most of them won't work at all. The publishers got very interested. Because in publishing and journals, they would like it to have the same effectiveness on an electronic bookshelf that a regular library has. It's a stilted replication, because it's replicating the paper world in the electronic world. But if you pull an electronic journal off the world many years from now, I guarantee you that the URLs will not work, but the Handle System might. ======____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Nov 17 09:30:57 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:30:57 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071117143057.GA21858@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:56:02AM -0500, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 31 lines which said: > If it wasn't for the DoD to give it up to the DoC, and then to > ICANN, Hold on. The DoC gave something to ICANN? What, exactly? Changes in the root no longer have to be vetted by the DoC? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Nov 17 09:15:34 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:15:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <200711161433.lAGEWxpe019402@localhost.localdomain> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <200711161433.lAGEWxpe019402@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20071117141534.GA21346@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:32:59AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote a message of 63 lines which said: > And, w.r.t. your point about needing to run "fsck" on the disc data, > you are making the assumption that the zone file is stored in a > typical Unix file system, an assumption that is probably false. And most Unix systems in production today use a journalized file system, with no need for fsck ever. I was very surprised by Karl's message, too, because it displayed an unusual lack of knowledge of the technical issues involved. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 09:39:35 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:39:35 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <005001c82922$361b12f0$a25138d0$@net> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <005001c82922$361b12f0$a25138d0$@net> Message-ID: Veni wrote "And the right questions is not "who governs the Internet", but "what governs the Internet". Once people start to understand that the "governer" are the standards, the policy processes, and they can be part of this, then the IGF may even start to produce something positive, not just headlines in the newspapers" What baffles me is that Veni is giving mateial for a Newspaper headline and refusing to admit it. News is what is said and/or done that has an impact on people's life. Come to think of it; Veni's piece above is head line news. My Editor will headline your piece above this way : Expert Calls for Standards and Processes to be at Forefront of Internet Governance. And the rest of your landmark contribution will complete the story. Can we therfore eat our cake and have it? Aaron On 11/17/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Veni Markovski wrote: > > > Hmmm... What was the system in France, which was > > created before the WWW? Did it make it on the > > world arena, or it remained only in France? > > Minitel you mean? Yes, but I think it was more of a bbs style, and focused > on French topics, solely in French - so that's a huge handicap to > internationalizing it. > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sat Nov 17 10:28:02 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:28:02 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming from this country? This liminary note being made, the Minitel (which by the way was not created by the military) didn't make it on the world arena not because all services were in French (translations would have been easy), but for many other reasons, like that at that time France Telecom was a public monopoly, with no real interest in commercializing it worldwide. When circumstances changed, the Minitel and its models (technical, contractual, economic.. models) were entirely obsolete w.r.t. Internet developments, and specially web developments. What's great about the minitel is that the device was distributed for free to all French telephone users (individuals, administration, businesses..), in the early 80s, and that made it widely used by the population, with many public and private services available, some for free, others with payment. The bad side of the story is that this situation has delayed a lot Internet developments in France, and specially its use by a large public: in the mid 90s, the minitel penetration rate was at its peak. Meryem Le 17 nov. 07 à 14:56, Veni Markovski a écrit : > Hmmm... What was the system in France, which was created before the > WWW? Did it make it on the world arena, or it remained only in France? > > Let's be more precise. If it wasn't for the DoD to give it up to > the DoC, and then to ICANN, we would not be able to exchange these > emails today. > > veni > > At 14:40 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: > >> Le 17 nov. 07 Ю 13:13, Veni Markovski a Иcrit : >>> >>> It is good to think about the way the Internet came to the current >>> day, if it was created by the... let's say the Bulgarian Ministry >>> of Defence. It would have still been used only by the Ministry of >>> Defence within their main building in Sofia. >> >> I'm confident that, thanks to ISOC Bulgaria and public-private >> partnership, this wouldn't have developed this way:) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Nov 17 10:51:33 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:51:33 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116151922.GD25686@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071117121730.93F972BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117135606.E54BD2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071117155242.7324B2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:28 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it >compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming >from this country? Why do you think I feel that way? And still, if the Internet was created in another country, under the Defence Ministry, I have my doubts it would have ended with the general public. I gave the example of Bulgaria, because I know the military system there. Perhaps we, being from Europe, are not thinking in the commerce world as much as the Americans; at the same time many of their military projects have ended up being used by the general public; the Internet being just one, probably the best example. I don't admire the US military, but I think the people who made the Internet possible - whether by creating it, or by standardizing it, or by opening the code, or - you name it - deserve some credits, even if they are Americans. And, by the way, wasn't Tim Berners-Lee an English? So, how come that today, when we are all using the Internet, we tend to forget about all these, and about the OPEN NATURE of the Internet? 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 asmatali at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 11:49:59 2007 From: asmatali at yahoo.com (asmatali at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:49:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 3P or 3C Message-ID: I am in a conflict, question is Public-Private Partnerships (3P) or Collaboration-Coordination Cooperation (3C) is better for e-Governance. And which one promotes IT more. Regards Asmat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 17 11:59:13 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 03:59:13 +1100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071117155242.7324B2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <0f7601c8293b$304e5b70$8b00a8c0@IAN> Just to get this a little more accurate - Although one of the sources of funding that provided for the ARPANet was the US military, we have to understand its origins as being in a cold war era when most US research funding was diverted through the military mechanisms. Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf were not military experts -rather they were engaged by universities where the tradition of making available publicly funded research was well established. If this had been a purely military project, it probably would have not seen the light of day. But then, given the work going on in Europe and elsewhere on emerging network protocols, something would have emerged anyway and we would have called it the Internet (TCP/IP is not rocket science and its primary value is its universal adoption) 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: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Sent: 18 November 2007 02:52 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system At 16:28 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it >compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming >from this country? Why do you think I feel that way? And still, if the Internet was created in another country, under the Defence Ministry, I have my doubts it would have ended with the general public. I gave the example of Bulgaria, because I know the military system there. Perhaps we, being from Europe, are not thinking in the commerce world as much as the Americans; at the same time many of their military projects have ended up being used by the general public; the Internet being just one, probably the best example. I don't admire the US military, but I think the people who made the Internet possible - whether by creating it, or by standardizing it, or by opening the code, or - you name it - deserve some credits, even if they are Americans. And, by the way, wasn't Tim Berners-Lee an English? So, how come that today, when we are all using the Internet, we tend to forget about all these, and about the OPEN NATURE of the Internet? 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 17 13:00:48 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:00:48 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> My understanding is that 3C is much more multi-stakeholder and includes a lot of more groups than 3P which is often nothing more than a deal between government and industry, ignoring civil society and consumer interests. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: asmatali at yahoo.com [mailto:asmatali at yahoo.com] Gesendet: Sa 17.11.2007 17:49 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] 3P or 3C I am in a conflict, question is Public-Private Partnerships (3P) or Collaboration-Coordination Cooperation (3C) is better for e-Governance. And which one promotes IT more. Regards Asmat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asmatali at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 13:10:57 2007 From: asmatali at yahoo.com (asmatali at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:10:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C In-Reply-To: 2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de Message-ID: Wolfgang , i think you are mistaken. 3P includes, public (government), private, academia, citizens, business , NGOs . So, 3P looks more closer to people than 3C. 3C is not more than lip work, dear ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 13:34:09 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:34:09 -0800 Subject: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <049c01c82948$8ab39c30$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> I confess that I'm unfamiliar with the 3C terminology but I can assure one and all that 3P at least in the Canadian context refers exclusively to Public (i.e. Government)/Private (i.e. private sector) partnerships and dare I add that according to the Auditor General of Canada (I believe it was) most of the PP partnerships that they have reviewed have consisted of Governments taking the risk and the private sector taking the benefits. MG -----Original Message----- From: asmatali at yahoo.com [mailto:asmatali at yahoo.com] Sent: November 17, 2007 10:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C Wolfgang , i think you are mistaken. 3P includes, public (government), private, academia, citizens, business , NGOs . So, 3P looks more closer to people than 3C. 3C is not more than lip work, dear ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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:2676,473f2ec286771971383051! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asmatali at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 13:41:06 2007 From: asmatali at yahoo.com (asmatali at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:41:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C In-Reply-To: 049c01c82948$8ab39c30$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln Message-ID: michael gurstein, I guess that you have changed the order unintentionally , it is private sector which takes risk and public sector takes benefits. Regards asmat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asmatali at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 13:54:19 2007 From: asmatali at yahoo.com (asmatali at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:54:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 3P for SDI Message-ID: Can any one tell what is common between 3P and SDI? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 14:10:22 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:10:22 -0800 Subject: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <04be01c8294d$929cf680$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Nope, Asmat -- not where I live, whatever the text books or theory might be peddling these days. And the idea that these PPP's might include civil society (at least in Canada) is not even on the radar... (I should add that in the ICT area that I know best, in Canada there are Public/NGO "partnerships" which in practice are ways for government to outsource their public (and legislated) responsibilities (and overhead costs) to the already completely underfunded and over-burdened Not for Profit sector. MG -----Original Message----- From: asmatali at yahoo.com [mailto:asmatali at yahoo.com] Sent: November 17, 2007 10:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: RE: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C michael gurstein, I guess that you have changed the order unintentionally , it is private sector which takes risk and public sector takes benefits. Regards asmat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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:2676,473f35ca86771169711088! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 14:16:47 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:16:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] 3P for SDI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <04c101c8294e$7529a2f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Hmmm SDI= (Googlized... Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia SDI - Steel Deck Institute Scottish Development International : (California) State Disability Insurance (SDI) Strategic Diagnostics, Inc. - Diagnostic Testing for the Food ... Sustainable Development Indicators-Interagency Working Group ? MG -----Original Message----- From: asmatali at yahoo.com [mailto:asmatali at yahoo.com] Sent: November 17, 2007 10:54 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] 3P for SDI Can any one tell what is common between 3P and SDI? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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:2676,473f38f086771072694172! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asmatali at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 14:23:35 2007 From: asmatali at yahoo.com (Asmat Ali) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:23:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C In-Reply-To: <04be01c8294d$929cf680$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <371582.47842.qm@web36513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MG, pls see this , it is exactly from the sphere where you live i.e. Canada http://cgdi.gc.ca/en/aboutcgdi.html michael gurstein wrote: Nope, Asmat -- not where I live, whatever the text books or theory might be peddling these days. And the idea that these PPP's might include civil society (at least in Canada) is not even on the radar... (I should add that in the ICT area that I know best, in Canada there are Public/NGO "partnerships" which in practice are ways for government to outsource their public (and legislated) responsibilities (and overhead costs) to the already completely underfunded and over-burdened Not for Profit sector. MG -----Original Message----- From: asmatali at yahoo.com [mailto:asmatali at yahoo.com] Sent: November 17, 2007 10:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: RE: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C michael gurstein, I guess that you have changed the order unintentionally , it is private sector which takes risk and public sector takes benefits. Regards asmat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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:2676,473f35ca86771169711088! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Asmat Ali http://www.geocities.com/asmatali/ Mobile:+31-638-759982 Inbox cluttering up with junk? Clean up with Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From asmatali at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 14:31:13 2007 From: asmatali at yahoo.com (asmatali at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:31:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 3P for SDI In-Reply-To: 04c101c8294e$7529a2f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln Message-ID: S=Spatial D=Data I=Infrastructure Means Spatial Data Infrastructure See, pls http://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi/library/factsheets/documents/nsdi.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 karl at cavebear.com Sat Nov 17 14:47:01 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:47:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071117141534.GA21346@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <200711161433.lAGEWxpe019402@localhost.localdomain> <20071117141534.GA21346@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <473F4535.4030200@cavebear.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > And most Unix systems in production today use a journalized file > system, with no need for fsck ever. I was very surprised by Karl's > message, too, because it displayed an unusual lack of knowledge of the > technical issues involved. I run ext3 - a journaled file system - on nearly all of my machines. And if anybody ever tells you that it never suffers from file damage and needs to be repaired - well my own experience runs much to the contrary. As they say: In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not. And even in theory, ext3 - the journaled file system that I use and that is perhaps most common on Linux machines - is not immune from file system corruption. Here in Santa Cruz, a place where electrical power is more of a luxury rather than a utility, we get used to machines being zapped due to power outages (longer than a UPS can handle) or, whats worse, long sequences of sags, short drops, and pops. So we get pretty used to machines going down - and so we get to experience all the woes of machines that don't want to come back up. I get to deal with a crashed file system about twice a week (usually at 2am, sigh.) Lost (electrically damaged) drives are common (and thus RAID verification and rebuilding are unfortunately more familiar than one would like) and damaged journaled file systems - ext3 - are quite routine problems on my machines. Usually an e2fsck -y will deal with it - a 20+ minute job on a typical 500gig drive [multiply that time by three if the RAID underneath is rebuilding]. But sometimes the file system corruption is even beyond fsck. Indeed I have even had, on occasion to fire up the really serious tools, like Knoppix - because the damage was such that the OS itself couldn't even get started - and sometimes even "debugfs" - when the file checkers can't handle the flaw that was created. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 15:48:37 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:48:37 -0800 Subject: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C In-Reply-To: <371582.47842.qm@web36513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <04e301c8295b$3ba9ddd0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Asmat, I don't know the details of the initiative you are pointing to and my apologies to all for a somewhat glib reponse. The issues of PPP's and so on are very important ones in this context as (based on an earlier note), PPP's are it appears, the operative arm of MSP's which seems of such interest and enthusiasm among Civil Society folks at least. Based on a casual review and a range of personal experiences (including I should add in the Canadian geomatics context in an earlier lifetime), the results are decidedly mixed. In the instance you have pointed to, the website, as with previous iterations of Canadian government attempts to generate a geomatics industry in Canada is sponsored (and I presume paid for) by the Canadian government i.e. taxpayers. My prediction is that (as with previous such initiatives) the site and the infrastructure it represents will continue as long as the Canadian government continues to pump money in and will collapse once that is withdrawn. Nothing wrong with this, and I personally think that developing a Canadian geomatics industry is a suitable target for Canadian government funding, but I would be very careful about calling it a "partnership" which to my definition implies shared risk/shared reward. In this (and parallel instances) the risk i.e. expenditure is all on the public sector side, while the (immediate) reward is gained by the private sector "partners" (the argument being that the public reward comes in the longer term with increased jobs, tax revenues etc.etc.). But this is small potatoes compared to the situation in other sectors where for example various governments have guaranteed private investments in public infrastructure (schools, roads, hospitals) and so on and where the risks (and costs) of often grotesque cost overruns have been borne by the public sector while the ultimate returns are structured to the benefit of the private sector "partners" and dare I say without any sort of look in by Civil Society. For an in-depth review of the UN's experience in this area see below. MG Beyond Pragmatism: Appraising UN-Business Partnerships Authors: Ann Zammit, Peter Utting Programme Area: Markets, Business and Regulation Paper No.: 1 Code: PP-MBR-1 No. of Pages: 63 < http://snipurl.com/un_ppp> In recent years, the United Nations (UN) has emerged as one of the principal proponents of public-private partnerships (PPPs), considered by many to be a key instrument of development and an ideal to be emulated. The authors of this paper argue that idealizing the concept and its normative content, as well as the feel-good discourse that infuses much of the mainstream literature, risk diverting attention away from various tensions and contradictions that characterize UN-business partnerships (UN-BPs) and that raise questions about their contribution to equitable development and democratic governance. Both the theory and practice of partnerships suggest that thinking and policy need to go beyond evidence and assumptions about "good governance" and pragmatism. The paper identifies key ideational, institutional, political and economic forces that have driven the PPP phenomenon, only some of which are recognized in the mainstream literature. This analysis reveals the multiple, sometimes contradictory agendas and interests involved. The authors argue that if the contribution of UN-BPs to equitable development is to be adequately assessed, these diverse logics underpinning partnerships need to be identified and addressed. "Partnership" has become an infinitely elastic concept, and the authors suggest that it is essential to unbundle the notion, by analysing the different activities and relationships subsumed under various partnerships in order to reflect on their contribution to equitable development. A review of UN-BPs suggests that, unless the UN's partnering work is founded on greater conceptual clarity and more robust analytical frameworks, it will be difficult to make useful comparisons or draw practical conclusions. The paper outlines the growing number of partnerships across the UN spectrum and notes the recent emphasis placed on mainstreaming and scaling up partnership activities in the UN system. The authors argue that the case for scaling-up, and how this should be done, rests on whether it can be plausibly demonstrated that such scaling-up would, in and of itself, have a decisive impact on the problems or issues at stake. Both the theory of partnerships and empirical studies that have been carried out on actual experiences suggest that it is crucial to study the effects of such partnerships from a political economy perspective: will they strengthen local capacities or simply facilitate faster and deeper penetration of foreign capital and globalization; are they really compatible with the nature, mandates and priorities of the UN in general and UN agencies in particular; and how do they affect power relations among different development actors and institutions? From the above analysis, the authors conclude that there is a need to develop a more active, critical intellectual culture in and around UN partnership activities. This would involve the UN moving beyond the present emphasis on accumulating and showcasing best practice examples of partnerships, and devoting greater resources and energies to developing and applying methodological tools that facilitate ex-ante and ex-post assessments of the immediate or direct development impacts of partnerships, as well as of their wider development implications. It is essential to devote greater attention to seeing the bigger picture and to take account of key contributions, contradictions and trade-offs. This requires both the development of a panoply of evaluation methods that go beyond some conventional tools, and a broader conceptual framework regarding development than that which currently informs the UN-BP arena. For example, focusing on foreign direct investment, linkages between transnational corporations (TNCs) and small and medium-sized enterprise, and privatization as an objective or outcome of partnerships, is problematic from the perspective of equitable development. Corporate social and environmental responsibility, net balance-of-payments flows, value added, transfer pricing and the crowding out of domestic competitors, among other things, also need to be included in the reckoning. While impact assessment has not been a priority of UN agencies promoting partnerships, some measures have been taken to reform the operating and normative environment of UN-BPs. The paper pays particular attention to reforms related to accountability, mainly in relation to the United Nations Global Compact, as well as the issues of decentralization and local ownership of partnerships. The authors emphasize the need to be more selective about which partnerships potentially contribute to the fundamental goals of the UN. Among other criteria, they highlight the principle of "policy coherence" in the sense of avoiding ad hoc interventions where there is a disconnect from core government or agency policy, or a situation where one policy or governance approach contradicts another, as illustrated in the cases of some partnerships associated with water privatization, or global health funds that generate tensions in relation to public health policy. In spite of the complexity involved, it is incumbent on the UN, as a leading institution in the field of international development, to reflect on how partnerships relate to particular patterns of development. However, critical thinking in the UN on its relationship with the private sector in general, and partnerships with TNCs in particular, has been marginalized in recent years. Given its key roles in promoting partnerships and as a learning forum, it is important for the Global Compact to accelerate its efforts to move beyond best practice learning and embrace "critical thinking". This would require greater intellectual pluralism and interactions with a wider range of subdisciplines and research institutions, as well as with civil society organizations that are organically linked to social movements. Without this balance of intellectual and social forces, the Global Compact runs the risk of doing as much to legitimize corporate power as promote inclusive and equitable patterns of development. -----Original Message----- From: Asmat Ali [mailto:asmatali at yahoo.com] Sent: November 17, 2007 11:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein Subject: RE: RE: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C MG, pls see this , it is exactly from the sphere where you live i.e. Canada http://cgdi.gc.ca/en/aboutcgdi.html michael gurstein wrote: Nope, Asmat -- not where I live, whatever the text books or theory might be peddling these days. And the idea that these PPP's might include civil society (at least in Canada) is not even on the radar... (I should add that in the ICT area that I know best, in Canada there are Public/NGO "partnerships" which in practice are ways for government to outsource their public (and legislated) responsibilities (and overhead costs) to the already completely underfunded and over-burdened Not for Profit sector. MG -----Original Message----- From: asmatali at yahoo.com [mailto:asmatali at yahoo.com] Sent: November 17, 2007 10:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: RE: AW: [governance] 3P or 3C michael gurstein, I guess that you have changed the order unintentionally , it is private sector which takes risk and public sector takes benefits. Regards asmat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Asmat Ali http://www.geocities.com/asmatali/ Mobile:+31-638-759982 Inbox cluttering up with junk? Clean up with Yahoo! Mail. !DSPAM:2676,473f418286771276010415! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From karl at cavebear.com Sat Nov 17 16:08:27 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:08:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] 3P for SDI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <473F584B.6090200@cavebear.com> asmatali at yahoo.com wrote: > Can any one tell what is common between 3P and SDI? 2LAs & TLAs are a problem everywhere but especially in IG. It would be very nice if people would, every now and then, spell out the words forming the acronyms they use. --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 Sat Nov 17 16:52:47 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:52:47 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <0f7601c8293b$304e5b70$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <0f7601c8293b$304e5b70$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <473F62AF.3060708@cavebear.com> Ian Peter wrote: > Although one of the sources of funding that provided for the ARPANet was the > US military, we have to understand its origins as being in a cold war era > when most US research funding was diverted through the military mechanisms. > Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf were not military experts -rather they were engaged > by universities where the tradition of making available publicly funded > research was well established. (Even though I worked right next to IMP #1 at UCLA during the late 1960's I wasn't really paying attention to networking, much less funding - not the sort of thing an undergrad really cared about - we were most amused by the squealing noises coming from the radio perched on top of the IMP.) But not that long afterwards... My own work during the early 1970's was funded by the US military - via ARPA and other military bodies. Vint Cerf was a paid consultant to our group at System Development Corp (SDC) - here's a photograph of some work he and I did on New Years eve 1974 dealing with injecting security into the then nascent TCP (no IP at that time) - http://www.cavebear.com/archive/cavebear/photos/tcpip.gif The work that that blackboard represented was paid for by the US military and the results went to the US military establishment, not to the public except insofar as the military let us publish our results (sometimes yes, often not - indeed I got into a bit of warm water with one US three letter agency in 1978 when I published a letter in Communications of the ACM on the topic of computer network security.) > If this had been a purely military project, it probably would have not seen > the light of day. Quite true. In those days we did not think of nuclear war as an "if" but merely as a "when". And in our network designs our model of failure of a computer or network switch (IMP) was vaporization. So we considered the net to be something that was properly to be technology to be protected. I did a lot of work on capability based operating systems (I designed and wrote some of the first operating systems that met formal, verifiable, and even provable security requirements, and I was really proud of my work on debugging technology for secure systems), work that was not classified, but like much of the good stuff of that era, kinda faded into oblivion. And because the work of that era was recorded on paper, not digital media, it is not readily found on the net today. For instance - where on the net is the original Cerf and Kahn paper on TCP? (My paper copy has long since vanished.) But then, given the work going on in Europe and elsewhere > on emerging network protocols, something would have emerged anyway and we > would have called it the Internet (TCP/IP is not rocket science and its > primary value is its universal adoption) Back in those days those of us at SDC (System Development Corporation) and Rand Corp. had a hero - Louis Pouzin (who, I believe is on this discussion list). Not enough credit is given to those who broke the circuit switching mentality - Pouzin, Don Davies, Paul Baran (did I spell that right?) Based on what Louis P. wrote, David Kaufman, Frank Heinrich (one of Dave Farber's students from UC Irvine), and I at SDC developed a layering model for protocols either in advance of or in parallel with the split of IP off from TCP - our driving purpose was to insert a layer of end-to-end encryption on datagrams beneath the transport layer. Until TCP our brains mainly conceived of transports as something HDLC-like. The work of Cerf and Kahn was a significant mental breakthrough that showed us a whole new way of thinking. Steps beyond TCP were quickly made - XNS had a lot of goodies that were superior to those in TCP and IP - and ISO/OSI was, to my mind, full of even more improvements [I do wish that IPv6 had adopted the 32-bit Fletcher checksum algorithm from OSI]. But TCP (and IP) stuck, the others withered. --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 Sat Nov 17 17:15:51 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:15:51 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473F62AF.3060708@cavebear.com> References: <0f7601c8293b$304e5b70$8b00a8c0@IAN> <473F62AF.3060708@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071117221727.0E5742BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 13:52 11/17/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: >My own work during the early 1970's was funded by the US military - >via ARPA and other military bodies. Karl, You would qualify as a CIA-agent in some countries today. (No, it is not a joke; and yes, they don't make a difference between military and intelligence) veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Nov 17 17:18:16 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:18:16 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Message-ID: Ian, Actually, I would say Veni's take is more accurate - Bob Kahn was working as a DARPA program manager at the time, DARPA funded all kinds of areas of network research and functions like the IANA function for decades - sure the net had other uses but some folks inside the US military justified budgets for it for a long long time. Network survivability being an important virtue in that Cold War context. On the other hand, the EU's official policy as last as 95, and Japan's as late as 96, was opposed to the Internet, preferring instead more ITUish/ATM-centric/controlled packet networks. Tim & co. came to MIT with the web/w3c because CERN and euro industry and govt weren't ready to back him sufficiently. Kind of hard to get that backing if official EU policy says the Internet is a bad thing. Anyway, top researchers in Europe and Japan and Australia etc were part of all this from before the beginning, so credit should go to a wide range of folks from all over the world, but no point in pretending folks in US military uniforms weren't signing off on budgets that got this thing going way back when. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com 11/17/07 11:59 AM >>> Just to get this a little more accurate - Although one of the sources of funding that provided for the ARPANet was the US military, we have to understand its origins as being in a cold war era when most US research funding was diverted through the military mechanisms. Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf were not military experts -rather they were engaged by universities where the tradition of making available publicly funded research was well established. If this had been a purely military project, it probably would have not seen the light of day. But then, given the work going on in Europe and elsewhere on emerging network protocols, something would have emerged anyway and we would have called it the Internet (TCP/IP is not rocket science and its primary value is its universal adoption) 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: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Sent: 18 November 2007 02:52 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system At 16:28 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it >compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming >from this country? Why do you think I feel that way? And still, if the Internet was created in another country, under the Defence Ministry, I have my doubts it would have ended with the general public. I gave the example of Bulgaria, because I know the military system there. Perhaps we, being from Europe, are not thinking in the commerce world as much as the Americans; at the same time many of their military projects have ended up being used by the general public; the Internet being just one, probably the best example. I don't admire the US military, but I think the people who made the Internet possible - whether by creating it, or by standardizing it, or by opening the code, or - you name it - deserve some credits, even if they are Americans. And, by the way, wasn't Tim Berners-Lee an English? So, how come that today, when we are all using the Internet, we tend to forget about all these, and about the OPEN NATURE of the Internet? 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 17 17:31:20 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:31:20 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071117223123.6B0462BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Lee and all, you have to also understand that anything developed in the Cold War time, especially by the military, is considered "bad, bad, bad" and aimed at the destruction of the good guys (that is, we, in East Europe). I am sure that today there are serious people, who would believe that the aim of the Internet is to ruin their life, society, country. And that's one of the reasons why we actually need more education and more forums like the IGF; places where opinions and experience can be exchanged. And that's why I keep on repeating the Russian sayin, "rabotaet - ne trogaj" (if it's working, don't touch it), which is different from "if it ain't broken, don't fix it). We (East) never wanted to fix things; we just knew that if they work, we should not touch them, as then they tend to break, and then we'll have to fix them. It is really a small difference, but a big cross cultural issue. veni At 17:18 11/17/2007 -0500, you wrote: >Ian, > >Actually, I would say Veni's take is more accurate - Bob Kahn was >working as a DARPA program manager at the time, DARPA funded all kinds >of areas of network research and functions like the IANA function for >decades - sure the net had other uses but some folks inside the US >military justified budgets for it for a long long time. Network >survivability being an important virtue in that Cold War context. > >On the other hand, the EU's official policy as last as 95, and Japan's >as late as 96, was opposed to the Internet, preferring instead more >ITUish/ATM-centric/controlled packet networks. Tim & co. came to MIT >with the web/w3c because CERN and euro industry and govt weren't ready >to back him sufficiently. Kind of hard to get that backing if official >EU policy says the Internet is a bad thing. > >Anyway, top researchers in Europe and Japan and Australia etc were part >of all this from before the beginning, so credit should go to a wide >range of folks from all over the world, but no point in pretending folks >in US military uniforms weren't signing off on budgets that got this >thing going way back when. > >Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 17 18:12:18 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:12:18 +1100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c8296f$4f28ed10$8b00a8c0@IAN> As I understand it, Bob Kahn's background was Bell Labs, Princeton, MIT, then contracting for BBN where he became an Arpanet contractor. So that's not really a military background. Anyway others have mentioned Louis Pouzin etc - sure EU may have taken until mid 1990s to accept TCP/IP , but are you sure when USG adopted it across the bureaucracy? Despite ARPA~ use from 1983, my memory is that DOC and some other departments stuck with OSI and GOSIP into the 1990s. Don't have a definitive reference on hand but I would be surprised if there was complete USG support for TCP/IP by 1990. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: 18 November 2007 09:18 To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org; veni at veni.com Subject: RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Ian, Actually, I would say Veni's take is more accurate - Bob Kahn was working as a DARPA program manager at the time, DARPA funded all kinds of areas of network research and functions like the IANA function for decades - sure the net had other uses but some folks inside the US military justified budgets for it for a long long time. Network survivability being an important virtue in that Cold War context. On the other hand, the EU's official policy as last as 95, and Japan's as late as 96, was opposed to the Internet, preferring instead more ITUish/ATM-centric/controlled packet networks. Tim & co. came to MIT with the web/w3c because CERN and euro industry and govt weren't ready to back him sufficiently. Kind of hard to get that backing if official EU policy says the Internet is a bad thing. Anyway, top researchers in Europe and Japan and Australia etc were part of all this from before the beginning, so credit should go to a wide range of folks from all over the world, but no point in pretending folks in US military uniforms weren't signing off on budgets that got this thing going way back when. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com 11/17/07 11:59 AM >>> Just to get this a little more accurate - Although one of the sources of funding that provided for the ARPANet was the US military, we have to understand its origins as being in a cold war era when most US research funding was diverted through the military mechanisms. Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf were not military experts -rather they were engaged by universities where the tradition of making available publicly funded research was well established. If this had been a purely military project, it probably would have not seen the light of day. But then, given the work going on in Europe and elsewhere on emerging network protocols, something would have emerged anyway and we would have called it the Internet (TCP/IP is not rocket science and its primary value is its universal adoption) 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: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Sent: 18 November 2007 02:52 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system At 16:28 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it >compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming >from this country? Why do you think I feel that way? And still, if the Internet was created in another country, under the Defence Ministry, I have my doubts it would have ended with the general public. I gave the example of Bulgaria, because I know the military system there. Perhaps we, being from Europe, are not thinking in the commerce world as much as the Americans; at the same time many of their military projects have ended up being used by the general public; the Internet being just one, probably the best example. I don't admire the US military, but I think the people who made the Internet possible - whether by creating it, or by standardizing it, or by opening the code, or - you name it - deserve some credits, even if they are Americans. And, by the way, wasn't Tim Berners-Lee an English? So, how come that today, when we are all using the Internet, we tend to forget about all these, and about the OPEN NATURE of the Internet? 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 17/11/2007 14:55 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Nov 17 19:28:22 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:28:22 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Message-ID: Veni, That adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' was used by AT&T to argue against getting busted up back in mid-80s; from a political economy perpesctive one might argue that that was as important as the us dod backing in teh growth of the Internet, because new entrants like Sprint and MCI were the 1st movers building backbone nets for the Internet. So in other words, sometimes even if 'it' is working, we all are better off in the long run if we or someone has the courage to touch it. So something new can grow. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> veni at veni.com 11/17/07 5:31 PM >>> Lee and all, you have to also understand that anything developed in the Cold War time, especially by the military, is considered "bad, bad, bad" and aimed at the destruction of the good guys (that is, we, in East Europe). I am sure that today there are serious people, who would believe that the aim of the Internet is to ruin their life, society, country. And that's one of the reasons why we actually need more education and more forums like the IGF; places where opinions and experience can be exchanged. And that's why I keep on repeating the Russian sayin, "rabotaet - ne trogaj" (if it's working, don't touch it), which is different from "if it ain't broken, don't fix it). We (East) never wanted to fix things; we just knew that if they work, we should not touch them, as then they tend to break, and then we'll have to fix them. It is really a small difference, but a big cross cultural issue. veni At 17:18 11/17/2007 -0500, you wrote: >Ian, > >Actually, I would say Veni's take is more accurate - Bob Kahn was >working as a DARPA program manager at the time, DARPA funded all kinds >of areas of network research and functions like the IANA function for >decades - sure the net had other uses but some folks inside the US >military justified budgets for it for a long long time. Network >survivability being an important virtue in that Cold War context. > >On the other hand, the EU's official policy as last as 95, and Japan's >as late as 96, was opposed to the Internet, preferring instead more >ITUish/ATM-centric/controlled packet networks. Tim & co. came to MIT >with the web/w3c because CERN and euro industry and govt weren't ready >to back him sufficiently. Kind of hard to get that backing if official >EU policy says the Internet is a bad thing. > >Anyway, top researchers in Europe and Japan and Australia etc were part >of all this from before the beginning, so credit should go to a wide >range of folks from all over the world, but no point in pretending folks >in US military uniforms weren't signing off on budgets that got this >thing going way back when. > >Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 19:58:06 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:28:06 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> Lee McKnight wrote: > That adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' was used by AT&T to argue > against getting busted up back in mid-80s; from a political economy > perpesctive one might argue that that was as important as the us dod > backing in teh growth of the Internet, because new entrants like Sprint > and MCI were the 1st movers building backbone nets for the Internet. A corporate monopoly is entirely different from a body that does work on public private partnerships and consensus. Too bad, the processes seem (at least in the public eye) stalled - especially because there are enough strong views on both sides of a few equations to avoid consensus, or because there are enough business interests around pulling in different directions or ... [plenty of reasons there] You won't get different results from what's already going on if you simply break up ICANN - you will instead have a bunch of different people doing their own thing is all. I'll even go out on a limb and say that, for a lot of countries, local and international Internet / iGov policy is being set by their telecom ministry and regulator simply to tilt the playing field in favor of their incumbent telco. Like - if too many ISPs start offering MPLS VPN services, so that people who were buying point to point leased line circuits from the incumbent telco to link their remote offices with HQ now decide to buy ADSL lines for the remote offices and VPN their employees there .. why then, just introduce a steep "VPN tax". srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sat Nov 17 20:07:32 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:07:32 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <473F9054.8020405@cavebear.com> > While I am not a technical expert, and would not go into discussion on > that level, I'd strongly argue from a policy maker's perspective > against multiple roots, multiple DNS, where every country or may be > even more - every group, or every individual (as Karl would probably > add) have their own root, domains, IP address issuing, etc. Why? ... > 1. The current model is working. Is it? First there is the basic matter that the DNS on the internet is no more resistant to failure today than it was in 1997 - except on one point: The legacy root server operators have undertaken on their own initiative, own money, and without asking permission from anybody, to deploy anycast routing and thus multiply the actual number of root servers from 13 to 10x that number. This was done in spite of ICANN, not by ICANN. Apart from that, ICANN offers no technical oversight, no protection, no recovery support for a possible failure or corruption of the ability of DNS to quickly, efficiently, and accurately turn DNS queries into DNS responses without bias for or against any query source or any query question. I have long advocated - since year 2000 - that ICANN establish a DNS monitoring system to have an early warning when things are going awry. I could not get ICANN's board to listen. I have long advocated "DNS on a DVD" - a bootable system that contains enough DNS mechanisms so that communities undergoing emergencies or disasters in which communications are disrupted can start to build-up their infrastructure from the inside while waiting for the outside to build their way back in. (Having lived through earthquakes, fires, and floods, I know the value of local self-recovery rather than sitting and waiting.) But ICANN's response: they did not want to hear it. Instead ICANN has spent its time and effort dealing with the registration side of things - a side of DNS that 99.99999% of users don't even know about, much less care about. It's as if we created a regulatory body to ensure the safety of passenger air travel and instead of caring about pilot training, maintenance, etc, they care about whether the ticket sales counters are open 24x7 and whether there is a ticket exchange policy. On top of that, ICANN has created a system that, by my estimate, is pulling over half a billion dollars (US) out of the pockets of those who buy domain names and depositing most of that amount into the bank accounts of the very few TLD incumbent registries. On top of that, internet innovation in the name space has been so channeled and constricted that it has shriveled into nothing more than an sleazy world of advertising plastered on everything everywhere and a load of speculative name registrations that requires registries to build out their systems (and charge us for that build out) well beyond what would be required had there not been this 5 day no-cost-to-the-speculators speculative madness. Is that not very badly broken? Besides, from whence comes the authority to say "no" to behavior on the net that is otherwise completely lawful? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sat Nov 17 20:14:25 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> Message-ID: Suresh, to support your argument: 1. gee, it's refreshing to see someone freshly puncturing the hot-air balloon of the "ICANN as monopoly" argument, which is flawed from the roots up. Carry on; it also lays waste the "competing ICANNs" magic-wand waving. 2. further: the "splitting ICANN" story has been belied repeatedly. The SO's, separated, become cartels and can't stand inspection by competition authorities anywhere. The architecture of ICANN makes sure that there is someone from outside each "market" (g-names, ccTLD managers, IP addresses) that avoids price-fixing and other anticompetitive practices. Is this very hard to understand? Now, is it possible to move away from discussing ICANN to some other governance issues? What we witnessed in the most recent IGF session is, among many other things, a number of stark statements that ask for other critical Internet resources, and other subjects in Internet governance, to regain attention, time, energy, and space. What good can be taken from a rational, thorough, informed discussion of ICANN is that you can identify what other multi-stakeholder forums can take from the ICANN experience to be structured, how they must function, to actually solve problems. I suggest that if you take a good look at the anti-phishing world, for example, you will begin to find there some really valuable experiences. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:28:06 +0530 > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > Suresh Ramasubramanian > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Lee McKnight' , > veni at veni.com > Subject: RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: > [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system > > Lee McKnight wrote: > >> That adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' was used by AT&T to argue >> against getting busted up back in mid-80s; from a political economy >> perpesctive one might argue that that was as important as the us dod >> backing in teh growth of the Internet, because new entrants like Sprint >> and MCI were the 1st movers building backbone nets for the Internet. > > A corporate monopoly is entirely different from a body that does work on > public private partnerships and consensus. Too bad, the processes seem (at > least in the public eye) stalled - especially because there are enough > strong views on both sides of a few equations to avoid consensus, or because > there are enough business interests around pulling in different directions > or ... [plenty of reasons there] > > You won't get different results from what's already going on if you simply > break up ICANN - you will instead have a bunch of different people doing > their own thing is all. > > I'll even go out on a limb and say that, for a lot of countries, local and > international Internet / iGov policy is being set by their telecom ministry > and regulator simply to tilt the playing field in favor of their incumbent > telco. > > Like - if too many ISPs start offering MPLS VPN services, so that people who > were buying point to point leased line circuits from the incumbent telco to > link their remote offices with HQ now decide to buy ADSL lines for the > remote offices and VPN their employees there .. why then, just introduce a > steep "VPN tax". > > srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Nov 17 20:14:41 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:14:41 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Message-ID: Ian, On that note you're right, GOSIP had 'official' backing across the US federal govt - including DOD - until very late, as the standard for procurement by fed agencies. And yeah Bob's stint as a DARPA program manager wasnt that long, they tend to rotate people in with his kind of background - ie civilian - and then send them back out after a couple years. So it wasn't that all of the fed govt bureaucracy backed the Internet from earliest days, but the darpa crowd gained some key allies in the White House when the Clinton-Gore admin came in. And even before then, the big historic step was the Gore Bill signed by George Bush Sr. in 1990, which along with a lot more $ for high performance computing, allocated $200m/yr for tresearch on the high-speed Internet and ramping up the backbone to 45 mbps. The key bipartsian compromise aspect was that the Republicans insisted, and Gore accepted, that the Internet was required by law - April Fool's! - to turn into a commercial service on April 1, 1995. So really you're right to say that the net wasn't so much a commercial thing that USG or EU or anyone could back at that time, since 'commercial' service was technically prohibited by the nsf appropriate use policy til then. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Ian Peter" 11/17/07 6:12 PM >>> As I understand it, Bob Kahn's background was Bell Labs, Princeton, MIT, then contracting for BBN where he became an Arpanet contractor. So that's not really a military background. Anyway others have mentioned Louis Pouzin etc - sure EU may have taken until mid 1990s to accept TCP/IP , but are you sure when USG adopted it across the bureaucracy? Despite ARPA~ use from 1983, my memory is that DOC and some other departments stuck with OSI and GOSIP into the 1990s. Don't have a definitive reference on hand but I would be surprised if there was complete USG support for TCP/IP by 1990. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: 18 November 2007 09:18 To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org; veni at veni.com Subject: RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Ian, Actually, I would say Veni's take is more accurate - Bob Kahn was working as a DARPA program manager at the time, DARPA funded all kinds of areas of network research and functions like the IANA function for decades - sure the net had other uses but some folks inside the US military justified budgets for it for a long long time. Network survivability being an important virtue in that Cold War context. On the other hand, the EU's official policy as last as 95, and Japan's as late as 96, was opposed to the Internet, preferring instead more ITUish/ATM-centric/controlled packet networks. Tim & co. came to MIT with the web/w3c because CERN and euro industry and govt weren't ready to back him sufficiently. Kind of hard to get that backing if official EU policy says the Internet is a bad thing. Anyway, top researchers in Europe and Japan and Australia etc were part of all this from before the beginning, so credit should go to a wide range of folks from all over the world, but no point in pretending folks in US military uniforms weren't signing off on budgets that got this thing going way back when. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com 11/17/07 11:59 AM >>> Just to get this a little more accurate - Although one of the sources of funding that provided for the ARPANet was the US military, we have to understand its origins as being in a cold war era when most US research funding was diverted through the military mechanisms. Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf were not military experts -rather they were engaged by universities where the tradition of making available publicly funded research was well established. If this had been a purely military project, it probably would have not seen the light of day. But then, given the work going on in Europe and elsewhere on emerging network protocols, something would have emerged anyway and we would have called it the Internet (TCP/IP is not rocket science and its primary value is its universal adoption) 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: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Sent: 18 November 2007 02:52 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system At 16:28 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it >compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming >from this country? Why do you think I feel that way? And still, if the Internet was created in another country, under the Defence Ministry, I have my doubts it would have ended with the general public. I gave the example of Bulgaria, because I know the military system there. Perhaps we, being from Europe, are not thinking in the commerce world as much as the Americans; at the same time many of their military projects have ended up being used by the general public; the Internet being just one, probably the best example. I don't admire the US military, but I think the people who made the Internet possible - whether by creating it, or by standardizing it, or by opening the code, or - you name it - deserve some credits, even if they are Americans. And, by the way, wasn't Tim Berners-Lee an English? So, how come that today, when we are all using the Internet, we tend to forget about all these, and about the OPEN NATURE of the Internet? 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.34/1134 - Release Date: 16/11/2007 09:52 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 17/11/2007 14:55 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 20:35:24 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:05:24 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> Message-ID: <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > Now, is it possible to move away from discussing ICANN to some other > governance issues? What we witnessed in the most recent IGF session is, The trouble with an "elephant in the room" as several people have described ICANN is that it leads to a total loss of perspective, at the expense of other issues, of equal or even greater concern and relevance. Some of the NGOs might even find the usual catch phrases related to deprivation, haves and have-nots, north - south etc applicable. In fact, on the int gov scene, I would call this the ICANN divide. Somewhat like the digital divide, only this is the opportunity cost of "energy, time etc spent generating hot air on icann v/s on other issues". The same equation certainly applies for real work rather than mere rhetoric, of course .. but there's precious little of it going on, so .. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 20:37:35 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:07:35 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473F9054.8020405@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <473F9054.8020405@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <000601c82983$99eb2c00$cdc18400$@net> Karl Auerbach wrote: > It's as if we created a regulatory body to ensure the safety of > passenger air travel and instead of caring about pilot training, > maintenance, etc, they care about whether the ticket sales counters are > open 24x7 and whether there is a ticket exchange policy. Er, guess what IATA does and what the Montreal Convention is all about, and what the local civil aviation authorities in each country (FAA etc) do? srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Nov 17 21:52:09 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:52:09 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Message-ID: I didn't say anything about breaking up ICANN, though yeah this string started with people dreaming of alternate roots. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Suresh Ramasubramanian" 11/17/07 7:58 PM >>> Lee McKnight wrote: > That adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' was used by AT&T to argue > against getting busted up back in mid-80s; from a political economy > perpesctive one might argue that that was as important as the us dod > backing in teh growth of the Internet, because new entrants like Sprint > and MCI were the 1st movers building backbone nets for the Internet. A corporate monopoly is entirely different from a body that does work on public private partnerships and consensus. Too bad, the processes seem (at least in the public eye) stalled - especially because there are enough strong views on both sides of a few equations to avoid consensus, or because there are enough business interests around pulling in different directions or ... [plenty of reasons there] You won't get different results from what's already going on if you simply break up ICANN - you will instead have a bunch of different people doing their own thing is all. I'll even go out on a limb and say that, for a lot of countries, local and international Internet / iGov policy is being set by their telecom ministry and regulator simply to tilt the playing field in favor of their incumbent telco. Like - if too many ISPs start offering MPLS VPN services, so that people who were buying point to point leased line circuits from the incumbent telco to link their remote offices with HQ now decide to buy ADSL lines for the remote offices and VPN their employees there .. why then, just introduce a steep "VPN tax". srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 18 01:55:23 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:25:23 +0530 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000501c829b0$04fea7c0$0efbf740$@net> Lee McKnight wrote: > > I didn't say anything about breaking up ICANN, though yeah this string > started with people dreaming of alternate roots. > There's more wrongheadedness to this thread than just mere fantasizing about alt roots, I guess. It is turning into a microcosm of just what ALL is wrong with a lot of the igov scene * Agenda + ax to grind groups * Other groups with the vaguest of ideas about the process, backed with plenty of rhetoric * Commercial interests pulling in multiple directions * An elephant in the room so people lack perspective, ignore everything else, and magnify the elephant to something 10x its actual size etc etc 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 veni at veni.com Sun Nov 18 03:16:08 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 03:16:08 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473F9054.8020405@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <473F9054.8020405@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711180016l31256386i88c965da454fe856@mail.gmail.com> Karls and all, I understand the (sad) history you have had with ICANN. But, to go on forever with it, makes you something of a (sad) historian, yes? Let me give you a similar example: I voted in favour of the creation of a certain TLD (so did Joi Ito; check his blog for the last entry where he describes that or mine for more detailed explanation). I was in the minority. That, however sad for me, didn't turn me into a (sad) historian, pointing out how "unfair" life is. Anycast started without ICANN you say? I don't know if it did or it didn't, but do you think it is a good thing, that's the question. As whether it is dspite or thanks to? I am sure that in some cases it is thanks to, and for sure one of the places where people discuss root servers' issues is... ICANN meetings. You say the board would not hear you. But what is the problem here, since you have the whole ICANN listening to you? If you couldn't persuade the board (none of them?), then perhaps this might have been your error? Just might be. Or you eliminate this possibility by default? Lastly, as some already said it; the really important issues about the Internet users are not the ones ICANN deals with. They are important for a very small group of people, and if you see who are in this group, you can aslo respond to the question "why". Best, Veni On 11/17/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > While I am not a technical expert, and would not go into discussion on > > that level, I'd strongly argue from a policy maker's perspective > > against multiple roots, multiple DNS, where every country or may be > > even more - every group, or every individual (as Karl would probably > > add) have their own root, domains, IP address issuing, etc. Why? > ... > > 1. The current model is working. > > Is it? > > First there is the basic matter that the DNS on the internet is no more > resistant to failure today than it was in 1997 - except on one point: > The legacy root server operators have undertaken on their own > initiative, own money, and without asking permission from anybody, to > deploy anycast routing and thus multiply the actual number of root > servers from 13 to 10x that number. This was done in spite of ICANN, > not by ICANN. > > Apart from that, ICANN offers no technical oversight, no protection, no > recovery support for a possible failure or corruption of the ability of > DNS to quickly, efficiently, and accurately turn DNS queries into DNS > responses without bias for or against any query source or any query > question. > > I have long advocated - since year 2000 - that ICANN establish a DNS > monitoring system to have an early warning when things are going awry. > I could not get ICANN's board to listen. > > I have long advocated "DNS on a DVD" - a bootable system that contains > enough DNS mechanisms so that communities undergoing emergencies or > disasters in which communications are disrupted can start to build-up > their infrastructure from the inside while waiting for the outside to > build their way back in. (Having lived through earthquakes, fires, and > floods, I know the value of local self-recovery rather than sitting and > waiting.) But ICANN's response: they did not want to hear it. > > Instead ICANN has spent its time and effort dealing with the > registration side of things - a side of DNS that 99.99999% of users > don't even know about, much less care about. > > It's as if we created a regulatory body to ensure the safety of > passenger air travel and instead of caring about pilot training, > maintenance, etc, they care about whether the ticket sales counters are > open 24x7 and whether there is a ticket exchange policy. > > On top of that, ICANN has created a system that, by my estimate, is > pulling over half a billion dollars (US) out of the pockets of those who > buy domain names and depositing most of that amount into the bank > accounts of the very few TLD incumbent registries. > > On top of that, internet innovation in the name space has been so > channeled and constricted that it has shriveled into nothing more than > an sleazy world of advertising plastered on everything everywhere and a > load of speculative name registrations that requires registries to build > out their systems (and charge us for that build out) well beyond what > would be required had there not been this 5 day > no-cost-to-the-speculators speculative madness. > > Is that not very badly broken? > > Besides, from whence comes the authority to say "no" to behavior on the > net that is otherwise completely lawful? > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun Nov 18 03:58:52 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:58:52 -0800 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711180016l31256386i88c965da454fe856@mail.gmail.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <473F9054.8020405@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40711180016l31256386i88c965da454fe856@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <473FFECC.9040608@cavebear.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > I understand the (sad) history you have had with ICANN. Sad? Worse, ICANN's treatment of its publicly elected board members was declared unlawful by a California judge. But you are diverging from the point of this thread, which is that: + The internet is at present risk of DNS failure or error - there is no body, certainly not ICANN, that taking responsibility for assuring the technical stability of DNS. The chance of such failure on any given day may be small (although we have not really measured the possibilities of deliberate attack) but it is certainly not zero. And if such a failure should occur the damage that would be caused could be catastrophic, amounting to the shutdown of the entire internet. Sticking our collective heads and the sand and saying that "it isn't so" does not make that risk go away. + Consistent DNS roots remedy the single point of failure and single point of attack that we have with the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root. + Consistent DNS roots are viable and do not break any technical strictures nor in practice do they cause any technical problems. + There is at least one currently operational example of a well run consistent DNS root, the ORSN. + Consistent DNS roots can be set up outside ICANN without any permission whatsoever. + That such consistent DNS roots offer a way to expand the TLD space without the need for, or the massive expense of, an ICANN or any overlording bureaucracy of internet names. + That such a possibility threatens even the very need for an ICANN. + That ICANN has had a long history of belittling anyone who mentions that their emperor - the theory of the single catholic root - is wearing no clothes. + And that ICANN has done utterly nothing to protect the technical stability of DNS against failures and errors and has consistently chosen to ignore proposals for any system to monitor for problems or improve the time of recovery from such problems. This abandonment of its responsibilities continues to this day: If one examines ICANN's current IDN tests - tests being performed on the live internet as we speak - one will discover that there are no clear criteria to ascertain whether problems are occurring, there is no clear assignment of responsibility to watch for such problems and to decide whether to terminate the test, and no clear procedures for terminating the test - it is all ad hoc based on plans that are, at their most charitable, merely preliminary drafts. It would be quite useful in this world of internet governance to establish a body that actually does oversee the technical stability of DNS. ICANN certainly is not doing it nor does it seem to want to do it. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sun Nov 18 05:14:20 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:14:20 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> Message-ID: Le 18 nov. 07 à 01:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > You won't get different results from what's already going on if you > simply > break up ICANN - you will instead have a bunch of different people > doing > their own thing is all. Is this a postulate, the holly bible, or what? Where are the experiences that showed this is true? Why should one take this as granted? > I'll even go out on a limb and say that, for a lot of countries, > local and > international Internet / iGov policy is being set by their telecom > ministry > and regulator simply to tilt the playing field in favor of their > incumbent > telco. On this, we do agree. Telecom ministry, regulator or DoC, what's the difference? Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sun Nov 18 06:27:32 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:27:32 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> Message-ID: <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> Le 18 nov. 07 à 02:35, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > >> Now, is it possible to move away from discussing ICANN to some other >> governance issues? What we witnessed in the most recent IGF >> session is, > > The trouble with an "elephant in the room" as several people have > described > ICANN is that it leads to a total loss of perspective, at the > expense of > other issues, of equal or even greater concern and relevance. Loss of which perpective? ICANN is not the elephant in the room, it's the gatekeeper of a room that should be everyone's room, deciding: - who can enter and who is denied any right to be in the room - how much one should pay to enter - how one should behave in the room - who has more rights than others in the room - in case of dispute, how they should be resolved in order to enforce such unbalance of rights - which language should be spoken in the room - etc. the list is long On this list (not to mention other far more important fora), we're constantly witnessing this attitude: don't even talk about ICANN, "there are other issues of equal or even greater concern and relevance". What prevents from also discussing other issues? It's not a matter of an Either/Or here. Anti-spam/phishing/whatever should be discussed? Yes, of course, like many other issues. Those who want to discuss these, please go ahead, others will listen carefully, because the outcomes of such discussion would be useful in any a system, with 1, 10, 100 or 1000 ICANN(s). In the mean time, please let other people freely discuss ICANN, thanks. And if those discussing Anti- spam etc. also want to discuss ICANN, they're welcome, provided that they don't use the "there are other issues of equal or even greater concern and relevance" non-argument. Actually, during WSIS and now it's going on at IGF, this is exactly what's happening: constantly beating around the bush, when the real point is to ensure noone directly addresses the main issue for which WSIS as well as IGF have been set up. The fact that ICANN is conceding from time to time some points, when pressure is too hard that it may loose too much if not doing so, is far from satisfactory, and soon clarified (e.g. "ICANN has agreed to work in partnership with the International Telecommunication Union and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to encourage a multilingual cyberspace, and in fact co-hosted an IGF session with these bodies, but no formal agreement was signed. ICANN appologies for any misunderstanding that may have resulted in this regard.", http://www.icann.org/announcements/ announcement-2-15nov07.htm). Simply think how long and difficult steps it took to include CIR (critical internet resources) as one of IGF II main themes. OK, now Carlos had the opportunity to carry the 'Jack the ripper' approach to one IGF plenary session (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/ IGF2-Critical%20Internet%20Resources-12NOV07.txt). And here we cannot even starts discussing it? Unbelievable! Carlos added: "Let's go part by part". This is exactly the point I've made when starting this discussion (as I do from time to time to check where we are on this list in our collective ability to at least consider having a serious discussion about this): we may have some different approaches of the sizes of respective parts, how they should be managed and coordinated, etc., but that's not an issue. Let interested people go ahead refining this proposal. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Nov 18 06:58:20 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:58:20 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071118120234.F21F43361D1@mxr.isoc.bg> At 12:27 11/18/2007 +0100, Meryem wrote: >On this list (not to mention other far more important fora), we're >constantly witnessing this attitude: don't even talk about ICANN, >"there are other issues of equal or even greater concern and >relevance". Actually I don't remember anyone saying, "don't talk about ICANN", and yes - there are issues which are of much greater concern. >Actually, during WSIS and now it's going on at IGF, this is exactly >what's happening: constantly beating around the bush, when the real >point is to ensure noone directly addresses the main issue for which >WSIS as well as IGF have been set up. I guess you can find the irony in your own words, because the WSIS was set up not for the reasons we are discussing - mainly CIR, understand "ICANN". 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 vb at bertola.eu Sun Nov 18 09:52:45 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:52:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> Pardon me if I enter the discussion at this stage - I just got back from two days of flights and I haven't read all the rest. Meryem Marzouki ha scritto: >> The trouble with an "elephant in the room" as several people have >> described >> ICANN is that it leads to a total loss of perspective, at the expense of >> other issues, of equal or even greater concern and relevance. > > Loss of which perpective? > ICANN is not the elephant in the room, it's the gatekeeper of a room > that should be everyone's room, deciding: > - who can enter and who is denied any right to be in the room > - how much one should pay to enter > - how one should behave in the room > - who has more rights than others in the room > - in case of dispute, how they should be resolved in order to enforce > such unbalance of rights > - which language should be spoken in the room > - etc. the list is long Sure, ICANN is a regulator and does what regulators do. Now my questions are: 1) is there the need of a regulator? Sure there is. Without regulation, Verisign would be running the entire DNS alone, maybe taking direct orders by the Bush administration. I do not buy the argument that the Internet does not need regulation, that equates to leaving it in the free hands of the strongest economical and political powers. 2) couldn't we have a system where regulation is more distributed? e.g. with multiple roots living under some coordination? Yes we could - actually I wrote a short article exactly on that point in the WGIG book, more than two years ago - however, in the end, you do need some coordination, and thus some form of central coordinating entity, even if one could imagine a coordinating entity more lightweight than ICANN. 3) is ICANN a good regulator? Yes, no? Well, that's a discussion worth having, wherever people want to have it, but I suspect that ICANN itself might be the more logical venue, especially if you want to advance practical points such as multilingualism etc.; and incidentally, several of us have been rolling their sleeves up to that purpose for years. > On this list (not to mention other far more important fora), we're > constantly witnessing this attitude: don't even talk about ICANN, "there > are other issues of equal or even greater concern and relevance". What > prevents from also discussing other issues? I just found a 300-message thread on ICANN issues, after getting back from an IGF where one main session and at least 1/4 of the workshops regarded DNS issues, so I don't see how anyone can claim that it's impossible to discuss ICANN. But this is not your fault, it's the fault of the stupid approach that was devised by the ICANN leadership in the last years, when they were scared by the prospect of a discussion, and thus did whatever they could to prevent it. They behaved defensively as if they had anything to hide or to be ashamed for, which in a mediatic world, as everyone knows, implies an admission to have something to hide or to be ashamed for, even when that is not true in reality. So even people like you, who were never involved in ICANN, saw this behaviour and thought: if they behave like this, there must be something really bad going on. Nice strategy! The last pearl of the collection was the attempt to convince the people who were calling for a discussion on "critical Internet resources" that they didn't really want to discuss ICANN, they wanted to discuss on how scarce electricity is in the third world. It was pathetic to watch - more, it bordered on insulting the intelligence of everyone else. I have been involved in ICANN for the last seven years. I have seen plenty of shortcomings, failures, political tricks. Yet I think that, if examined objectively, ICANN scores much better than most other global institutions, and that the remaining issues (such as the relationship with the USG) can be overcome with due patience and effort; *that* is where our efforts, as users and as civil society, should go. If only ICANN wasn't so committed to shooting themselves in the foot... But: > Actually, during WSIS and now it's going on at IGF, this is exactly > what's happening: constantly beating around the bush, when the real > point is to ensure noone directly addresses the main issue for which > WSIS as well as IGF have been set up. No, sorry, this is factually wrong. When the WSIS started, no one even knew what Internet governance was. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it started because of a synergy between Tunisia's self-promotional efforts and the desire of the United Nations to show activity in the shaping of the Information Society, especially for developmental purposes - the fundamental purpose, in fact, was ICT for development. When the IGF was created, its most important purpose was to address all the other issues, those that did not have a regulator or a venue for discussion yet. The nature of ICANN was to be addressed by a separate program called "enhanced cooperation". I would be desperate if the IGF stopped discussing "all the rest" and became a shadow meeting of ICANN. It is the ICANN controversy and the related political maneuvering - see the few things we know about internal feuds in the AG - that has actually been preventing a fuller success of the IGF in other fields. I think that we should tell to all the people who are only interested in ICANN to bring their arguing somewhere else (at ICANN meetings, possibly), because this controversy is poisoning the entire IGF; and I want to use the IGF to discuss human rights, access, privacy, intellectual property, and a lot of other stuff which is much much more fundamental to our future society than a three-character string at the end of a URL. And that *is* being impeded by our lists and meetings being flooded by ICANN-related arguing, often on arguments going on since 10 years ago; and by the AG being unable to agree on panelists until the day before the IGF, because everyone is unwilling to compromise about those for the CIR session; and so on. But I also see that a precondition for this is that the controversy on ICANN has to be addressed somewhere, with full satisfaction of all participants. In the past two years, too often ICANN looked like those young adult students who face their graduation exam at the university, and approach it as a 5-year-old bully who is afraid of a grammar test at the elementary school. They whine, pretend they're ill, find petty excuses not to show up, punch the teacher in the face, claim their classmates should go first, and eventually try to move the conversation towards the weather and the latest football matches. If only they could be self-confident enough to realize that they are adults and have been doing a reasonably good job, they would show up and discover that they already passed the exam. But of course, if after a lot of time they still don't show up, the university will get fed up, and that's the only case when they will actually graduate someone else. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 18 10:19:29 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:19:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <00ee01c829f6$6bbc3810$8b00a8c0@IAN> Last words before I go into transit for 24 hours - Preconditions for the ICANN discussion to take a more appropriate role 1. Replacement of the DOC contract with something more appropriate (or just getting rid of it altogether) 2. Accountability. Self perpetuating structures where a self appointed Nomcom chooses the board members are inappropriate. A more appropriate oversight mechanism or process is needed. 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: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] Sent: 19 November 2007 01:53 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF Pardon me if I enter the discussion at this stage - I just got back from two days of flights and I haven't read all the rest. Meryem Marzouki ha scritto: >> The trouble with an "elephant in the room" as several people have >> described >> ICANN is that it leads to a total loss of perspective, at the expense of >> other issues, of equal or even greater concern and relevance. > > Loss of which perpective? > ICANN is not the elephant in the room, it's the gatekeeper of a room > that should be everyone's room, deciding: > - who can enter and who is denied any right to be in the room > - how much one should pay to enter > - how one should behave in the room > - who has more rights than others in the room > - in case of dispute, how they should be resolved in order to enforce > such unbalance of rights > - which language should be spoken in the room > - etc. the list is long Sure, ICANN is a regulator and does what regulators do. Now my questions are: 1) is there the need of a regulator? Sure there is. Without regulation, Verisign would be running the entire DNS alone, maybe taking direct orders by the Bush administration. I do not buy the argument that the Internet does not need regulation, that equates to leaving it in the free hands of the strongest economical and political powers. 2) couldn't we have a system where regulation is more distributed? e.g. with multiple roots living under some coordination? Yes we could - actually I wrote a short article exactly on that point in the WGIG book, more than two years ago - however, in the end, you do need some coordination, and thus some form of central coordinating entity, even if one could imagine a coordinating entity more lightweight than ICANN. 3) is ICANN a good regulator? Yes, no? Well, that's a discussion worth having, wherever people want to have it, but I suspect that ICANN itself might be the more logical venue, especially if you want to advance practical points such as multilingualism etc.; and incidentally, several of us have been rolling their sleeves up to that purpose for years. > On this list (not to mention other far more important fora), we're > constantly witnessing this attitude: don't even talk about ICANN, "there > are other issues of equal or even greater concern and relevance". What > prevents from also discussing other issues? I just found a 300-message thread on ICANN issues, after getting back from an IGF where one main session and at least 1/4 of the workshops regarded DNS issues, so I don't see how anyone can claim that it's impossible to discuss ICANN. But this is not your fault, it's the fault of the stupid approach that was devised by the ICANN leadership in the last years, when they were scared by the prospect of a discussion, and thus did whatever they could to prevent it. They behaved defensively as if they had anything to hide or to be ashamed for, which in a mediatic world, as everyone knows, implies an admission to have something to hide or to be ashamed for, even when that is not true in reality. So even people like you, who were never involved in ICANN, saw this behaviour and thought: if they behave like this, there must be something really bad going on. Nice strategy! The last pearl of the collection was the attempt to convince the people who were calling for a discussion on "critical Internet resources" that they didn't really want to discuss ICANN, they wanted to discuss on how scarce electricity is in the third world. It was pathetic to watch - more, it bordered on insulting the intelligence of everyone else. I have been involved in ICANN for the last seven years. I have seen plenty of shortcomings, failures, political tricks. Yet I think that, if examined objectively, ICANN scores much better than most other global institutions, and that the remaining issues (such as the relationship with the USG) can be overcome with due patience and effort; *that* is where our efforts, as users and as civil society, should go. If only ICANN wasn't so committed to shooting themselves in the foot... But: > Actually, during WSIS and now it's going on at IGF, this is exactly > what's happening: constantly beating around the bush, when the real > point is to ensure noone directly addresses the main issue for which > WSIS as well as IGF have been set up. No, sorry, this is factually wrong. When the WSIS started, no one even knew what Internet governance was. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it started because of a synergy between Tunisia's self-promotional efforts and the desire of the United Nations to show activity in the shaping of the Information Society, especially for developmental purposes - the fundamental purpose, in fact, was ICT for development. When the IGF was created, its most important purpose was to address all the other issues, those that did not have a regulator or a venue for discussion yet. The nature of ICANN was to be addressed by a separate program called "enhanced cooperation". I would be desperate if the IGF stopped discussing "all the rest" and became a shadow meeting of ICANN. It is the ICANN controversy and the related political maneuvering - see the few things we know about internal feuds in the AG - that has actually been preventing a fuller success of the IGF in other fields. I think that we should tell to all the people who are only interested in ICANN to bring their arguing somewhere else (at ICANN meetings, possibly), because this controversy is poisoning the entire IGF; and I want to use the IGF to discuss human rights, access, privacy, intellectual property, and a lot of other stuff which is much much more fundamental to our future society than a three-character string at the end of a URL. And that *is* being impeded by our lists and meetings being flooded by ICANN-related arguing, often on arguments going on since 10 years ago; and by the AG being unable to agree on panelists until the day before the IGF, because everyone is unwilling to compromise about those for the CIR session; and so on. But I also see that a precondition for this is that the controversy on ICANN has to be addressed somewhere, with full satisfaction of all participants. In the past two years, too often ICANN looked like those young adult students who face their graduation exam at the university, and approach it as a 5-year-old bully who is afraid of a grammar test at the elementary school. They whine, pretend they're ill, find petty excuses not to show up, punch the teacher in the face, claim their classmates should go first, and eventually try to move the conversation towards the weather and the latest football matches. If only they could be self-confident enough to realize that they are adults and have been doing a reasonably good job, they would show up and discover that they already passed the exam. But of course, if after a lot of time they still don't show up, the university will get fed up, and that's the only case when they will actually graduate someone else. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 17/11/2007 14:55 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 17/11/2007 14:55 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Nov 18 10:39:59 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:39:59 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN and the IGF References: <00ee01c829f6$6bbc3810$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD24@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Ian Peter: Preconditions for the ICANN discussion to take a more appropriate role: 1. Replacement of the DOC contract with something more appropriate (or justgetting rid of it altogether) Wolfgang: There are two contracts between ICANN and the DOC. What I expect (in the best case) is that the JPA will be terminated by the next US administration, keeping a channel of communication in place. ICANN as a corporation wuld be mainly on its own feet and legally "independent", governed by an internaitonal board with US americans in a minority position. But there will be no termination of the IANA contract. w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 18 10:41:47 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:41:47 +1100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD24@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00f501c829f9$89aa1600$8b00a8c0@IAN> No termination of the iana contract, no end of discussion I'm afraid....wish we could move on.... Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: 19 November 2007 02:40 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola; Meryem Marzouki Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN and the IGF Ian Peter: Preconditions for the ICANN discussion to take a more appropriate role: 1. Replacement of the DOC contract with something more appropriate (or justgetting rid of it altogether) Wolfgang: There are two contracts between ICANN and the DOC. What I expect (in the best case) is that the JPA will be terminated by the next US administration, keeping a channel of communication in place. ICANN as a corporation wuld be mainly on its own feet and legally "independent", governed by an internaitonal board with US americans in a minority position. But there will be no termination of the IANA contract. w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 17/11/2007 14:55 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 17/11/2007 14:55 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Nov 18 11:02:25 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:02:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: I have a vicarious question, If Google take the 700mhz spectrum and digitizes it (migrates from analog to digital) , - Who really governs the jurisdiction of the spectrum ? � The FCC traditionally regulates �emission-transmissions�, (�vs�) where Icann regulates �packet-emissions� where packets are subject to design and distribution. Within this �gray-area� is there a question of Regulatory Authority, of this transmission-medium? -- Ref.: Google Readies Wireless Bid Google may make a solo bid for frequencies to run a wireless network, but analysts say it needs a carrier partner. Peter Sayer, IDG News Service Saturday, November 17, 2007 06:00 AM PST Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in an auction be held in the U.S. in January -- but it will likely need a carrier partner to help build a network to use it, analysts said Friday. The spectrum, between 698MHz and 806MHz, and collectively called the 700MHz band, is currently used for analog TV broadcasts. It is due to be freed up for other uses, such as operating mobile telecommunications networks, by 2009. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission plans to auction off the right to use that spectrum on Jan. 24, and bidders must declare their intention to participate by Dec. 3. In July, Google said it would commit a minimum of US$4.6 billion to bid for a license to use the spectrum, if the FCC set certain conditions on the licenses. Those conditions included giving people the freedom to choose what applications and networks they use with the phones they bought, and giving service providers the freedom to connect with those networks and buy wholesale minutes from network owners on reasonable terms. Google is still making "the necessary preparations" for a bid, a company representative said Friday. The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Laying out that kind of money for spectrum -- and even paying for the construction of a wireless network to use it -- would present no great problem to Google, which, as of Sept. 30, had $13.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents on hand. But analysts are skeptical of the benefit to Google of going it alone. "Wireless spectrum and network management are nowhere near Google's core competency. Its competence is in one market, online advertising," said Emma Mohr McClune, principal analyst with Current Analysis. That sentiment was echoed by Jan Dawson, a vice president at market analyst Ovum Ltd. "Anything other than search at the minute seems like a move in the wrong direction," said Dawson. With its focus on search-based advertising, Google's financial metrics are "phenomenally better" than those that even the best mobile network operators can achieve, he said. "You have to wonder why a company would diversify into a market like that." Google's goal may not be to make money from operating the network, though: it could simply be a lever to get its applications into the hands of more mobile phone owners. It has already taken steps in this direction, offering versions of its Web applications for Apple's iPhone, and launching the Open Handset Alliance to promote its Android open software stack for mobile devices. "The commonality between all those moves is to get their services running on mobile devices," said Adam Leach of Ovum. Building a wireless network is too much for Google to attempt alone, say the analysts: the company should seek partners as it has in the handset market. A carrier partner "is essential to building out and running a network. The core issue is the operations and maintenance of this new network. ... It is not trivial to build and run a telecommunications company," said Bill Ho, senior analyst at Current Analysis. If Google is to partner with an operator it could choose Sprint, some analysts suggested. The two have already agreed to partner on WiMax services. Partnering with Google could also be an opportunity for an experienced operator not yet present in the U.S. to enter that market, suggested Dawson. Possible candidates include Orange, a subsidiary of France Tilicom with networks in France, Poland, Spain, and the U.K., or Japan's NTT DoCoMo. The U.S. is not the only country with plans to auction off analog television spectrum for new uses: The U.K. began withdrawing analog TV service this month, and other European Union countries are set to follow suit. But the likelihood of this opening the way for a new pan-European service to rival GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) is remote: each country has different licensing rules for the television spectrum, and the frequencies used are not always the same from country to country. "I can't see all these auctions collectively creating a new single market," said McClune. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Nov 18 11:02:02 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:02:02 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN and the IGF References: <00f501c829f9$89aa1600$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> ________________________________ Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Gesendet: So 18.11.2007 16:41 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'Meryem Marzouki' Betreff: RE: [governance] ICANN and the IGF No termination of the iana contract, no end of discussion I'm afraid....wish we could move on.... Wolfgang: Ian, you are right. So be prepared for some more years of discussion. Hopefully the debate will remain in the IGF and not travel into the 1st Committee of the UN General Assembly :-(((. w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Nov 18 11:08:01 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:08:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: I have a vicarious question, If Google take the 700mhz spectrum and digitizes it (migrates from analog to digital) , - Who really governs the jurisdiction of the spectrum ? � The FCC traditionally regulates �emission-transmissions�, (�vs�) where Icann regulates �packet-emissions� where packets are subject to design and distribution. Within this �gray-area� is there a question of Regulatory Authority, of this transmission-medium? Scratch my itch. -- Ref.: Google Readies Wireless Bid Google may make a solo bid for frequencies to run a wireless network, but analysts say it needs a carrier partner. Peter Sayer, IDG News Service Saturday, November 17, 2007 06:00 AM PST http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139762-c,google/article.html Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in an auction be held in the U.S. in January -- but it will likely need a carrier partner to help build a network to use it, analysts said Friday. The spectrum, between 698MHz and 806MHz, and collectively called the 700MHz band, is currently used for analog TV broadcasts. It is due to be freed up for other uses, such as operating mobile telecommunications networks, by 2009. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission plans to auction off the right to use that spectrum on Jan. 24, and bidders must declare their intention to participate by Dec. 3. In July, Google said it would commit a minimum of US$4.6 billion to bid for a license to use the spectrum, if the FCC set certain conditions on the licenses. Those conditions included giving people the freedom to choose what applications and networks they use with the phones they bought, and giving service providers the freedom to connect with those networks and buy wholesale minutes from network owners on reasonable terms. Google is still making "the necessary preparations" for a bid, a company representative said Friday. The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Laying out that kind of money for spectrum -- and even paying for the construction of a wireless network to use it -- would present no great problem to Google, which, as of Sept. 30, had $13.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents on hand. But analysts are skeptical of the benefit to Google of going it alone. "Wireless spectrum and network management are nowhere near Google's core competency. Its competence is in one market, online advertising," said Emma Mohr McClune, principal analyst with Current Analysis. That sentiment was echoed by Jan Dawson, a vice president at market analyst Ovum Ltd. "Anything other than search at the minute seems like a move in the wrong direction," said Dawson. With its focus on search-based advertising, Google's financial metrics are "phenomenally better" than those that even the best mobile network operators can achieve, he said. "You have to wonder why a company would diversify into a market like that." Google's goal may not be to make money from operating the network, though: it could simply be a lever to get its applications into the hands of more mobile phone owners. It has already taken steps in this direction, offering versions of its Web applications for Apple's iPhone, and launching the Open Handset Alliance to promote its Android open software stack for mobile devices. "The commonality between all those moves is to get their services running on mobile devices," said Adam Leach of Ovum. Building a wireless network is too much for Google to attempt alone, say the analysts: the company should seek partners as it has in the handset market. A carrier partner "is essential to building out and running a network. The core issue is the operations and maintenance of this new network. ... It is not trivial to build and run a telecommunications company," said Bill Ho, senior analyst at Current Analysis. If Google is to partner with an operator it could choose Sprint, some analysts suggested. The two have already agreed to partner on WiMax services. Partnering with Google could also be an opportunity for an experienced operator not yet present in the U.S. to enter that market, suggested Dawson. Possible candidates include Orange, a subsidiary of France Tilicom with networks in France, Poland, Spain, and the U.K., or Japan's NTT DoCoMo. The U.S. is not the only country with plans to auction off analog television spectrum for new uses: The U.K. began withdrawing analog TV service this month, and other European Union countries are set to follow suit. But the likelihood of this opening the way for a new pan-European service to rival GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) is remote: each country has different licensing rules for the television spectrum, and the frequencies used are not always the same from country to country. "I can't see all these auctions collectively creating a new single market," said McClune. --- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Nov 18 11:10:44 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:10:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: I have a vicarious question, If Google take the 700mhz spectrum and digitizes it (migrates from analog to digital) , - Who really governs the jurisdiction of the spectrum ? � The FCC traditionally regulates �emission-transmissions�, (�vs�) where Icann regulates �packet-emissions� where packets are subject to design and distribution. Within this �gray-area� is there a question of Regulatory Authority, of this transmission-medium? Scratch my itch. -- Ref.: Google Readies Wireless Bid Google may make a solo bid for frequencies to run a wireless network, but analysts say it needs a carrier partner. Peter Sayer, IDG News Service Saturday, November 17, 2007 06:00 AM PST http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139762-c,google/article.html Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in an auction be held in the U.S. in January -- but it will likely need a carrier partner to help build a network to use it, analysts said Friday. The spectrum, between 698MHz and 806MHz, and collectively called the 700MHz band, is currently used for analog TV broadcasts. It is due to be freed up for other uses, such as operating mobile telecommunications networks, by 2009. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission plans to auction off the right to use that spectrum on Jan. 24, and bidders must declare their intention to participate by Dec. 3. In July, Google said it would commit a minimum of US$4.6 billion to bid for a license to use the spectrum, if the FCC set certain conditions on the licenses. Those conditions included giving people the freedom to choose what applications and networks they use with the phones they bought, and giving service providers the freedom to connect with those networks and buy wholesale minutes from network owners on reasonable terms. Google is still making "the necessary preparations" for a bid, a company representative said Friday. The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Laying out that kind of money for spectrum -- and even paying for the construction of a wireless network to use it -- would present no great problem to Google, which, as of Sept. 30, had $13.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents on hand. But analysts are skeptical of the benefit to Google of going it alone. "Wireless spectrum and network management are nowhere near Google's core competency. Its competence is in one market, online advertising," said Emma Mohr McClune, principal analyst with Current Analysis. That sentiment was echoed by Jan Dawson, a vice president at market analyst Ovum Ltd. "Anything other than search at the minute seems like a move in the wrong direction," said Dawson. With its focus on search-based advertising, Google's financial metrics are "phenomenally better" than those that even the best mobile network operators can achieve, he said. "You have to wonder why a company would diversify into a market like that." Google's goal may not be to make money from operating the network, though: it could simply be a lever to get its applications into the hands of more mobile phone owners. It has already taken steps in this direction, offering versions of its Web applications for Apple's iPhone, and launching the Open Handset Alliance to promote its Android open software stack for mobile devices. "The commonality between all those moves is to get their services running on mobile devices," said Adam Leach of Ovum. Building a wireless network is too much for Google to attempt alone, say the analysts: the company should seek partners as it has in the handset market. A carrier partner "is essential to building out and running a network. The core issue is the operations and maintenance of this new network. ... It is not trivial to build and run a telecommunications company," said Bill Ho, senior analyst at Current Analysis. If Google is to partner with an operator it could choose Sprint, some analysts suggested. The two have already agreed to partner on WiMax services. Partnering with Google could also be an opportunity for an experienced operator not yet present in the U.S. to enter that market, suggested Dawson. Possible candidates include Orange, a subsidiary of France Tilicom with networks in France, Poland, Spain, and the U.K., or Japan's NTT DoCoMo. The U.S. is not the only country with plans to auction off analog television spectrum for new uses: The U.K. began withdrawing analog TV service this month, and other European Union countries are set to follow suit. But the likelihood of this opening the way for a new pan-European service to rival GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) is remote: each country has different licensing rules for the television spectrum, and the frequencies used are not always the same from country to country. "I can't see all these auctions collectively creating a new single market," said McClune. --- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Nov 18 11:13:19 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:13:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Vint|Google|Icann|DoC - Wirless Bid 4.6 Billion Message-ID: I have a vicarious question, If Google take the 700mhz spectrum and digitizes it (migrates from analog to digital) , - Who really governs the jurisdiction of the spectrum ? � The FCC traditionally regulates �emission-transmissions�, (�vs�) where Icann regulates �packet-emissions� where packets are subject to design and distribution. Within this �gray-area� is there a question of Regulatory Authority, of this transmission-medium? Scratch my itch. -- Ref.: Google Readies Wireless Bid Google may make a solo bid for frequencies to run a wireless network, but analysts say it needs a carrier partner. Peter Sayer, IDG News Service Saturday, November 17, 2007 06:00 AM PST http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139762-c,google/article.html Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in an auction be held in the U.S. in January -- but it will likely need a carrier partner to help build a network to use it, analysts said Friday. The spectrum, between 698MHz and 806MHz, and collectively called the 700MHz band, is currently used for analog TV broadcasts. It is due to be freed up for other uses, such as operating mobile telecommunications networks, by 2009. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission plans to auction off the right to use that spectrum on Jan. 24, and bidders must declare their intention to participate by Dec. 3. In July, Google said it would commit a minimum of US$4.6 billion to bid for a license to use the spectrum, if the FCC set certain conditions on the licenses. Those conditions included giving people the freedom to choose what applications and networks they use with the phones they bought, and giving service providers the freedom to connect with those networks and buy wholesale minutes from network owners on reasonable terms. Google is still making "the necessary preparations" for a bid, a company representative said Friday. The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Laying out that kind of money for spectrum -- and even paying for the construction of a wireless network to use it -- would present no great problem to Google, which, as of Sept. 30, had $13.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents on hand. But analysts are skeptical of the benefit to Google of going it alone. "Wireless spectrum and network management are nowhere near Google's core competency. Its competence is in one market, online advertising," said Emma Mohr McClune, principal analyst with Current Analysis. That sentiment was echoed by Jan Dawson, a vice president at market analyst Ovum Ltd. "Anything other than search at the minute seems like a move in the wrong direction," said Dawson. With its focus on search-based advertising, Google's financial metrics are "phenomenally better" than those that even the best mobile network operators can achieve, he said. "You have to wonder why a company would diversify into a market like that." Google's goal may not be to make money from operating the network, though: it could simply be a lever to get its applications into the hands of more mobile phone owners. It has already taken steps in this direction, offering versions of its Web applications for Apple's iPhone, and launching the Open Handset Alliance to promote its Android open software stack for mobile devices. "The commonality between all those moves is to get their services running on mobile devices," said Adam Leach of Ovum. Building a wireless network is too much for Google to attempt alone, say the analysts: the company should seek partners as it has in the handset market. A carrier partner "is essential to building out and running a network. The core issue is the operations and maintenance of this new network. ... It is not trivial to build and run a telecommunications company," said Bill Ho, senior analyst at Current Analysis. If Google is to partner with an operator it could choose Sprint, some analysts suggested. The two have already agreed to partner on WiMax services. Partnering with Google could also be an opportunity for an experienced operator not yet present in the U.S. to enter that market, suggested Dawson. Possible candidates include Orange, a subsidiary of France Tilicom with networks in France, Poland, Spain, and the U.K., or Japan's NTT DoCoMo. The U.S. is not the only country with plans to auction off analog television spectrum for new uses: The U.K. began withdrawing analog TV service this month, and other European Union countries are set to follow suit. But the likelihood of this opening the way for a new pan-European service to rival GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) is remote: each country has different licensing rules for the television spectrum, and the frequencies used are not always the same from country to country. "I can't see all these auctions collectively creating a new single market," said McClune. -- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Nov 18 11:21:31 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:21:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Icann|FCC Regulator - Good Cop|Bad Cop Message-ID: Are the two [Icann|FCC] now playing Good Cop|Bad Cop? Ref.: FCC Urged to Stop ISP Traffic 'Throttling' A Web-based video distributor asks the FCC to set up rules for broadband network traffic management. Grant Gross, IDG News Service Saturday, November 17, 2007 07:00 AM PST http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139751-c,internetlegalissues/article.html A distributor of online video content has filed a complaint with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, asking the agency to stop broadband providers from blocking or slowing P-to-P traffic. The petition filed by Vuze, which uses the BitTorrent P-to-P (peer-to-peer) protocol to distribute Web content, asks the FCC to set rules for network management by ISPs (Internet service providers). Vuze's filing late Wednesday follows reports last month that cable broadband provider Comcast slows some P-to-P traffic, including BitTorrent. Broadband providers often promote their services as being necessary for watching video online, but then they slow access to a service like Vuze's, said John Fernandes, Vuze's vice president of marketing. "They say that they're engaging in reasonable network management, but what they're doing is slowing down some traffic," he said. Vuze, which has partnerships with several movie studios, television networks and PC game makers, wants to start a dialog with ISPs about what kind of network management is allowed, added Gilles BianRosa, the company's CEO. But the FCC needs to prohibit large-scale content blocking, what he called traffic "throttling," he said. "The ISPs cannot decide unilaterally what to do with third-party Internet services such as us," BianRosa said. "We need to work with them to design a solution that works and is fair." By blocking or slowing video and other Web content, ISPs are fighting against customer demand for more multimedia services, BianRosa added. "We think that ISPs are spitting into the wind with that kind of approach," he said. "This kind of blocking has to stop." Representatives of three large broadband providers, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, didn't immediately respond to a request for comments on Vuze's FCC filing. Comcast has denied blocking Web content, but some broadband providers have opposed other attempts to create rules against blocking some types of traffic, saying they need to be able to ensure quality of service by managing their networks. Vuze's FCC petition is similar in some ways to calls by consumer groups and Internet-based firms for the FCC or the U.S. Congress to pass network neutrality rules, which would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or slowing Web content from competitors. The FCC has had an open inquiry into net neutrality rules since April, and a push to pass rules in Congress has stalled. But the Vuze proposal is more focused than net neutrality, BianRosa said. Net neutrality often includes other issues in addition to content blocking, including requirements for broadband and wireless providers to allow all legal devices to connect to their networks. Vuze is asking the FCC to "dig deeper" than the net neutrality debate, he said. Public Knowledge, a group promoting consumer rights on the Internet, praised the Vuze filing. Vuze is a good example of the harm caused by content blocking, said Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge's president. "Comcast's actions frustrate Vuze's business and force the company to devote resources to play a 'cat and mouse' game with Comcast in order to maintain superior service for its customers," Sohn said in an e-mail. "We hope the FCC acts promptly before even more harm is done to more consumers and to more companies." Earlier this week, a Comcast customer in California filed a lawsuit against the company, saying the provider has caused several Web-based programs to suffer performance problems. In late October, Public Knowledge and other members of the Open Internet Coalition filed a complaint about the alleged Comcast blocking with the FCC. Vuze, based in Palo Alto, California, distributes video in partnership with movie studios and television networks including the BBC, Showtime and PBS. It also distributes PC games, music videos, and audio files. Company officials say the Vuze client has been installed by customers more than 12 million times since the company, formerly called Azureus, rebranded itself in January. -- 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 kwgr at gmx.de Sun Nov 18 11:49:02 2007 From: kwgr at gmx.de (klaus grewlich) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:49:02 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD24@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <00ee01c829f6$6bbc3810$8b00a8c0@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD24@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20071118164902.235150@gmx.net> Lieber Herr Kleinwaechter, Sie waren so freundlich mir Ihren Beitrag zu ICANN zu senden. Der Ueberblick mit Tiefgang war hilfreich! Ihnen alles Gute Ihr KWG Botschafter Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Grewlich Deutsche Botschaft ul. Razzakova 28 720040 Bishkek Republic of Kyrgyzstan (Privatpost: Diplo-Kurier Botschaft Bischkek 11020 Berlin) Tel: (996) (312) 905000 e-mail: kwgr at gmx.de -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:39:59 +0100 > Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter , governance at lists.cpsr.org, Vittorio Bertola , Meryem Marzouki > Betreff: AW: [governance] ICANN and the IGF > Ian Peter: > Preconditions for the ICANN discussion to take a more appropriate role: 1. > Replacement of the DOC contract with something more appropriate (or > justgetting rid of it altogether) > > Wolfgang: > There are two contracts between ICANN and the DOC. What I expect (in the > best case) is that the JPA will be terminated by the next US > administration, keeping a channel of communication in place. ICANN as a corporation wuld > be mainly on its own feet and legally "independent", governed by an > internaitonal board with US americans in a minority position. But there will be no > termination of the IANA contract. > > w > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- GMX FreeMail: 1 GB Postfach, 5 E-Mail-Adressen, 10 Free SMS. Alle Infos und kostenlose Anmeldung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freemail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sun Nov 18 13:46:08 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:46:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Le 18 nov. 07 à 15:52, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > Pardon me if I enter the discussion at this stage - I just got back > from two days of flights and I haven't read all the rest. [...] > 2) couldn't we have a system where regulation is more distributed? > e.g. with multiple roots living under some coordination? Yes we > could - actually I wrote a short article exactly on that point in > the WGIG book, more than two years ago - The more, the merrier.. > however, in the end, you do need some coordination, and thus some > form of central coordinating entity, even if one could imagine a > coordinating entity more lightweight than ICANN. Exactly. If you'd taken the time to read all the rest, since the start of this thread before answering, then you'd have found that not only this need for coordination (though not necessarily a central entity) has been acknowledged, but also some preliminary rules for such a coordination has been drafted. > So even people like you, who were never involved in ICANN, saw this > behaviour and thought: if they behave like this, there must be > something really bad going on. Nice strategy! Having been never involved in ICANN doesn't necessarily mean haven't closely followed all this: not being involved somewhere rather means the choice of not willing to be part of it, in one way or another. I'm not involved in IGF - for IGF one, I was even in Athens for the GigaNet symposium and left on the first day of IGF -, while I've been fully involved in WSIS, from the first pre-WSIS preparatory meetings, even before PrepCom1 in 2002. It's a choice, based on how you consider the process. > I have been involved in ICANN for the last seven years. I have seen > plenty of shortcomings, failures, political tricks. Yet I think > that, if examined objectively, ICANN scores much better than most > other global institutions, and that the remaining issues (such as > the relationship with the USG) can be overcome with due patience > and effort; *that* is where our efforts, as users and as civil > society, should go. This is one opinion, which I respect, while disagreeing on this. There are more than "remaining issues" with ICANN, and I'm not necessarily comparing ICANN to other global institutions. After all, ICANN wasn't initially designed in continuity with these models, it started as a radically different model. So why should we stuck here with these comparisons? > But: > >> Actually, during WSIS and now it's going on at IGF, this is >> exactly what's happening: constantly beating around the bush, when >> the real point is to ensure noone directly addresses the main >> issue for which WSIS as well as IGF have been set up. > > No, sorry, this is factually wrong. > > When the WSIS started, no one even knew what Internet governance was. Speak for yourself:), whether you mean 1998 (initial proposal at ITU Plenipotentiary by Tunisia) or 2002 (official process start) as WSIS starting date! To give you one simple example that immediately comes to my mind, CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) hold its 1998 annual conference in Boston, with general theme being "One Planet, One Net: The Public Interest in Internet Governance", with, inter alia, Lessig as keynote speaker addressing, guess what?! I do perfectly remember this, as I myself participated to this conference, being on a panel on universal access. CPSR was at that time running a campaign with this same slogan "one planet, one net". Many other groups (NGOs or business, foundations, etc.) and people were already working on Internet governance, as we currently understand the issue, including contributors to this list who will recognize themselves:) Another example? At the 1998 OECD Ministerial meeting in Ottawa, a coalition of NGOs involved in the conference together with the OECD trade-union advisory committee (TUAC) addressed a letter to the Ministerial explicitely mentioning Internet governance. Still in liaison with OECD, the 1999 Public Voice conference that my own NGO co-organized with EPIC in Paris hosted a session on "ICANN and the public participation in Internet governance". This only to mention early events that I know very well having taken part in them. I'm sure many other on this list can provide other examples. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it started because of a synergy > between Tunisia's self-promotional efforts and the desire of the > United Nations to show activity in the shaping of the Information > Society, especially for developmental purposes - the fundamental > purpose, in fact, was ICT for development. You're (partly) wrong, or more exactly this is over-simplification. Initial proposal by Tunisia at ITU Plenipotentiary may be difficult to get (Document 196 " Draft Resolution [Tun-1] - Holding of a World Summit on the Information Society ", but look at the final resolution from this 1998 plenipotentiary: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/ background/resolutions/73.html. Between 1998 and 2001, when the resolution to hold WSIS was adopted by the UN, the UN adopted the Millenium Declaration in 2000, where "new technologies" where referred to only as a mean to reach the "development and elimination of poverty" objective. > When the IGF was created, its most important purpose was to address > all the other issues, those that did not have a regulator or a > venue for discussion yet. The nature of ICANN was to be addressed > by a separate program called "enhanced cooperation". And where is this "enhanced cooperation" program? Can we participate to it? We all know the answer. I agree that the IGF was created to beat around the bush, once again. It's a "conversation". BTW, I notice that issues IGF is only starting discussing are being discussed for more than 10 years, in various arenas, and in many arenas, regions, etc. they've led to practical outcomes, like legislation and other means of regulation, some good, some bad. I'm amazed to see that, on many issues, IGF is rather rediscovering the wheel. I don't care if, for some people to get an armchair, or even a small seat, it needs organizing an international armchair discussion. But, on some particular issues, specially those touching to human rights, I'm worried that many participants are playing a dangerous game. For many of them, this is not intentional, but the result will be same. Who will be accountable for that? Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Nov 18 15:51:31 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:51:31 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473FFECC.9040608@cavebear.com> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <473F9054.8020405@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40711180016l31256386i88c965da454fe856@mail.gmail.com> <473FFECC.9040608@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 18 nov 2007, at 03.58, Karl Auerbach wrote: > And if such a failure should occur the damage that would be caused > could be catastrophic, amounting to the shutdown of the entire > internet. this seems a bit of an overstatement. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Nov 18 16:38:10 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:38:10 -0500 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Message-ID: Meryem, Sorry to continue my cleaning up of the historical record on this thread: but France Telecom did spend lots of time and money in the 1990s trying to promote the Minitel into Japan, the US, and other nations, even though folks like me were advising that it was a lost cause/not exportable. In fact as late as mid-90s they dropped $50m - which in those days was real money - trying to bring the Minitel into the US...on the dates I am a little fuzzy I admit, but I remember that round number. Also, the confiscatory nature of the diffusion process - ie they took away your phone books so you had to use the Minitel to find information - sounds like something the US DOD might dream of - well actually sounds like a move a state-owned telco monopoly would dream up ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 11/17/07 10:28 AM >>> Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming from this country? This liminary note being made, the Minitel (which by the way was not created by the military) didn't make it on the world arena not because all services were in French (translations would have been easy), but for many other reasons, like that at that time France Telecom was a public monopoly, with no real interest in commercializing it worldwide. When circumstances changed, the Minitel and its models (technical, contractual, economic.. models) were entirely obsolete w.r.t. Internet developments, and specially web developments. What's great about the minitel is that the device was distributed for free to all French telephone users (individuals, administration, businesses..), in the early 80s, and that made it widely used by the population, with many public and private services available, some for free, others with payment. The bad side of the story is that this situation has delayed a lot Internet developments in France, and specially its use by a large public: in the mid 90s, the minitel penetration rate was at its peak. Meryem Le 17 nov. 07 à 14:56, Veni Markovski a écrit : > Hmmm... What was the system in France, which was created before the > WWW? Did it make it on the world arena, or it remained only in France? > > Let's be more precise. If it wasn't for the DoD to give it up to > the DoC, and then to ICANN, we would not be able to exchange these > emails today. > > veni > > At 14:40 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: > >> Le 17 nov. 07 * 13:13, Veni Markovski a *crit : >>> >>> It is good to think about the way the Internet came to the current >>> day, if it was created by the... let's say the Bulgarian Ministry >>> of Defence. It would have still been used only by the Ministry of >>> Defence within their main building in Sofia. >> >> I'm confident that, thanks to ISOC Bulgaria and public-private >> partnership, this wouldn't have developed this way:) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 18 17:28:21 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:28:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 15:52 11/18/2007 +0100, Vittorio wrote: >But this is not your fault, it's the fault of the stupid approach >that was devised by the ICANN leadership in the last years, when >they were scared by the prospect of a discussion, and thus did >whatever they could to prevent it. They behaved defensively as if >they had anything to hide or to be ashamed for, which in a mediatic >world, as everyone knows, implies an admission to have something to >hide or to be ashamed for, even when that is not true in reality. Would you like to be more precise here? I don't remember such an approach, at least when I was on the Board. The very fact that there was ICANN representative(s) both in the WGIG and the AG is a clear sign that this is not the case. So, some of the discussion was led by academic people, and some of them have never had technical expertise, but as we know in a political environment it is not really important. btw, as for the outcome of the WSIS, there were people who were warning that the only result of it will be bashing of the existing organizations. And - voila - that's what happened. ICANN has been trying to be part of the solution (because the WSIS created a problem, and it required a solution, or else one would be left in the landscape) since 2003, and I think it's not fair of you to state something like "stupid approach" by "ICANN leadership", and make statement that "they were scared" of a discussion. You probably mistake this with the lack of desire to be proactive, and engage in a way you thought correct? Plus, at some point you were also part of this "leadership", so I guess you don't mean you were "stupid"? Best veni P.S. It is another issue, that if it wasn't for ICANN, ISOC, and a few other organizations to provide experts to these and other groups, the discussion would have been completely political, and with no technical ground whatsoever. As you probably recollect, the technical community (engineers, RFC-writers, etc.) have always been very critical about the way the WSIS goes. If you also remember, the Civil Society (CS) had also been a strange phenomenon around the WSIS. The Internet Governance caucus was created, if I am not mistaken, by Y J Park; who - with Milton - didn't manage to achieve any success with the NCDNHC at ICANN in the beginning (1999 - 2000). Today YJ is a student at the same university Milton is teaching. The Caucus was created for a number of reasons, but we should not forget that among them it was giving access to the CS Bureau to the WSIS. And the word "Bureau" was giving some extra power; at least in the view of some. You may have been there at that time - I just don't remember. But I remember well the establishment of another of the groups - the European Caucus, which ended up as European - North American one; Hans Klein (then with CPSR) was one of the active people there. Robert Guerra was the other one; at some point the only one. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sun Nov 18 18:16:00 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:16:00 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E23BE63-8E02-4972-8C71-6C5E767C46C6@ras.eu.org> Lee, Thanks for this clarification. Regarding the "confiscatory nature" of the diffusion process, although I confess I live in France only since 1986, i.e. after the Minitel distribution started, I really don't remember people having no choice but using the Minitel. I think you had rather to choose, either the Minitel or the phone books, or one of the phone books (yellow or white pages, don't remember). Also, since we're going into the details, there have been different generations of the Minitel equipment, and most probably only version 1 was entirely free, while further versions were leased for a very, very small amount of money (like were leased more trendy fixed telephones, only the real museum ones being given for free). In any case, I'm not sure this is more of a "confiscatory" nature than, say, some web2.0 (or even older) applications economic models:) As for the figures, after some googling I've found a Wired article from April 2001, speaking of $4.1 million spent by France Telecom in 2000 trying to promote the Minitel in the US (http://www.wired.com/ science/discoveries/news/2001/04/42943)? Meryem Le 18 nov. 07 à 22:38, Lee McKnight a écrit : > Meryem, > > Sorry to continue my cleaning up of the historical record on this > thread: but France Telecom did spend lots of time and money in the > 1990s trying to promote the Minitel into Japan, the US, and other > nations, even though folks like me were advising that it was a lost > cause/not exportable. > > In fact as late as mid-90s they dropped $50m - which in those days > was real money - trying to bring the Minitel into the US...on the > dates I am a little fuzzy I admit, but I remember that round number. > > Also, the confiscatory nature of the diffusion process - ie they > took away your phone books so you had to use the Minitel to find > information - sounds like something the US DOD might dream of - > well actually sounds like a move a state-owned telco monopoly would > dream up ; ) > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 11/17/07 10:28 AM >>> > Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it > compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming > from this country? > > This liminary note being made, the Minitel (which by the way was not > created by the military) didn't make it on the world arena not > because all services were in French (translations would have been > easy), but for many other reasons, like that at that time France > Telecom was a public monopoly, with no real interest in > commercializing it worldwide. When circumstances changed, the Minitel > and its models (technical, contractual, economic.. models) were > entirely obsolete w.r.t. Internet developments, and specially web > developments. > > What's great about the minitel is that the device was distributed for > free to all French telephone users (individuals, administration, > businesses..), in the early 80s, and that made it widely used by the > population, with many public and private services available, some for > free, others with payment. The bad side of the story is that this > situation has delayed a lot Internet developments in France, and > specially its use by a large public: in the mid 90s, the minitel > penetration rate was at its peak. > > Meryem > > Le 17 nov. 07 à 14:56, Veni Markovski a écrit : > >> Hmmm... What was the system in France, which was created before the >> WWW? Did it make it on the world arena, or it remained only in >> France? >> >> Let's be more precise. If it wasn't for the DoD to give it up to >> the DoC, and then to ICANN, we would not be able to exchange these >> emails today. >> >> veni >> >> At 14:40 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: >> >>> Le 17 nov. 07 * 13:13, Veni Markovski a *crit : >>>> >>>> It is good to think about the way the Internet came to the current >>>> day, if it was created by the... let's say the Bulgarian Ministry >>>> of Defence. It would have still been used only by the Ministry of >>>> Defence within their main building in Sofia. >>> >>> I'm confident that, thanks to ISOC Bulgaria and public-private >>> partnership, this wouldn't have developed this way:) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Nov 18 22:19:05 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:19:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: 20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg Message-ID: Vittorio | Veni, I think Peter Dengate Thrush summed it up in a passing comment about the future of Icann, in the 'Critical Internet Resources Session' on Monday November 12th. Text: http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Critical%20Internet%20Resources-12N OV07.txt Video: mms://200.160.1.20/igf1-ingles2.wmv - ... "I think the first one is why I'm standing up. The question early on was about the new leadership of ICANN, is it going to be open to discussions. And, yes, absolutely. Here we are. Their commitment remains the same, to the white paper principles. We're looking at an industry-led, self-regulated, bottom-up, transparent process for the coordination of the Internet resources. And that's going to continue under the new leadership, as you called it. " ... - I feel his passage ..." We're looking at an industry-led, self-regulated, bottom-up, transparent process for the coordination of the Internet resources." ... sets out the oxymoron here. Peter said: "industry-led" *NOT* "society-led" This has always been the crux between the two philosophies. This is the discord which got the ball rolling in the first place way-back-when the IcannAtLarge formed, (YJ Park's Caucus was a by-product of that, and WSIS a post AtLarge event. And I might also add: a scuttled 'Vote' in which 60k people participated and Karls troubles in getting financile info from the Board. etc. etc. ... ) So Peter has already said the Future is status-quo. --- End ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Nov 19 00:47:50 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:47:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Forgive the delayed response, I've been offline over the weekend. At 7:14 AM -0500 11/17/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >At 13:13 11/16/2007 -0800, you wrote: >>seriously, regardless of your personal doubts. You can try to minimize >>their numbers and their relative importance, but when you do that you will > >I didn't try to minimize the numbers. I was asking a question "how >many", not "how little". Therfore the following conclusions of yours >are also incorrect. *Of course* you were minimizing the numbers, by asking the rhetorical question ("many" or "little" makes no difference -- you were clearly implying that they were not worth paying attention to). My conclusions are not incorrect. >>just infuriate them more. No one likes to be marginalized by those in >>power. It just doesn't feel "fair" -- rather, it feels like the heavy hand >>of power. >>And excuse me, how is ICANN "responsible for" only a "small segment of the >>Internet"?? Isn't ICANN responsible for the *entire DNS* over the *entire >>Internet*? > >Is the DNS the whole Internet? I think the DNS is a small part of it. >There are many more, and more relevant, parts of the Internet that >makes it run today. At the current stage of Internet evolution, everything still depends upon DNS. It is a gateway through which virtually all identifiers must pass. In economic terms, DNS remains a de facto monopoly on the location function, without which an end node might as well not exist in most cases. >>Everyone and everything on the Internet uses the DNS, because >>DNS is in effect the main gatekeeper to any content or applications on the >>net (until Google takes over everything). > >Which may very well happen soon, and then the domain names will lose >its value. (1) Don't count your chickens before they hatch, even if Vint is doing so. (2) Even if this is true, the same political issues that apply to DNS will then apply to Google and whatever it does to circumvent the need for DNS. So, whatever political processes we devise to deal with DNS will apply to any replacement paradigm as well. Why not start now to try to get it right? >>Perhaps the difference of opinion here derives from the fact that you still >>want to talk in terms of technical function and run away from political >>policy issues. > >This is exactly what I am not running away from. Well, then, I'm glad to hear that you agree that control over DNS (etc.) is a political issue and not just a technical issue. Too bad that most officials at ICANN disagree with this stance. >>it becomes clear that there is justified disagreement about how well the >>system works. > >the fact that there's a disagreement does not make the system NOT >working. It just makes an argument HOW it is working. Not IF it is working. Sorry, perhaps this is a function of your misunderstanding of arcane nuances of the English language (as you have pleaded in the past). The word "working" often has a connotation of "successful operation" not merely "operation" and of course standards for "successful" depend on your political position and political values. This is precisely my point. The sense of the word "working" that connotes only "mere operation" is unimportant in this discussion. The sense that connotes "successful operation" is what is important, and determining that success is a political discussion and a political judgment. >>Face it, ICANN has become > >you make a statement, but there's no evidence to support it. There's tons of evidence that ICANN is an ineliminably political institution (and not merely a technical institution). It is currently explicitly addressing public policy matters of personal privacy, law enforcement, freedom of expression and intellectual property, and implicitly addressing matters of economic power and political power and jurisdiction. And besides, you said just above that you were not running away from the political policy issues, so you seem to contradict yourself anyway, unless I misunderstood you. >>transmission. Politically speaking, the current root system is not working >>for those not in power. > >Can you define "power" here? Sure. Power over the DNS in this context means the monopoly power of ICANN to decide who/what gets into the root and who/what does not. This power is both economic and political in nature. And as long as DNS has (functional and thus economic) value, this power remains politically significant and deserves discussion on political terms. >>actually see it. But be realistic: elephants are too big to sweep under >>the rug. > >I could accept that, if >a) there was indeed an elephant in the room, which you still have not >convinced me into believing, and >b) you are sure there's no enough big rug ;) (a) I do not necessarily hope to convince you into believing anything, as people's political opinions are primarily emotional and do not respond to rational analysis. But for the benefit of those looking on, I hope a rational analysis might ultimately have some weight. (b) I fear there is indeed a rug big enough, but I hope not. Some truly nefarious authoritarian governments in the past have constructed tremendously large rugs and used their monopoly power over mass communications to help sweep huge elephants under the rug, so we know that it can be done. But it was and would be wrong. 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 yjpark21 at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 02:58:25 2007 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:58:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Caucus in 2003 Message-ID: Dear Veni and all, Thank you for your efforts to recollect what really happened rather than what some of people in this list want to say it happened. However, I noticed there are some misunderstandings in your emails and let me correct some of your comments. Again, if you think I have another misunderstanding on what really happened in the CS and ICANN, please feel free to correct me. I decided not to participate in this debate back in 2004 after I made hard efforts to keep the name of the caucus. As some of you may remember, the name of the very caucus was for a while "Global ICT Governance caucus" until governments in the WSIS came up with the idea of WGIG. > P.S. It is another issue, that if it wasn't for ICANN, ISOC, and a > few other organizations to provide experts to these and other groups, > the discussion would have been completely political, and with no > technical ground whatsoever. That's another view. > As you probably recollect, the technical community (engineers, > RFC-writers, etc.) have always been very critical about the way the > WSIS goes. If you also remember, the Civil Society (CS) had also been > a strange phenomenon around the WSIS. The Internet Governance caucus > was created, if I am not mistaken, by Y J Park; who - with Milton - I am not sure why you think creation of Internet Governance was strange. During the PrepComII WSIS in Feb. 2003, I submitted a proposal to create Internet Governance Caucus after my very interesting experiences in Asia regional meetings in Tokyo in Jan. 2003 and in Beirut Feb. 2003. I learned Wolfgang also submitted the same proposal to Renata and that's how we were asked to be co-whatever position. > didn't manage to achieve any success with the NCDNHC at ICANN in the > beginning (1999 - 2000). Today YJ is a student at the same university Yes, I have to admit I could not succeed to persuade decision-makers in the ICANN to accept the concept of "multilingual domain names" when I was working for MINC (2000 - early 2002) as deputy and later acting CEO. Until recently, it was "taboo" to bring up the concept of multinlingual domain names at ICANN meetings. The first presentation on multilingual domain names in front of GAC/ICANN was made in 2000 when Karen Rose, the current ISOC director for Education was US GAC rep and Paul Towmey, the CEO of ICANN was the chairman of GAC. However, Paul made it clear such presentation could not even be recognized as a formal agenda therefore, MINC's presentation needed to be arranged after GAC meeting and no record for such presentation at all. However, I think I can get some credit of creating WG-Review process when I was with NCDNHC (1999 - early 2002). It was the first review process of the DNSO and ICANN. Like back then Internet Governance Caucus in 2003, nobody wanted to create any process how ICANN could be more improved at all. Despite all hurdles and attacks, it was "successfully" created and the WG-review report was sent to the ICANN board! http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/mail2.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/mail2.html You can say another failure part came along after the report was sent to the Board. No response from the ICANN board to the report except two board members' recognition, Karl Auerbach and Sang Hyun Kyong. Therefore no discussion on review at all until Stuart Lynn, CEO of ICANN started ICANN Reform in 2002. > Milton is teaching. In the history of early stage of Internet Governance Caucus, Milton has nothing to do with it. > The Caucus was created for a number of reasons, > but we should not forget that among them it was giving access to the > CS Bureau to the WSIS. Yes, for a number of reasons... You can find those reasons from my first intervention during the plenary of governments in Feb. 2003 which is now attached. After presenting this position, I was accused of destroying ICANN by some people who later became coordinators of this caucus. 1. Root-server issues 2. ccTLD issues 3. Multilingual issues 4. Individual users issues > And the word "Bureau" was giving some extra > power; at least in the view of some. You may have been there at that > time - I just don't remember. But I remember well the establishment > of another of the groups - the European Caucus, which ended up as > European - North American one; Hans Klein (then with CPSR) was one of > the active people there. Robert Guerra was the other one; at some > point the only one. Lastly, I have had some problems in receiving IGC emailIs. I would like to ask Parminder to correct my email reception, too. When I asked Hans Klein to create IGC list back in March 2003, I provided yjpark at myepark.com (which was no web-based emails) for subscription and later I also subcribed to this list with yjpark at syr.edu(web-based emails) to have more interactive sessions after Sept. 2003. I noticed somehow I started to get IGC emails only to syr.edu acccount not my previous one since sometime 2004 or 2005. Now I want to use yjpark21 at gmail.com for this list since I am not going to be associated with syr.edu any more as soon as I finish my dissertation on ccTLDs. Thank you, YJ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Internet Governance Caucus First Contribution YJ Park.doc Type: application/msword Size: 119296 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vb at bertola.eu Mon Nov 19 05:24:34 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:24:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> This thread is now going down the usual path of "I did that first" and "seven years ago you said that...". Anyway: Veni Markovski ha scritto: > ICANN has been trying to be part of the solution (because the WSIS > created a problem, and it required a solution, or else one would be left > in the landscape) since 2003, and I think it's not fair of you to state > something like "stupid approach" by "ICANN leadership", and make > statement that "they were scared" of a discussion. You probably mistake > this with the lack of desire to be proactive, and engage in a way you > thought correct? Plus, at some point you were also part of this > "leadership", so I guess you don't mean you were "stupid"? You're the second person who takes that adjective personally, so let me note that it is the approach which was stupid, not the people who devised it. It happens every day to every intelligent person to take stupid decisions, especially ones that reveal their counterproductiveness only in hindsight (the intelligent people are not those who do not take stupid decisions, but those who do not take twice the same stupid decision). I take your implicit transfer of the adjective from the strategy to the people as a sign that people like you and Alex are so committed to ICANN that they completely identify themselves with the organization. Unfortunately, this also explains why it was often so difficult for ICANN to accept views that were even slightly different from the ones of their leaders. However, I must note that - according to my ten months of experience with the Board - the situation in the Board seems to be much different, and more open to interaction. One would only hope that that could eventually transfer to the staff dealing with the IGF. Of course, you are also free to think that the defensive strategy was clever and it would have been stupid to engage proactively, we do not need to agree on that. I hope that I am allowed to express a different opinion without being aggressively attacked in public, though that's exactly what happens each and every time. And pardon me if I insist, but your intervention managed to focus the discussion exactly on the part of my considerations which was critical of ICANN, rather than on the part that was favourable to it. Nice communications strategy, again. -- 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Nov 19 06:25:41 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:25:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS Bureau In-Reply-To: <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <5C3AADF5-CF52-48BF-8B99-FC1AFC2F537D@ras.eu.org> Le 18 nov. 07 à 23:28, Veni Markovski a écrit : > If you also remember, the Civil Society (CS) had also been a > strange phenomenon around the WSIS. And this was nothing compared to the IGF:)) > The Internet Governance caucus was created, if I am not mistaken, > by Y J Park; [...] > The Caucus was created for a number of reasons, but we should not > forget that among them it was giving access to the CS Bureau to the > WSIS. > And the word "Bureau" was giving some extra power; at least in the > view of some. True. Actually, the Human Rights caucus was the only caucus, I think, having constantly refused to take a seat at this bureau, despite the numerous invitations and even pressures. This, in consistence with the caucus's view on this bureau, how and why it was proposed, its composition and role and actual decisions and actions, its lack of transparency and accountability, etc. > You may have been there at that time - I just don't remember. But I > remember well the establishment of another of the groups - the > European Caucus, which ended up as European - North American one; > Hans Klein (then with CPSR) was one of the active people there. > Robert Guerra was the other one; at some point the only one. I don't understand what you mean here, and in relation with "bureau" giving some extra power? Because I do remember that someone named Veni Markovski organized a meeting at PrepCom 2 to create a "European caucus", claiming that the current one had no practical existence (this was true, BTW: http:// mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/2003-October/000020.html). At the end of this meeting of Feb. 20 (attended by 10-15 persons only, among them only 2 or 3 were already part of the process since Prep Com 1), two persons were nominated to be the European and North- American caucus representatives: yourself for Europe and Hans Klein for North-America, but Hans was only nominated for a short period, to be replaced afterwards by Robert Guerra, since Robert was attenting the PrepCom as part of a governmental delegation (Canada), and couldn't be at the same time a CS group representative. I don't exactly remember, but it seems that you stayed in the CS Bureau until WSIS I in December 2003, maybe for the same reason as Robert: you were part of Bulgaria delegation afterwards? For those interested, the CS Bureau list archive is at: http:// mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/ and the EU-NA caucus list archives at: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/ pipermail/wsis-euc/ In any case, as far as I remember from the very beginning, things were really confused, with no connexion between the EU-NA caucus (which was indeed active) and its so-called representatives at the CS Bureau.. Although Robert did his best, alone. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Nov 19 06:40:51 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:40:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Dan, At 21:47 11/18/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >I didn't try to minimize the numbers. I was asking a question "how > >many", not "how little". Therfore the following conclusions of yours > >are also incorrect. > >*Of course* you were minimizing the numbers, by asking the rhetorical >question ("many" or "little" makes no difference -- you were clearly >implying that they were not worth paying attention to). My conclusions are >not incorrect. Well... We can't have a discussion, if you interprete incorrectly what I wrote. I am not minimizing the numbers; I am merely asking a question. I understand you are not happy that your conclusions, based on the misinterpretation of what I said, are not correct, but that's life. > >>Everyone and everything on the Internet uses the DNS, because > >>DNS is in effect the main gatekeeper to any content or applications on the > >>net (until Google takes over everything). > > > >Which may very well happen soon, and then the domain names will lose > >its value. > >(1) Don't count your chickens before they hatch, even if Vint is doing so. Dan, it wasn't me, who is counting - I didn't mention Google first. Plus, using Vint once he is not with ICANN, makes your argument weaker. > >>Perhaps the difference of opinion here derives from the fact that you still > >>want to talk in terms of technical function and run away from political > >>policy issues. > > > >This is exactly what I am not running away from. > >Well, then, I'm glad to hear that you agree that control over DNS (etc.) is >a political issue and not just a technical issue. Too bad that most >officials at ICANN disagree with this stance. Oh, no, wrong conclusion again. What I say is *I* am not running away from political policy issues. Among the people here I have a proven record for doing exactly this; and have some achievements, also, if you follow the legal framework in Bulgaria (check the Best Practices Forum of last Wednesday in Rio; case: Bulgaria). > (a) I do not necessarily hope to convince you into believing anything, as >people's political opinions are primarily emotional and do not respond to >rational analysis. Sorry to hear you think that way. Luckily, my record in Bulgaria proves the opposite. That political opinions were not emotional, and were quite rational. 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 Nov 19 07:49:00 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:49:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <4741863C.5060605@rits.org.br> Why do we need to reopen in this list the discussion of when who did what in 2003 or beyond? This led only to counterproductive divisions several years ago and might do the same now. I wonder why Veni is bringing this to the debate? --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > This thread is now going down the usual path of "I did that first" and > "seven years ago you said that...". Anyway: > > Veni Markovski ha scritto: >> ICANN has been trying to be part of the solution (because the WSIS >> created a problem, and it required a solution, or else one would be >> left in the landscape) since 2003, and I think it's not fair of you to >> state something like "stupid approach" by "ICANN leadership", and make >> statement that "they were scared" of a discussion. You probably >> mistake this with the lack of desire to be proactive, and engage in a >> way you thought correct? Plus, at some point you were also part of >> this "leadership", so I guess you don't mean you were "stupid"? > > You're the second person who takes that adjective personally, so let me > note that it is the approach which was stupid, not the people who > devised it. It happens every day to every intelligent person to take > stupid decisions, especially ones that reveal their > counterproductiveness only in hindsight (the intelligent people are not > those who do not take stupid decisions, but those who do not take twice > the same stupid decision). I take your implicit transfer of the > adjective from the strategy to the people as a sign that people like you [...] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 19 06:52:15 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:52:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] WSIS Bureau In-Reply-To: <5C3AADF5-CF52-48BF-8B99-FC1AFC2F537D@ras.eu.org> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <5C3AADF5-CF52-48BF-8B99-FC1AFC2F537D@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071119115223.668E02BC004@mxr.isoc.bg> At 12:25 11/19/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Because I do remember that someone named Veni Markovski organized a >meeting at PrepCom 2 to create a "European caucus", claiming that the Actually I tried to organize it for a number of days during the PrepCom, and there would be always 2-3 people only showing up :) Until the North Americans showed up, and took the management in their hand:-) >I don't exactly remember, but it seems that you stayed in the CS >Bureau until WSIS I in December 2003, maybe for the same reason as >Robert: you were part of Bulgaria delegation afterwards? Not until the WSIS, I stayed only for a couple of months. But I didn't brought the subject to discuss my own time there (althoug I spend a lot of time trying to help, and it was nothing compared to people like you or Karen); rather to show that the current talk about organizing a Bureau around the IGF has a history behind it. I remember that at some point I personally have been mistaken thinking that the WGIG, or the CS Bureau could do something; it took me some time to understand that the political agenda is completely different from what we have done and wanted to do in Bulgaria vis-a-vis development of Information Society. Which, by the way, was the initial idea behind the WSIS - bridging the digital divide. 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 Nov 19 06:59:51 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:59:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20071119120224.3DBA42BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 11:24 11/19/2007 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >This thread is now going down the usual path of "I did that first" >and "seven years ago you said that...". Anyway: Oh, no, it is not going that way. Yet ;) >Veni Markovski ha scritto: >>ICANN has been trying to be part of the solution (because the WSIS >>created a problem, and it required a solution, or else one would be >>left in the landscape) since 2003, and I think it's not fair of you >>to state something like "stupid approach" by "ICANN leadership", >>and make statement that "they were scared" of a discussion. You >>probably mistake this with the lack of desire to be proactive, and >>engage in a way you thought correct? Plus, at some point you were >>also part of this "leadership", so I guess you don't mean you were "stupid"? > >so let me note that it is the approach which was stupid, not the >people who devised it. It happens every day to every intelligent >person to take stupid decisions, especially ones that reveal their >counterproductiveness only in hindsight (the intelligent people are >not those who do not take stupid decisions, but those who do not >take twice the same stupid decision). I take your implicit transfer >of the adjective from the strategy to the people as a sign that >people like you and Alex are so committed to ICANN that they >completely identify themselves with the organization. I am sorry to hear your misreading of what I said. Eventhough you quote me. You talked about the ICANN leadership. Every board member is part of the leadership. If only two of us have reacted to your words, that only shows that a) there are two reading this mailing list, or b) the others don't think it matters what they will say here, or c) they don't care, or d) they don't think they should take this personally. Whatever the right answers are, I find it quite strangely that you will say "leadership", and than will push back from what you said. If you have had in mind someone else, you should have named him/her/them. When you use a common word, you'd better be ready for reaction by some. >Unfortunately, this also explains why it was often so difficult for >ICANN to accept views that were even slightly different from the >ones of their leaders. Again - you are defining leaders, without mentioning names, which makes it difficult for me to follow your thought. I've always considered the whole Board as the "ICANN leadership". To think differently, means you know something I don't know. Or something may have changed in the one year since I am not on the Board. >And pardon me if I insist, but your intervention managed to focus >the discussion exactly on the part of my considerations which was >critical of ICANN, rather than on the part that was favourable to >it. Nice communications strategy, again. Vittorio, this is a mailing list, it's not a competition field, so that you should suspect me of having a strategy here. But to use words like "stupid" and not expect reaction? 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 Nov 19 07:03:30 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:03:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <4741863C.5060605@rits.org.br> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> <4741863C.5060605@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20071119120723.583BD2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 09:49 11/19/2007 -0300, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Why do we need to reopen in this list the discussion of when who did >what in 2003 or beyond? This led only to counterproductive divisions >several years ago and might do the same now. I wonder why Veni is >bringing this to the debate? Oh, I see. Thanks for letting me know it was *me* who brought this into the debate. People telling me I've been afraid to discuss something, I've acted stupidly, and then I have no right to even defend myself. On the other hand, it seems now a stupid idea to try to engage in a reasonable conversation with arguments, when only I can hear is how there are people who can "fix" the Internet on the world-wide arena, and they continiue to avoid the fact that among all our countries, the only one which has a proven record of finding a solution to the Internet governance is Bulgaria, and it is thanks to ISOC-Bulgaria that this happened. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Nov 19 07:27:04 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:27:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <4741863C.5060605@rits.org.br> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> <4741863C.5060605@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Le 19 nov. 07 à 13:49, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > Why do we need to reopen in this list the discussion of when who > did what in 2003 or beyond? Drifting, as usual, initiated by someone who doesn't like a given subject being discussed, or how it is discussed.. Although accountability never hurts, I don't like either this thread, including the change in the subject, which previously was "alternative DNS systems and net neutrality". > This led only to counterproductive divisions several years ago and > might do the same now. I'm afraid, Carlos, anything we discuss here seems to lead to counterproductive divisions:( If only it led to clear divisions between acknowledged and clarified different positions, at least, this would be productive in some way. > I wonder why Veni is bringing this to the debate? Probably distraction, with all the different meanings of this word. Veni is not the only one however, but he takes his share, as usual:) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 19 09:15:37 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:15:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> <4741863C.5060605@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711190615q364b091aqaf75ca82483a5193@mail.gmail.com> This is strange. If I raise a question, it is bad. I didn't change the subject; perhaps you could take a closer look and see who did it? No need to appologize, errors happen. On 11/19/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 19 nov. 07 à 13:49, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > > > Why do we need to reopen in this list the discussion of when who > > did what in 2003 or beyond? > > Drifting, as usual, initiated by someone who doesn't like a given > subject being discussed, or how it is discussed.. > Although accountability never hurts, I don't like either this thread, > including the change in the subject, which previously was > "alternative DNS systems and net neutrality". > > > This led only to counterproductive divisions several years ago and > > might do the same now. > > I'm afraid, Carlos, anything we discuss here seems to lead to > counterproductive divisions:( If only it led to clear divisions > between acknowledged and clarified different positions, at least, > this would be productive in some way. > > > I wonder why Veni is bringing this to the debate? > > Probably distraction, with all the different meanings of this word. > Veni is not the only one however, but he takes his share, as usual:) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 19 11:42:31 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:42:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: 47416462.6030307@bertola.eu Message-ID: YJ (& Vittorio), Nice to see your still active YJ, Been sometime since the @large days. Hope all's well, and thanks ... for making me feel better (and Vittorio, Karl etc...) about being an old-timer on this list. Intresting to note who's still around from this list: http://www.icannatlarge.com/candidatespage.htm - YJ Park - http://www.icannatlarge.com/park.html Vittorio Bertola - http://www.icannatlarge.com/bertola.html - I hope you all still belive in what you said when your heart was young. I'm still with you. --- End ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 13:49:40 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:49:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> <4741863C.5060605@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <00b101c82adc$f1ee30f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > > Why do we need to reopen in this list the discussion of when who > > did what in 2003 or beyond? > Drifting, as usual, initiated by someone who doesn't like a given > subject being discussed, or how it is discussed.. Can we please just kill the paranoia for one day? I reported on ICANN for over five years and followed every twist and turn, and I have now worked as an ICANN staffer for seven months. If there was one conclusion I could draw from all of this - for people working on ICANN staff, for people working within the ICANN model, and for people that watch and comment on ICANN from outside, it would be this: STOP WASTING SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT SECOND-GUESSING EVERYONE The reality is that when you manage to form a channel free from ego and paranoia - which is usually achieved when trying to get something practical done - then everyone tends to work together, starts to trust one another, starts sharing information and as a result everyone is happier AND we end up with a useful end-result. The amount of time spent decrying every aspect of ICANN's work would be more understandable if people actually asked questions rather than threw around accusations based on hearsay and a few snippets of information inaccurately extrapolated. Why don't you just ask? One of the most important aspects with respect to ICANN and the IGF this time around was that ICANN was open. The new chairman went out of his way to explain that ICANN was prepared to discuss every aspect of its work. ICANN held its own open session. ICANN staff were available to talk to across the meeting. Several times, the CEO even answered questions completely unrelated to the topic of the session. In my role as general manager of public participation I have gone out of my way to provide information to anyone that asks about what ICANN is doing. I was hoping this would then turn into participation in the ICANN processes. But following this IGF, I think it's time I spent more time getting more people to participate within the ICANN processes, and less time answering the queries of those determined to find fault with the organisation. I hope Danny Younger will forgive me if I use him as an example. Danny was an early attendee of ICANN meetings and policy processes and has been a consistent critic of both. But his frustration and irritation is directed at why important perspectives aren't being heard, or not being properly threaded through ICANN's processes. Sometimes it's because it is opaque as to how the information and views he provides make it through the system. Danny is also the most persistent and precise asker of information from ICANN and I have done my best to answer every one of his queries (although I still have two queries I need to get back to him on). Because of that engagement, I think it's fair to say his sense of distrust has lifted and partially as a result, Danny put in a lot of time and trouble and gave an excellent presentation on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement changes at the most recent meeting in Los Angeles. I didn't get to see it, but I was told by both ICANN staff and those in the ICANN community that it was extremely useful and as a result is likely to have an impact on the final policy decisions made. THIS IS HOW THE ICANN MODEL WORKS If you want ALAC to be able to elect Board members - where were you during the open session where the NomCom's entire role was discussed? If you want the GNSO setup to be changed - did you post a comment on the public comment board about it? If you think the new gTLDs rules are unclear - where are your emails and phonecalls saying so? If you think ICANN has to improve its accountability and transparency - have you attended any of the three public meetings on it? Have you responded to either of the two public comment forums? Have you provided input aimed at adjusting or improving wording or processes? Or have you just complained and provided nothing to work with? And if you say you were unaware that these things were going on - have you subscribed to the news alerts, to the magazine, to the intersessional newsletter? Do you check out the public comment page on ICANN's website? If you were not able to attend the last ICANN meeting - did you review the meeting's online participation site? Did you post a comment to the chatroom? And even if after all this you feel ICANN is somehow still not enabling you to interact and participate with it - then please send me an email explaining why not, and what you would like to see, and I will do whatever I can to help. But can we please stop rehashing the past and making snide paranoid comments about each others' motivations. It's tedious and self-defeating. If you want to get involved in ICANN, or you want to improve what comes out of ICANN's processes, or if you want to make it clear that you don't think ICANN should get involved in certain areas, then the only way that is going to work is if you participate within the processes. Because they are open to all, there will never be the same sort of value attached to criticism outside the model that you see in other organisations in other industries across the world. If you want any help, email me at kieren.mccarthy at icann.org, or for information on how ICANN works, how to join a supporting organisation and so on, email get-involved at icann.org. Cheers 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Mon Nov 19 14:11:05 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:11:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <000f01c82adf$f18e0830$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> Veni You are rather wrong as far as the "European Caucus" is concerned. Neither Klein nor Guerra played a leading role there. It was Georg Grve at the very beginning and mainly Ralf Bendrath who coordinated this Caucus -and Ralf is continuing that- which, unlike your assertion, was and still is a real European working group. Jean-Louis Fullsack Focal Person of Caucus Europe to the European Parliament ----- Original Message ----- From: "Veni Markovski" To: ; "Vittorio Bertola" Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN and the IGF > At 15:52 11/18/2007 +0100, Vittorio wrote: > >>But this is not your fault, it's the fault of the stupid approach that was >>devised by the ICANN leadership in the last years, when they were scared >>by the prospect of a discussion, and thus did whatever they could to >>prevent it. They behaved defensively as if they had anything to hide or to >>be ashamed for, which in a mediatic world, as everyone knows, implies an >>admission to have something to hide or to be ashamed for, even when that >>is not true in reality. > > Would you like to be more precise here? I don't remember such an approach, > at least when I was on the Board. The very fact that there was ICANN > representative(s) both in the WGIG and the AG is a clear sign that this is > not the case. > > So, some of the discussion was led by academic people, and some of them > have never had technical expertise, but as we know in a political > environment it is not really important. btw, as for the outcome of the > WSIS, there were people who were warning that the only result of it will > be bashing of the existing organizations. And - voila - that's what > happened. > > ICANN has been trying to be part of the solution (because the WSIS created > a problem, and it required a solution, or else one would be left in the > landscape) since 2003, and I think it's not fair of you to state something > like "stupid approach" by "ICANN leadership", and make statement that > "they were scared" of a discussion. You probably mistake this with the > lack of desire to be proactive, and engage in a way you thought correct? > Plus, at some point you were also part of this "leadership", so I guess > you don't mean you were "stupid"? > > Best > veni > > P.S. It is another issue, that if it wasn't for ICANN, ISOC, and a few > other organizations to provide experts to these and other groups, the > discussion would have been completely political, and with no technical > ground whatsoever. > As you probably recollect, the technical community (engineers, > RFC-writers, etc.) have always been very critical about the way the WSIS > goes. If you also remember, the Civil Society (CS) had also been a strange > phenomenon around the WSIS. The Internet Governance caucus was created, if > I am not mistaken, by Y J Park; who - with Milton - didn't manage to > achieve any success with the NCDNHC at ICANN in the beginning (1999 - > 2000). Today YJ is a student at the same university Milton is teaching. > The Caucus was created for a number of reasons, but we should not forget > that among them it was giving access to the CS Bureau to the WSIS. And the > word "Bureau" was giving some extra power; at least in the view of some. > You may have been there at that time - I just don't remember. But I > remember well the establishment of another of the groups - the European > Caucus, which ended up as European - North American one; Hans Klein (then > with CPSR) was one of the active people there. Robert Guerra was the other > one; at some point the only one. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé11342 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Mon Nov 19 14:01:09 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:01:09 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re:[governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system References: Message-ID: <000e01c82adf$f0f7bba0$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> Dear Meryem France Telecom didn't invest anymore in Minitel in the 90ties. This actually happened in the eighties and was also intended for some African countries. Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee McKnight" To: ; Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:38 PM Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re:[governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system Meryem, Sorry to continue my cleaning up of the historical record on this thread: but France Telecom did spend lots of time and money in the 1990s trying to promote the Minitel into Japan, the US, and other nations, even though folks like me were advising that it was a lost cause/not exportable. In fact as late as mid-90s they dropped $50m - which in those days was real money - trying to bring the Minitel into the US...on the dates I am a little fuzzy I admit, but I remember that round number. Also, the confiscatory nature of the diffusion process - ie they took away your phone books so you had to use the Minitel to find information - sounds like something the US DOD might dream of - well actually sounds like a move a state-owned telco monopoly would dream up ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 11/17/07 10:28 AM >>> Veni, why do you think that being from a given country makes it compulsory for someone to approve and be proud of everything coming from this country? This liminary note being made, the Minitel (which by the way was not created by the military) didn't make it on the world arena not because all services were in French (translations would have been easy), but for many other reasons, like that at that time France Telecom was a public monopoly, with no real interest in commercializing it worldwide. When circumstances changed, the Minitel and its models (technical, contractual, economic.. models) were entirely obsolete w.r.t. Internet developments, and specially web developments. What's great about the minitel is that the device was distributed for free to all French telephone users (individuals, administration, businesses..), in the early 80s, and that made it widely used by the population, with many public and private services available, some for free, others with payment. The bad side of the story is that this situation has delayed a lot Internet developments in France, and specially its use by a large public: in the mid 90s, the minitel penetration rate was at its peak. Meryem Le 17 nov. 07 à 14:56, Veni Markovski a écrit : > Hmmm... What was the system in France, which was created before the > WWW? Did it make it on the world arena, or it remained only in France? > > Let's be more precise. If it wasn't for the DoD to give it up to > the DoC, and then to ICANN, we would not be able to exchange these > emails today. > > veni > > At 14:40 11/17/2007 +0100, you wrote: > >> Le 17 nov. 07 * 13:13, Veni Markovski a *crit : >>> >>> It is good to think about the way the Internet came to the current >>> day, if it was created by the... let's say the Bulgarian Ministry >>> of Defence. It would have still been used only by the Ministry of >>> Defence within their main building in Sofia. >> >> I'm confident that, thanks to ISOC Bulgaria and public-private >> partnership, this wouldn't have developed this way:) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé11342 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Nov 19 15:20:12 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:20:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Well then, Veni, it seems you have not expressed yourself very clearly. If I can assume that you in fact agree that political issues are impossible to avoid in Internet governance (i.e., you are not running away from them, as you have said), that is good. You seemed to be defending those who argue that what ICANN is doing (i.e., particularly in the realm of DNS policy) is purely technical, and I was pointing out that it was profoundly political in nature. Given that DNS issues are political, the proper standard of evaluation as to whether DNS is "working" or not is, thus, a political evaluation, not merely a technical evaluation. Thus when you claim that DNS "is working" and you point to technical criteria for that evaluation, you are simply missing the political point (and missing or ignoring the sense of the English word "working" to encompass political criteria in this context). Whether you are doing this by mistake or intentionally I can't be certain, but either way it is misguided. Political criteria are required in order to evaluate whether DNS "is working" from a political viewpoint, and the political viewpoint is the important one here. This was my point from the beginning, and nothing you have said contradicts this substantively. If your "question" (about numbers and/or importance of those for whom DNS does not "work") was merely a question and not a rhetorical statement, then my previous answer to that stands (with attention to my use of the word "working" as referring to the political-power sense, with my definition of power in this context as "the monopoly power of ICANN to decide who/what gets into the root and who/what does not"): "Apparently for many who wish to operate TLDs that have not currently been allowed into root, it is not working. And perhaps in a larger sense (in terms of public policy for the general public that might wish to use those rejected TLDs by registering 2LDs in them) it is not really working either, though they may not be aware of it if they are not ICANN insiders." I'm sorry you did not understand this. When you originally proclaimed: ">1. The current model is working." I saw this as being clearly wrong, when one considers whether the current DNS model "is working" in a *political* sense, which is the sense that matters most here. (Your argument seems to be that DNS works in a technical sense, but who cares about that? That is not in dispute and that is not the important point -- it is a trivial point in the context of the political dispute. When you try to make this discussion about the merely technical operational characteristics of DNS, you seem to take sides with those who claim that ICANN is only dealing with technical matters. Perhaps this is why I was misled into thinking that you were trying to avoid the political issues. I'm so glad to hear that you are not running away from the politics here, as the politics are critically important.) At best, the current model is *working badly* from a political standpoint, and that is precisely the problem, and exactly why we should "touch it" and try to "fix it" instead of allowing the status quo to endure. I hope we've cleared this up, now. Dan PS -- As for the technical issues involved with alternative root systems, I will leave that to folks like Karl, etc. I would agree that it would be best for any alternative root setup to keep the technical operation of DNS as reliable as possible (and that means minimizing the potential for TLD collisions, for example). But ultimately, technical and political considerations need to be balanced. It may be that a constrained degree of technical problems are worth dealing with if the political equation can be resolved better. And it may be that there need be no trade-off in the first place, and that we can have both reliable technical operation and fair political power balance in DNS. These are political questions, and their answers are political answers. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 19 15:45:14 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:45:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 12:20 11/19/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Well then, Veni, it seems you have not expressed yourself very clearly. Could be. Either this, or the opposite. By the way, talking about politics, I urge you - and everyone else here - to tell me which other country (besides Bulgaria) has managed to find a way to solve the political issues around the management of the Internet. In its broader, and its narrower meaning. What was the role of the civil society, if any. What are the results of this solution. How this solution changed the deployment of fast, affordable Internet. Another argument that domain names are not vital Internet resource: since 1999 their number in Bulgaria has increased marginally (say, twice). At the same time the number of users have increased about 35 times. (see http://intgovforum.org/BPP2.php?went=17 ) As for the rest of your mail, I think that Kieren has given quite a good, positive response. I have no doubts that he will be attacked in the usual way, but this does not make his response less valuable; on the contrary - practice here shows that if there's a personality attack, then the argument is already lost by the attacker. 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 dan at musicunbound.com Mon Nov 19 17:11:32 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:11:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Fine, Veni. Then I assume you do not dispute my point that the DNS is currently not "working" well in a *political* sense, and thus it would be good to consider options to improve it. And in fact alternative roots might well be discussed in that general political context, regardless of the role that one might propose for ICANN in the resulting system. After all, people such as Jonathan Zittrain argue that ICANN has no formal political jurisdiction over the DNS root -- it simply happens to be a convenient forum to coordinate such matters informally, but root server operators could decide to follow a different leader without violating any laws. If ICANN oversteps its "consensus-based" policy processes in a political sense, what are the chances that the RSOs might simply walk away? I'm sure that ICANN insiders think this is a preposterous suggestion, but then they might have a systematic bias in their analysis. Another idea would be for ICANN to simply recuse itself from applying any ex ante political criteria in determining access to the root, and allow genuine and legitimate political jurisdictions to deal ex post with any political issues (such as, for example, local trademark claims or common local standards of morality) that may arise in the creation of, say, new gTLDs. Part of the issue with politics here is that ICANN has injected politics into its (both current and proposed) operational criteria for DNS, and it has done so in a way that is not politically accountable and is not likely to be made politically accountable under the current bylaws of the organization, unless it recuses itself from addressing political criteria as suggested above. 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 robin at ipjustice.org Mon Nov 19 21:08:39 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:08:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Message-ID: <474241A7.3060008@ipjustice.org> Links to audio, video, photos on IGF 2007 ... http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/19/2007-igf-rio-wrap-up/ apologies for cross-posting ------------------ IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) The 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is officially over. The second meeting hosted by the United Nations to advance discussion on issues related to Internet governance was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 12 – 15 November 2007. The 4-day international conference focused on 5 main themes: Openness, Access, Security, Diversity, and issues related to the management of Critical Internet Resources (CIR). Capacity building was a cross-cutting issue through all the main themes. Over 2,000 registered participants from 109 countries attended the IGF’s various main plenary sessions, workshops, best practice sessions and other related meetings. Overall, the IGF-Rio was a success; it built upon the inaugural meeting in Athens, Greece in October - November 2006, improving upon it in many ways, although back-sliding in a few others. This brief wrap-up of the 2007 IGF is meant to serve as a means of improving the forum in preparation for the 2008 IGF in New Delhi, India, which is scheduled for 8 – 11 December 2008. The first of three Open Consultations to organize IGF 2008 will be held in Geneva, Switzerland from 25 – 27 February 2008. Where 2007 IGF-Rio Excelled: 1. High quality of the workshops and best practice sessions The best part of IGF 2007 was undoubtedly the various workshops , “dynamic coalition” meetings, and best practice sessions, which were independently organized by the meeting’s participants. The level of quality of the dialogue in many of these sessions was outstanding, with diverse stakeholders coming together to engage on a common topic and present different viewpoints. All of the new ideas discussed at this year’s forum — indeed all discussion of “emerging issues” — came from the independently organized workshops and best practice sessions. As IGF Chairman Nitin Desai put it during the 2007 closing session: like the Internet itself, all the real action at this forum was at the edges. In addition to the robust quality of the non-main session discussions, IGF-Rio offered an incredible number (84 ) of meetings on a broad range of subjects – indeed so many that participants had to choose between several interesting sessions that were scheduled concurrently. But don’t fret: you can still watch or listen to all missed sessions for years to come via the Internet. There were workshops that discussed open standards, the free expression concerns with ICANN deciding what ideas may be expressed in top level domain names, overbroad intellectual property rights , human rights issues in ICT policies, digital education , an international cyberlaw clinic , freedom of expression , an ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ , network neutrality issues and many, many more. (See the events IP Justice was involved with at IGF-Rio here) . 2. World-class technical capabilities and remote participation opportunities The Brazilian hosts and IGF Secretariat receive high marks for their technical capabilities in organizing and managing IGF 2007. Despite the large number of participants all demanding online access at the same time, the Brazilians delivered — and even exceeded expectations in many cases. The technology simply worked. All of the main sessions were webcast live so people around the world could watch (and still can ). And unlike most online webcasts, these video streams were smooth, with virtually no latency, like watching a TV program. The workshops and other sessions were all audio cast live, recorded, and will be posted to the Internet as MP3 files for download in the coming weeks. Several language translations and live text transcriptions of the sessions were available, making the discussions understandable for millions of more people. The remote participation component of the meeting also allowed for those not in Rio to send moderators questions real-time via email or special chat sessions set up specifically for this meeting. This technical capacity was a marked improvement from last year’s IGF, setting a new gold standard for technical facilitation of international conferences. 3. Offline interactions and networking opportunities One of the best aspects of IGF-Rio was the incredible networking opportunities in the hallways, coffee shops, evening programs, and other informal IGF-related activities in and around the conference venue. When thousands of people from all corners of the world with a common interest in the Internet gather together the synergy can be electric. New ideas were tossed around in these informal settings — without moderators, presentations, or pre-prepared conclusions. Participants were able to pick out key points made in the main sessions or workshops, and explore them more fully in small informal discussion circles. The particular lay-out of the conference venue, where IGF participants could gather and further discuss issues without foot traffic from other hotel guests significantly contributed to the positive networking opportunities at this year’s meeting. The spontaneity of informal conversations and opportunities to meet new people in the hallways provided sufficient value to justify the trip to IGF-Rio — even if one is not an official speaker at the forum. And the networking opportunities in the conference hallways contributed to the creation of several new IGF Dynamic Coalitions, such as the coalition on digital education and the coalition on gender issues . Improvements for IGF 2008: 1. Human Rights and other controversial topics avoided in main sessions Unfortunately not everything about IGF 2007 was a success. One important area where IGF 2006 was clearly superior to IGF 2007 was with respect to the discussion of controversial topics, such as online censorship or other human rights. Anyone at IGF 2006 will remember that countries like China and Iran, and companies like Cisco Systems and Yahoo! were taken to task by the Internet community for their role in contributing to Internet censorship. Unfortunately this year, critical discussion of human rights concerns was discouraged, and main session organizers walked on egg-shells to avoid offending China or businesses who assist in the repression of Internet freedom and democracy. IGF participants have repeatedly been warned that if they raise such critical concerns, repressive governments and companies will pull-out of participation in the forum – and we can’t have that! The Chairman of the “Openness” session , Brazilian law professor Ronaldo Lemos described several aspects to “Openness” and he explained the developmental impact of Open Standards for Internet governance (note: Susy Struble reported on the work of the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) during another session). While the main session on "Openness" included significant discussion on the threat to free expression that overbroad intellectual property rules create, those comments had to come from “discussants” such as Canadian cyberlaw Professor Michael Geist , the audience, and remote participants, since the main panelists lacked expertise on the tension between freedom of expression and intellectual property from civil society’s viewpoint. And although the topic of “access to knowledge” is listed as a main topic for “Openness”, no experts on that issue were included on that panel. Amnesty International’s representative on the “Openness” session, Nick Dearden, discussed the importance of freedom of expression on the Internet and called on the IGF to elevate discussion on free expression at the forum. US Ambassador David Gross described why enabling the free flow of information on the Internet should be one of the most important Internet policy goals. Unfortunately discussion about the privacy rights of Internet users was significantly down-graded in the main “Security” session this year (while those who spread fear of pornography have been elevated to a special status). Although Katitza Rodriguez and Ralf Bandrath made valuable contributions on privacy during the session. Issues of importance for the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities were marginalized, with only a single FOSS speaker, Georg Greve , on one main session, “Security” to explain the need for transparency with computer security. Although human rights issues permeate through all of the forum’s main themes, human rights concerns were given short shrift in the meeting’s organization. For IGF to maintain any credibility as a forum responsive to concerns of Internet users and one working towards “an Internet for development”, it must include focused discussion on human rights, and specifically include the issue of human rights as a main theme for IGF 2008. Indeed the governments of Brazil and Italy issued a joint statement during the forum calling for human rights to a specific focus of IGF 2008. Anriette Esterhuysen , Executive Director of the Association of Progressive Communications noted during the “Opening Ceremony” that that Internet is a public good and should be governed based on public interest principles including human rights, free expression, open standards, privacy, balanced intellectual property, interoperability, creativity, transparency, and accountability. During the May 2007 IGF Open Consultations , numerous civil society voices (and some governments like the Council of Europe) called for human rights to be discussed as a cross-cutting theme at IGF-Rio; but China vetoed that request during the consultations. Similarly, during preparations for IGF 2006 in Athens, a repressive Central American government vetoed the call for human rights to be fully addressed at IGF 2006. The United Nations should not allow repressive governments to veto calls for human rights to be discussed more fully at IGF. I noticed government and business representatives wearing "VIP" badges, but did not see any civil society leaders with "VIP" Badges. More must be done to give civil society voices the same value as government and business at the UN. The multi-stakeholder nature of IGF is viewed as one of its core features, giving it legitimacy where other fora have failed. But IGF risks slipping backwards to a forum where government and business concerns are given precedence (even veto power!), while civil society concerns are marginalized as insignificant or too controversial. Despite the alluring rhetoric of multi-stakeholderism at IGF, the reality is that some stakeholders are more equal than others. 2. Glaring lack of gender balance and exclusion of young voices in main sessions A disappointment in the meeting’s organization was the over-whelming majority of speakers on main sessions who were men – much, much older men. For example, of the 7 speakers on the main “Openness” session, not a single woman was included as a main panelist, and only one woman (of 6) was given the lesser role of “discussant” during this session. The so-called “Emerging Issues” session also did not include any female perspectives in the debate, and despite the session’s title, it did not include any speakers who contribute to “new” thinking. Rather than the title of “Emerging Issues”, this session could more accurately have been described as “fading away”. Anyone who works on Internet policy knows that women play a crucial role in advancing dialogue on these issues and numerous women in Rio would have made excellent contributions to these discussions if allowed to contribute. Government and business in particular made no apparent effort to consider gender balance in the sessions. Nearly all of the speakers representing government and business were men, leaving civil society with an even heavier obligation to nominate women as main session speakers in order to achieve some level of overall balance. Business and government should be required to make nominate some female speakers for main session panels if they wish to participate in meetings held under the United Nations flag. Despite the obvious innovation that has come from young people on the Internet, it appears that main session organizers consider the perspectives of people under the age of 55 to be irrelevant. It is undisputable that the creators of the Internet’s most revolutionary tools such as search engines like Google, or Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing programs, or online communities such as YouTube, Facebook, and Second Life come from young innovators and are often geared toward young people. Sadly one speaker (Andrew Keen) on the “Emerging Issues” session openly dismissed the concerns of youth as not worth listening to. But it would have been a breath of fresh air to hear from the leaders of tomorrow at this forum. The lack of funding to bring women and voices of youth (and participants from developing countries) to IGF is a major contributing factor to the problem of gender and age imbalance in the forum. As long as there continues to be no funding to bring women, youth, and developing country panelists to IGF, the speaker lists will continue to be dominated by older men from developed countries, who are sent to IGF by large companies and governments to advocate for their own corporate or national agendas. 3. Main sessions dominated by established players In stark contrast to the robust dialogue in workshops and other non-main sessions, the IGF-Rio main session discussions was largely insignificant in substance. More must be done to include a diversity of viewpoints, instead of the same speakers and the same perspectives on all the main panels. Main session speakers tended to be the same voices we heard at last year’s main sessions. A number of speakers were panelists on several main sessions this year, but there are many qualified experts who hold a wide range of views and expertise on ICT policy issues. The main session on “Critical Internet Resources” (CIR), the most controversial topic for many IGF participants, unfortunately resulted in a missed opportunity. Only one panelist on that session, Professor Milton Mueller openly confronted the problems with the current management structure of the Internet. Professor Mueller made several interventions on the meaning on Critical Internet Resources , on the role of governments at ICANN , the dominance of the United States Government at ICANN , the future of ICANN , and the future of global governance . The other note-worthy intervention during the CIR session came from Carlos Afonso of cgi.br who provided a possible framework for redistributing ICANN’s functions among several linked entities with his /“Jack the Ripper”/ proposal. So while it was a step forward to even permit the controversial CIR topic on the agenda (unlike IGF 2006), the dominance of established players and current management insiders resulted in a controlled discussion which barely touched upon the concerns of those seeking improvement in the Internet’s management. Another example: 4 people who have served as ICANN board members and 2 representatives from the same company (Cisco Systems) spoke on the “Emerging Issues” main session. Nearly every speaker on that session was also a main session speaker at last year’s IGF … yawn … another missed opportunity. The list of examples could go on, but I think you get the point. We will do better in Delhi. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 19 21:19:27 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:19:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071120021927.GA23466@hserus.net> Dan Krimm [19/11/07 14:11 -0800]: >Then I assume you do not dispute my point that the DNS is currently not >"working" well in a *political* sense, and thus it would be good to >consider options to improve it. And in fact alternative roots might well Do me a favor. Come up with politically acceptable AND technically acceptable recommendations - it would be great if these recommendations are also calculated to scale and extend to the extent that DNS currently extends. That might be a more productive stage and time to rehash this discussion. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 19 21:19:49 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:19:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: <00b101c82adc$f1ee30f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> <20071118222932.DABC02BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <47416462.6030307@bertola.eu> <4741863C.5060605@rits.org.br> <00b101c82adc$f1ee30f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <20071120021949.GB23466@hserus.net> Kieren McCarthy [19/11/07 10:49 -0800]: >Can we please just kill the paranoia for one day? *applause* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 19 21:46:53 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:46:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071120021927.GA23466@hserus.net> References: <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071120021927.GA23466@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47424A9D.4040706@cavebear.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Dan Krimm [19/11/07 14:11 -0800]: >> Then I assume you do not dispute my point that the DNS is currently not >> "working" well in a *political* sense, and thus it would be good to >> consider options to improve it. And in fact alternative roots might well > > Do me a favor. Come up with politically acceptable AND technically > acceptable recommendations - it would be great if these recommendations are > also calculated to scale and extend to the extent that DNS currently > extends. I'm kinda wondering why one might think that competing roots would not use 100% exactly the same technology base as used to disseminate the existing NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone? In other words, there is no reason why competing roots would not be exactly as scalable as the current legacy system. Indeed, if new business methods of TLD operation can thus arise, we may find that on the front-office (registration) side that scalability goes well beyond what is possible to those stuck using ICANN's rather stodgy business methods - and cost a lot less. As for "politically acceptable" - it depends what metric one uses. Some of us find the present incumbent favoring, restraint of trade mechanisms to be not merely politically questionable but also a stark departure from the end-to-end principle, the rules and laws of open and competitive trade, and the spirit of innovation and imagination that is supposed to be the hallmark of the internet. Moreover, some governments and people in some countries do find the US hegemony over DNS to raise concerns that go beyond the merely political. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Nov 19 21:57:15 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:57:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071120021927.GA23466@hserus.net> References: <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071120021927.GA23466@hserus.net> Message-ID: At 6:19 PM -0800 11/19/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Dan Krimm [19/11/07 14:11 -0800]: >>Then I assume you do not dispute my point that the DNS is currently not >>"working" well in a *political* sense, and thus it would be good to >>consider options to improve it. And in fact alternative roots might well > >Do me a favor. Come up with politically acceptable AND technically >acceptable recommendations - it would be great if these recommendations are >also calculated to scale and extend to the extent that DNS currently >extends. > >That might be a more productive stage and time to rehash this discussion. I'm a public policy professional, with some experience in technical organizations and an ability to understand technical details when explained in a well-defined manner, but I am not a technical architect and have never claimed to be. The point here is not to preempt the political issues by placing technical criteria above all else. The political discussion must frame the technical discussion if the technical discussion is ultimately to address the important and inevitable political issues of the information society. If the technical status quo is not politically acceptable, as many argue, then one must discuss the politics now, and let that drive the technical explorations. There is no reason to delay the political discussion, because in some sense it must precede the technical discussion, in order to frame and define its mission and values. It might even get more technical experts working on alternative root options, to help come up with a win-win solution -- that is, bring that endeavor into the technical mainstream instead of cordoning it off into a ghetto. It would be unproductive to avoid the political issues at any point in this discussion. They should be kept in mind all along the way. Forgetting that would create a political disaster. Dan PS -- I don't know if Alternative DNS is necessary to solve the political problems. It may be that institutional change can solve the political problems under the current private technological monopoly. (In public governance, monopolies can exist productively if they are explicitly and thoughtfully regulated in the public interest.) Ultimately I don't really care what the technical solution is as long as the political issues, such as net neutrality and core neutrality, are addressed productively. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 19 22:03:51 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:03:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <47424A9D.4040706@cavebear.com> References: <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071120021927.GA23466@hserus.net> <47424A9D.4040706@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071120030351.GA24186@hserus.net> Karl Auerbach [19/11/07 18:46 -0800]: > I'm kinda wondering why one might think that competing roots would not use > 100% exactly the same technology base as used to disseminate the existing > NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone? In other words, there is no reason why > competing roots would not be exactly as scalable as the current legacy > system. Except for the way they are deployed and the way resolvers query them etc etc etc. That's the other side of the equation. Setting up bind to serve as a root server is probably straightforward enough compared to the interoperability issues. > As for "politically acceptable" - it depends what metric one uses. Some of > us find the present incumbent favoring, restraint of trade mechanisms to be > not merely politically questionable but also a stark departure from the > end-to-end principle, the rules and laws of open and competitive trade, and If you think the end to end principle even exists these days .. please stop living in the past. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 19 22:58:59 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:58:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071120030351.GA24186@hserus.net> References: <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071120021927.GA23466@hserus.net> <47424A9D.4040706@cavebear.com> <20071120030351.GA24186@hserus.net> Message-ID: At 7:03 PM -0800 11/19/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Karl Auerbach [19/11/07 18:46 -0800]: >> As for "politically acceptable" - it depends what metric one uses. Some of >> us find the present incumbent favoring, restraint of trade mechanisms to be >> not merely politically questionable but also a stark departure from the >> end-to-end principle, the rules and laws of open and competitive trade, and > >If you think the end to end principle even exists these days .. please stop >living in the past. If the end-to-end principle is "living in the past" perhaps it's time to reclaim the past for the future once again. (Or perhaps the political essence of the end-to-end principle can accommodate constrained deviations from the purely technical description of end-to-end. As long as the principle of "control to the edges" is honored, a pure end-to-end technical design need not be required.) This is a political issue, not just a technical issue. Technical fatalism is not useful or appropriate in discussions of political governance, as technological design is clearly fungible according to political missions. Best to bring those political issues out into the open and address them explicitly, rather than allow them to remain under the radar for special interests to bend to their narrow missions without politically accountable deliberation on proper application and design. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Nov 20 00:44:58 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:44:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: To: Mr. Kieren McCarthy General Manager of Public Participation Ok Kieren lets work together, I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. (walk me through it) Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, Who should we contact directly? and How should we best approach the subject matter? (provide us some suggested text) Thnx y ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 20 00:52:36 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:52:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: TO: Mr. Kieren McCarthy General Manager of Public Participation Ok Kieren lets work together, We would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, which was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 See Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. (walk me through it) Which Icann list(s) require posting too?, Who should we contact directly? and How should we best approach the subject matter? (provide some suggested text) You lay it out here and we'll organize and see it through. Team Work! Thnx Y ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 20 00:53:57 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:23:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002701c82b39$bf4f88d0$3dee9a70$@net> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > TO: > Mr. Kieren McCarthy > General Manager of Public Participation > > Ok Kieren lets work together, Got two copies of this email already. Got six copies (or more) of a previous email you sent to the list. May I suggest that you either use a different email address or fix whatever it is that is causing you to send multiple copies of the same message? thanks suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue Nov 20 04:11:31 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:11:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20071120030351.GA24186@hserus.net> References: <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071117121729.880972BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119114223.08AE92BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071119204810.2C3552BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071120021927.GA23466@hserus.net> <47424A9D.4040706@cavebear.com> <20071120030351.GA24186@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4742A4C3.3000101@cavebear.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> I'm kinda wondering why one might think that competing roots would not >> use 100% exactly the same technology base as used to disseminate the >> existing NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone? In other words, there is no >> reason why competing roots would not be exactly as scalable as the >> current legacy system. > > Except for the way they are deployed and the way resolvers query them etc > etc etc. That's the other side of the equation. I've had some relatively deep discussions on how one could go about setting up a serious competitive root - the people who were involved with me in that discussion (who do not want to be named) are well known people who have established major worldwide network infrastructures with massive capacity. This was done a couple of years ago so our design is a bit out of date. We designed a two-rack fork-lift installable, air-shippable server cluster containing several (I think at that time it was 8 to 12) distinct server machines, with dual networking, load balancers, firewalls, secured remote diagnostic monitoring and remote management facilities, and power filtering/UPS (in case the facility power is inadequate). Each individual computer and element could be replaced without taking down the package as a whole. In addition we used several different operating systems and software configurations to reduce chances of systemic attack. We came up with budgets for installation, operation, maintenance, depreciation, emergency coverage (including transportation for people and spares), management, insurance, bandwidth, etc etc. It wasn't a number that was really all that huge - the total was a couple of million $ US in one-time startup costs and very roughly the same in recurring yearly costs. We knew we didn't have to start huge - we knew that on day zero we wouldn't need more than 13 distinct sites around the world because our day zero traffic wouldn't be the same as absorbed by the current suite of root servers. But it would easily scale and the sites would be anycast capable (and thus replicable.) Since that date the equipment costs have gone down but the people/travel costs have gone up. The assertion that a competing root is somehow inherently incompatible or inconsistent is an assertion that has no foundation in reality. Yes there have been DNS loons who have created a very bad smell about competing roots. But loons don't mean that something is impossible or even all that hard. There were loons in the early 20th century who tried to build some rather silly flying machines - and yet today we have Boeing and Airbus and air travel is today quite routine and safe. And as I have mentioned, there are potentially attractive reasons why one might want to invest in a competing root. And also as I mentioned, there are ways to create inducements for people to switch to and use a competing root. Yes, I believe that the end-to-end principle - the idea that users at the edges of the internet can chose how they will use the net and don't have to ask permission to do so - is a valuable principle and that it is not at all dead and gone. If, as you suggest, it is dead then this entire discussion, indeed this entire process, of internet governance is futile and we may as well surrender the internet to AT&T, Verisign, and their ilk and concede that the telcos have won and that we should all go home and tend our gardens. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Nov 20 08:37:38 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:37:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: 002701c82b39$bf4f88d0$3dee9a70$@net Message-ID: My appologies Suresh, It seems when posting my ticking is lost. my desk is native Right-to-Left, so when converting the Left-to-Right the paragraph ticking is lost, as it is pasted into the posting dialog box. So when the message is viewed, and the ticking errors appear, I delete the message and repost. thats why you get a multiple string. Sorry, maybe the Admin can install a Preview-Message system. [*As we go to IDN's this (incompatablity) may become more prevelent] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 20 09:19:25 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:19:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Yehuda: It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost the election in the US and Europe. This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small stakes individual internet users have in domain name issues. To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be starting soon * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at large itself and advocate that position. > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > To: > Mr. Kieren McCarthy > General Manager of Public Participation > > Ok Kieren lets work together, > > I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, > which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 > Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm > > Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. > (walk me through it) > Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, > Who should we contact directly? > and How should we best approach the subject matter? > (provide us some suggested text) > > Thnx > y > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: > 11/19/2007 12:35 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 12:35 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 09:23:51 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:23:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Message-ID: <811770.26901.qm@web50208.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thanks a million Robin for this link. Been there since hours now. It is a great report, especially for those who could not be physically absent.. Was good to 'see' you all Nnenna ----- Original Message ---- From: Robin Gross To: a2k discuss list ; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Open Standards DCOS ; expression at ipjustice.org; privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:08:39 AM Subject: [governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Links to audio, video, photos on IGF 2007 ... http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/19/2007-igf-rio-wrap-up/ apologies for cross-posting ------------------ IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) The 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is officially over. The second meeting hosted by the United Nations to advance discussion on issues related to Internet governance was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 12 – 15 November 2007. The 4-day international conference focused on 5 main themes: Openness, Access, Security, Diversity, and issues related to the management of Critical Internet Resources (CIR). Capacity building was a cross-cutting issue through all the main themes. Over 2,000 registered participants from 109 countries attended the IGF’s various main plenary sessions, workshops, best practice sessions and other related meetings. Overall, the IGF-Rio was a success; it built upon the inaugural meeting in Athens, Greece in October - November 2006, improving upon it in many ways, although back-sliding in a few others. This brief wrap-up of the 2007 IGF is meant to serve as a means of improving the forum in preparation for the 2008 IGF in New Delhi, India, which is scheduled for 8 – 11 December 2008. The first of three Open Consultations to organize IGF 2008 will be held in Geneva, Switzerland from 25 – 27 February 2008. Where 2007 IGF-Rio Excelled: 1. High quality of the workshops and best practice sessions The best part of IGF 2007 was undoubtedly the various workshops , “dynamic coalition” meetings, and best practice sessions, which were independently organized by the meeting’s participants. The level of quality of the dialogue in many of these sessions was outstanding, with diverse stakeholders coming together to engage on a common topic and present different viewpoints. All of the new ideas discussed at this year’s forum — indeed all discussion of “emerging issues” — came from the independently organized workshops and best practice sessions. As IGF Chairman Nitin Desai put it during the 2007 closing session: like the Internet itself, all the real action at this forum was at the edges. In addition to the robust quality of the non-main session discussions, IGF-Rio offered an incredible number (84 ) of meetings on a broad range of subjects – indeed so many that participants had to choose between several interesting sessions that were scheduled concurrently. But don’t fret: you can still watch or listen to all missed sessions for years to come via the Internet. There were workshops that discussed open standards, the free expression concerns with ICANN deciding what ideas may be expressed in top level domain names, overbroad intellectual property rights , human rights issues in ICT policies, digital education , an international cyberlaw clinic , freedom of expression , an ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ , network neutrality issues and many, many more. (See the events IP Justice was involved with at IGF-Rio here) . 2. World-class technical capabilities and remote participation opportunities The Brazilian hosts and IGF Secretariat receive high marks for their technical capabilities in organizing and managing IGF 2007. Despite the large number of participants all demanding online access at the same time, the Brazilians delivered — and even exceeded expectations in many cases. The technology simply worked. All of the main sessions were webcast live so people around the world could watch (and still can ). And unlike most online webcasts, these video streams were smooth, with virtually no latency, like watching a TV program. The workshops and other sessions were all audio cast live, recorded, and will be posted to the Internet as MP3 files for download in the coming weeks. Several language translations and live text transcriptions of the sessions were available, making the discussions understandable for millions of more people. The remote participation component of the meeting also allowed for those not in Rio to send moderators questions real-time via email or special chat sessions set up specifically for this meeting. This technical capacity was a marked improvement from last year’s IGF, setting a new gold standard for technical facilitation of international conferences. 3. Offline interactions and networking opportunities One of the best aspects of IGF-Rio was the incredible networking opportunities in the hallways, coffee shops, evening programs, and other informal IGF-related activities in and around the conference venue. When thousands of people from all corners of the world with a common interest in the Internet gather together the synergy can be electric. New ideas were tossed around in these informal settings — without moderators, presentations, or pre-prepared conclusions. Participants were able to pick out key points made in the main sessions or workshops, and explore them more fully in small informal discussion circles. The particular lay-out of the conference venue, where IGF participants could gather and further discuss issues without foot traffic from other hotel guests significantly contributed to the positive networking opportunities at this year’s meeting. The spontaneity of informal conversations and opportunities to meet new people in the hallways provided sufficient value to justify the trip to IGF-Rio — even if one is not an official speaker at the forum. And the networking opportunities in the conference hallways contributed to the creation of several new IGF Dynamic Coalitions, such as the coalition on digital education and the coalition on gender issues . Improvements for IGF 2008: 1. Human Rights and other controversial topics avoided in main sessions Unfortunately not everything about IGF 2007 was a success. One important area where IGF 2006 was clearly superior to IGF 2007 was with respect to the discussion of controversial topics, such as online censorship or other human rights. Anyone at IGF 2006 will remember that countries like China and Iran, and companies like Cisco Systems and Yahoo! were taken to task by the Internet community for their role in contributing to Internet censorship. Unfortunately this year, critical discussion of human rights concerns was discouraged, and main session organizers walked on egg-shells to avoid offending China or businesses who assist in the repression of Internet freedom and democracy. IGF participants have repeatedly been warned that if they raise such critical concerns, repressive governments and companies will pull-out of participation in the forum – and we can’t have that! The Chairman of the “Openness” session , Brazilian law professor Ronaldo Lemos described several aspects to “Openness” and he explained the developmental impact of Open Standards for Internet governance (note: Susy Struble reported on the work of the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) during another session). While the main session on "Openness" included significant discussion on the threat to free expression that overbroad intellectual property rules create, those comments had to come from “discussants” such as Canadian cyberlaw Professor Michael Geist , the audience, and remote participants, since the main panelists lacked expertise on the tension between freedom of expression and intellectual property from civil society’s viewpoint. And although the topic of “access to knowledge” is listed as a main topic for “Openness”, no experts on that issue were included on that panel. Amnesty International’s representative on the “Openness” session, Nick Dearden, discussed the importance of freedom of expression on the Internet and called on the IGF to elevate discussion on free expression at the forum. US Ambassador David Gross described why enabling the free flow of information on the Internet should be one of the most important Internet policy goals. Unfortunately discussion about the privacy rights of Internet users was significantly down-graded in the main “Security” session this year (while those who spread fear of pornography have been elevated to a special status). Although Katitza Rodriguez and Ralf Bandrath made valuable contributions on privacy during the session. Issues of importance for the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities were marginalized, with only a single FOSS speaker, Georg Greve , on one main session, “Security” to explain the need for transparency with computer security. Although human rights issues permeate through all of the forum’s main themes, human rights concerns were given short shrift in the meeting’s organization. For IGF to maintain any credibility as a forum responsive to concerns of Internet users and one working towards “an Internet for development”, it must include focused discussion on human rights, and specifically include the issue of human rights as a main theme for IGF 2008. Indeed the governments of Brazil and Italy issued a joint statement during the forum calling for human rights to a specific focus of IGF 2008. Anriette Esterhuysen , Executive Director of the Association of Progressive Communications noted during the “Opening Ceremony” that that Internet is a public good and should be governed based on public interest principles including human rights, free expression, open standards, privacy, balanced intellectual property, interoperability, creativity, transparency, and accountability. During the May 2007 IGF Open Consultations , numerous civil society voices (and some governments like the Council of Europe) called for human rights to be discussed as a cross-cutting theme at IGF-Rio; but China vetoed that request during the consultations. Similarly, during preparations for IGF 2006 in Athens, a repressive Central American government vetoed the call for human rights to be fully addressed at IGF 2006. The United Nations should not allow repressive governments to veto calls for human rights to be discussed more fully at IGF. I noticed government and business representatives wearing "VIP" badges, but did not see any civil society leaders with "VIP" Badges. More must be done to give civil society voices the same value as government and business at the UN. The multi-stakeholder nature of IGF is viewed as one of its core features, giving it legitimacy where other fora have failed. But IGF risks slipping backwards to a forum where government and business concerns are given precedence (even veto power!), while civil society concerns are marginalized as insignificant or too controversial. Despite the alluring rhetoric of multi-stakeholderism at IGF, the reality is that some stakeholders are more equal than others. 2. Glaring lack of gender balance and exclusion of young voices in main sessions A disappointment in the meeting’s organization was the over-whelming majority of speakers on main sessions who were men – much, much older men. For example, of the 7 speakers on the main “Openness” session, not a single woman was included as a main panelist, and only one woman (of 6) was given the lesser role of “discussant” during this session. The so-called “Emerging Issues” session also did not include any female perspectives in the debate, and despite the session’s title, it did not include any speakers who contribute to “new” thinking. Rather than the title of “Emerging Issues”, this session could more accurately have been described as “fading away”. Anyone who works on Internet policy knows that women play a crucial role in advancing dialogue on these issues and numerous women in Rio would have made excellent contributions to these discussions if allowed to contribute. Government and business in particular made no apparent effort to consider gender balance in the sessions. Nearly all of the speakers representing government and business were men, leaving civil society with an even heavier obligation to nominate women as main session speakers in order to achieve some level of overall balance. Business and government should be required to make nominate some female speakers for main session panels if they wish to participate in meetings held under the United Nations flag. Despite the obvious innovation that has come from young people on the Internet, it appears that main session organizers consider the perspectives of people under the age of 55 to be irrelevant. It is undisputable that the creators of the Internet’s most revolutionary tools such as search engines like Google, or Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing programs, or online communities such as YouTube, Facebook, and Second Life come from young innovators and are often geared toward young people. Sadly one speaker (Andrew Keen) on the “Emerging Issues” session openly dismissed the concerns of youth as not worth listening to. But it would have been a breath of fresh air to hear from the leaders of tomorrow at this forum. The lack of funding to bring women and voices of youth (and participants from developing countries) to IGF is a major contributing factor to the problem of gender and age imbalance in the forum. As long as there continues to be no funding to bring women, youth, and developing country panelists to IGF, the speaker lists will continue to be dominated by older men from developed countries, who are sent to IGF by large companies and governments to advocate for their own corporate or national agendas. 3. Main sessions dominated by established players In stark contrast to the robust dialogue in workshops and other non-main sessions, the IGF-Rio main session discussions was largely insignificant in substance. More must be done to include a diversity of viewpoints, instead of the same speakers and the same perspectives on all the main panels. Main session speakers tended to be the same voices we heard at last year’s main sessions. A number of speakers were panelists on several main sessions this year, but there are many qualified experts who hold a wide range of views and expertise on ICT policy issues. The main session on “Critical Internet Resources” (CIR), the most controversial topic for many IGF participants, unfortunately resulted in a missed opportunity. Only one panelist on that session, Professor Milton Mueller openly confronted the problems with the current management structure of the Internet. Professor Mueller made several interventions on the meaning on Critical Internet Resources , on the role of governments at ICANN , the dominance of the United States Government at ICANN , the future of ICANN , and the future of global governance . The other note-worthy intervention during the CIR session came from Carlos Afonso of cgi.br who provided a possible framework for redistributing ICANN’s functions among several linked entities with his /“Jack the Ripper”/ proposal. So while it was a step forward to even permit the controversial CIR topic on the agenda (unlike IGF 2006), the dominance of established players and current management insiders resulted in a controlled discussion which barely touched upon the concerns of those seeking improvement in the Internet’s management. Another example: 4 people who have served as ICANN board members and 2 representatives from the same company (Cisco Systems) spoke on the “Emerging Issues” main session. Nearly every speaker on that session was also a main session speaker at last year’s IGF … yawn … another missed opportunity. The list of examples could go on, but I think you get the point. We will do better in Delhi. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -------------- 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 Nov 20 10:09:40 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:09:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <811770.26901.qm@web50208.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <811770.26901.qm@web50208.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A wonderful move from you Robin. Kudos After going through the report at first glance, some caught my attention and I can be mute. It is "the speaker lists will continue to be dominated by older men from developed countries, who are sent to IGF by large companies and governments to advocate for their own corporate or national agendas" I may add that and if some one comes out with a counter view, you hear them barking in such an intimidating manner as to cow the gullible ones out of the forum. My fear is that Internet Governance will now be dominated by corporate agenda(strategic partner) issues while social (boundary partners) issues are left unattended. Someone up there must do something. Aaron On 11/20/07, Nnenna wrote: > > Thanks a million Robin for this link. Been there since hours now. > It is a great report, especially for those who could not be physically > absent.. > > Was good to 'see' you all > > Nnenna > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Robin Gross > To: a2k discuss list ; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Open > Standards DCOS ; expression at ipjustice.org; > privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:08:39 AM > Subject: [governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum > (IGF) > > > Links to audio, video, photos on IGF 2007 ... > http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/19/2007-igf-rio-wrap-up/ > > apologies for cross-posting > > ------------------ > > > IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > The 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > is officially over. The second meeting > hosted by the United Nations to advance > discussion on issues related to Internet governance was held in Rio de > Janeiro, Brazil from 12 – 15 November 2007. > > The 4-day international conference focused on 5 main themes: Openness, > Access, Security, Diversity, and issues related to the management of > Critical Internet Resources (CIR). Capacity building was a cross-cutting > issue through all the main themes. Over 2,000 registered participants > from 109 countries attended the IGF's various main plenary sessions, > workshops, best practice sessions and other related meetings. > > Overall, the IGF-Rio was a success; it built upon the inaugural meeting > in Athens, > Greece in October > - November 2006, improving upon it in many ways, although back-sliding > in a few others. > > This brief wrap-up of the 2007 IGF > is meant > to serve as > a means of improving the forum in preparation for the 2008 IGF in New > Delhi, India, which is scheduled for 8 – 11 December 2008. The first of > three Open Consultations to organize IGF 2008 will be held in Geneva, > Switzerland from 25 – 27 February 2008. > > Where 2007 IGF-Rio Excelled: > > 1. High quality of the workshops and best practice sessions > > The best part of IGF 2007 was undoubtedly the various workshops > , "dynamic coalition" > meetings, > and best practice sessions, which were independently organized by the > meeting's participants. The level of quality of the dialogue in many of > these sessions was outstanding, with diverse stakeholders coming > together to engage on a common topic and present different viewpoints. > All of the new ideas discussed at this year's forum — indeed all > discussion of "emerging issues" — came from the independently organized > workshops and best practice sessions. As IGF Chairman Nitin Desai put it > during the 2007 closing session: like the Internet itself, all the real > action at this forum was at the edges. > > In addition to the robust quality of the non-main session discussions, > IGF-Rio offered an incredible number (84 > ) of > meetings on a > broad range of subjects – indeed so many that participants had to choose > between several interesting sessions that were scheduled concurrently. > But don't fret: you can still watch or listen > to all > missed sessions > for years to come via the Internet. > > There were workshops that discussed open standards, the free expression > concerns with ICANN deciding what ideas may be expressed in top level > domain names, overbroad intellectual property rights > , human > rights issues > in ICT policies, digital education > , > an international cyberlaw clinic > , > freedom of expression , an 'Internet > Bill of Rights' > , > network neutrality issues and many, many more. (See the events IP > Justice was involved with at IGF-Rio here) > . > > > 2. World-class technical capabilities and remote participation > opportunities > > The Brazilian hosts and IGF Secretariat receive > high marks for their technical capabilities in organizing and managing > IGF 2007. Despite the large number of participants all demanding online > access at the same time, the Brazilians delivered — and even exceeded > expectations in many cases. The technology simply worked. > > All of the main sessions were webcast live so people around the world > could watch (and still can > ). And > unlike most > online webcasts, these video streams were smooth, with virtually no > latency, like watching a TV program. The workshops and other sessions > were all audio cast live, recorded, and will be posted to the Internet > as MP3 files for download in the coming weeks. > > Several language translations and live text transcriptions > of the sessions were available, making the > discussions understandable for millions of more people. The remote > participation component of the meeting also allowed for those not in Rio > to send moderators questions real-time via email or special chat > sessions set up specifically for this meeting. > > This technical capacity was a marked improvement from last year's IGF, > setting a new gold standard for technical facilitation of international > conferences. > > 3. Offline interactions and networking opportunities > > One of the best aspects of IGF-Rio was the incredible networking > opportunities in the hallways, coffee shops, evening programs, and other > informal IGF-related activities in and around the conference venue. > > When thousands of people from all corners of the world with a common > interest in the Internet gather together the synergy can be electric. > New ideas were tossed around in these informal settings — without > moderators, presentations, or pre-prepared conclusions. Participants > were able to pick out key points made in the main sessions or workshops, > and explore them more fully in small informal discussion circles. The > particular lay-out of the conference venue, where IGF participants could > gather and further discuss issues without foot traffic from other hotel > guests significantly contributed to the positive networking > opportunities at this year's meeting. > > The spontaneity of informal conversations and opportunities to meet new > people in the hallways provided sufficient value to justify the trip to > IGF-Rio — even if one is not an official speaker at the forum. And the > networking opportunities in the conference hallways contributed to the > creation of several new IGF Dynamic Coalitions, such as the coalition on > digital education > > and the coalition on gender issues > . > > Improvements for IGF 2008: > > > 1. Human Rights and other controversial topics avoided in main sessions > > Unfortunately not everything about IGF 2007 was a success. One important > area where IGF 2006 was clearly superior to IGF 2007 was with respect to > the discussion of controversial topics, such as online censorship or > other human rights. > > Anyone at IGF 2006 will remember > that > countries like > China and Iran, and companies like Cisco Systems and Yahoo! were taken > to task by the Internet community for their role in contributing to > Internet censorship. Unfortunately this year, critical discussion of > human rights concerns was discouraged, and main session organizers > walked on egg-shells to avoid offending China or businesses who assist > in the repression of Internet freedom and democracy. IGF participants > have repeatedly been warned that if they raise such critical concerns, > repressive governments and companies will pull-out of participation in > the forum – and we can't have that! > > The Chairman of the "Openness" session > , > Brazilian law > professor Ronaldo Lemos described > > several aspects to "Openness" and he explained > > the > developmental impact of Open Standards for Internet governance (note: > Susy Struble reported > > on the work of > the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) > during another session). > > While the main session on "Openness" > > included significant discussion on the threat to free expression that > overbroad intellectual property rules create, those comments had to come > from "discussants" such as Canadian cyberlaw Professor Michael Geist > , the > audience, and > remote participants, since the main panelists lacked expertise on the > tension between freedom of expression and intellectual property from > civil society's viewpoint. And although the topic of "access to > knowledge" is listed as a main topic for "Openness", no experts on that > issue were included on that panel. > > Amnesty International's representative on the "Openness" session, Nick > Dearden, discussed > > the importance of freedom of expression on the Internet and called on > the IGF > > to > elevate discussion on free expression at the forum. US Ambassador David > Gross described > > why enabling > the free flow of information on the Internet should be one of the most > important Internet policy goals. > > Unfortunately discussion about the privacy rights of Internet users was > significantly down-graded in the main "Security" session > > this > year (while those who spread fear of pornography have been elevated to a > special status). Although Katitza Rodriguez > > and Ralf > Bandrath > > made valuable contributions on privacy during the session. Issues of > importance for the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) > communities were marginalized, with only a single FOSS speaker, Georg > Greve > , > on one > main session, "Security" to explain the need for transparency with > computer security. > > Although human rights issues permeate through all of the forum's main > themes, human rights concerns were given short shrift in the meeting's > organization. For IGF to maintain any credibility as a forum responsive > to concerns of Internet users and one working towards "an Internet for > development", it must include focused discussion on human rights, and > specifically include the issue of human rights as a main theme for IGF > 2008. Indeed the governments of Brazil and Italy issued a joint > statement > during > the forum calling for human rights to a specific focus of IGF 2008. > > Anriette Esterhuysen > , > Executive > Director of the Association of Progressive Communications noted during > the "Opening Ceremony" that that Internet is a public good and should be > governed based on public interest principles including human rights, > free expression, open standards, privacy, balanced intellectual > property, interoperability, creativity, transparency, and accountability. > > During the May 2007 IGF Open Consultations > , numerous civil > society voices > (and some governments like the Council of Europe) called for human > rights to be discussed as a cross-cutting theme at IGF-Rio; but China > vetoed that request during the consultations. Similarly, during > preparations for IGF 2006 in Athens, a repressive Central American > government vetoed the call for human rights to be fully addressed at IGF > 2006. The United Nations should not allow repressive governments to veto > calls for human rights to be discussed more fully at IGF. > > I noticed government and business representatives wearing "VIP" badges, > but did not see any civil society leaders with "VIP" Badges. More must > be done to give civil society voices the same value as government and > business at the UN. The multi-stakeholder nature of IGF is viewed as one > of its core features, giving it legitimacy where other fora have failed. > But IGF risks slipping backwards to a forum where government and > business concerns are given precedence (even veto power!), while civil > society concerns are marginalized as insignificant or too controversial. > > Despite the alluring rhetoric of multi-stakeholderism at IGF, the > reality is that some stakeholders are more equal than others. > > 2. Glaring lack of gender balance and exclusion of young voices in main > sessions > > A disappointment in the meeting's organization was the over-whelming > majority of speakers on main sessions who were men – much, much older > men. For example, of the 7 speakers on the main "Openness" session, not > a single woman was included as a main panelist, and only one woman (of > 6) was given the lesser role of "discussant" during this session. The > so-called "Emerging Issues" > > session also did not include any female perspectives in the debate, and > despite the session's title, it did not include any speakers who > contribute to "new" thinking. Rather than the title of "Emerging > Issues", this session could more accurately have been described as > "fading away". > > Anyone who works on Internet policy knows that women play a crucial role > in advancing dialogue on these issues and numerous women in Rio would > have made excellent contributions to these discussions if allowed to > contribute. Government and business in particular made no apparent > effort to consider gender balance in the sessions. Nearly all of the > speakers representing government and business were men, leaving civil > society with an even heavier obligation to nominate women as main > session speakers in order to achieve some level of overall balance. > Business and government should be required to make nominate some female > speakers for main session panels if they wish to participate in meetings > held under the United Nations flag. > > Despite the obvious innovation that has come from young people on the > Internet, it appears that main session organizers consider the > perspectives of people under the age of 55 to be irrelevant. It is > undisputable that the creators of the Internet's most revolutionary > tools such as search engines like Google, or Peer-to-Peer (P2P) > file-sharing programs, or online communities such as YouTube, Facebook, > and Second Life come from young innovators and are often geared toward > young people. Sadly one speaker (Andrew Keen) on the "Emerging Issues" > session openly dismissed the concerns of youth as not worth listening > to. But it would have been a breath of fresh air to hear from the > leaders of tomorrow at this forum. > > The lack of funding to bring women and voices of youth (and participants > from developing countries) to IGF is a major contributing factor to the > problem of gender and age imbalance in the forum. As long as there > continues to be no funding to bring women, youth, and developing country > panelists to IGF, the speaker lists will continue to be dominated by > older men from developed countries, who are sent to IGF by large > companies and governments to advocate for their own corporate or > national agendas. > > 3. Main sessions dominated by established players > > In stark contrast to the robust dialogue in workshops and other non-main > sessions, the IGF-Rio main session discussions was largely insignificant > in substance. More must be done to include a diversity of viewpoints, > instead of the same speakers and the same perspectives on all the main > panels. > > Main session speakers tended to be the same voices we heard at last > year's main sessions. A number of speakers were panelists on several > main sessions this year, but there are many qualified experts who hold a > wide range of views and expertise on ICT policy issues. > > The main session on "Critical Internet Resources" > > (CIR), the most controversial topic for many IGF participants, > unfortunately resulted in a missed opportunity. Only one panelist on > that session, Professor Milton Mueller openly confronted the problems > with the current management structure of the Internet. Professor Mueller > made several interventions on the meaning on Critical Internet Resources > , > on the > role of governments at ICANN > , the > dominance of the > United States Government at ICANN > , the > future of ICANN > , > and the > future of global governance > . > > The other note-worthy intervention > > during the > CIR session came from Carlos Afonso of cgi.br who provided a possible > framework for redistributing ICANN's functions among several linked > entities with his /"Jack the Ripper"/ proposal. So while it was a step > forward to even permit the controversial CIR topic on the agenda (unlike > IGF 2006), the dominance of established players and current management > insiders resulted in a controlled discussion which barely touched upon > the concerns of those seeking improvement in the Internet's management. > > Another example: 4 people who have served as ICANN board members and 2 > representatives from the same company (Cisco Systems) spoke on the > "Emerging Issues" main session. Nearly every speaker on that session was > also a main session speaker at last year's IGF … yawn … another missed > opportunity. The list of examples could go on, but I think you get the > point. > > We will do better in Delhi. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ________________________________ > Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Nov 20 10:28:12 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:28:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is today midnight - more volunteers needed. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711201527.lAKFRLTP008150@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Thanks Lisa, Yes there is on line a list of volunteers to serve in the NomCom and of self nominations for the CS membership into the GAID Strategy Council we received so far. The description of the whole process as previously circulated on this list is available on: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news &id=10462. As you know, the GAID Secretariat announced that 3 to 4 CS seats in the Strategy Council will be renewed (corresponding to approximately one third of the 10 CS members of the Strategy Council, composed of a total of 40 members). - Volunteers to serve in the NomCom: We only have 13 volunteers so far and as you know we would need 25 to make the selection completely random. The deadline for volunteering is TODAY at 0.00. The random selection process will indeed take place tomorrow. If we don’t reach this number of 25, we would have to consider cancelling the whole self nomination process and would not be in a position to submit a recommendation for the new CS members of the Strategy Council to the GAID Secretariat. - Nominated candidates for the GAID Strategy Council: I only received so far 4 nominations. We also need much more to make this process meaningful. Deadline for nominations of candidates is 25 November. Nominations could be self-candidatures of nominations by others. To nominate through this process, send to wsis at ngocongo.org the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: In parallel to that, one CS seat of the GAID steering committee is also going to be open to rotation. The Steering Committee is composed of 10 members, including 2 from civil society. As also previously announced, I am also trying to mobilize the CS outgoing members of the Strategy Council and the HL Advisors to make a recommendation to the GAID Secretariat on the CS seat of the GAID Steering Committee to be renewed. I would come back to you later about that. Best, Philippe _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr. Envoyé : vendredi, 16. novembre 2007 21:27 À : Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Update on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council - need more volunteers and more candidates Philippe, I volunteer to be a member of the noncom. Please will you share the list of those who’ve already volunteered as well as the names of those put forward for nomination to the strategy council? Best, Lisa McLaughlin Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D. Mass Communication & Women’s Studies Williams Hall Miami University, Ohio 45056 USA tele: +1 513 5293547 fax: +1 513 5291835 On 11/16/07 11:09 AM, "CONGO - IS" 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! _______________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Suggested guidelines - CS Self-Nomination processfor GAID Strategic Council membership Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:06:15 +0100 Size: 282604 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 10:38:20 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:38:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is today midnight - more volunteers needed. Message-ID: <21625.81340.qm@web50203.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Add Nnenna ----- Original Message ---- From: CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam To: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space ; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: CONGO - Philippe Dam Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:28:12 PM Subject: [governance] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is today midnight - more volunteers needed. Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Update on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council - need more volunteers and more candidates Thanks Lisa, Yes there is on line a list of volunteers to serve in the NomCom and of self nominations for the CS membership into the GAID Strategy Council we received so far. The description of the whole process as previously circulated on this list is available on: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news&id=10462. As you know, the GAID Secretariat announced that 3 to 4 CS seats in the Strategy Council will be renewed (corresponding to approximately one third of the 10 CS members of the Strategy Council, composed of a total of 40 members). - Volunteers to serve in the NomCom: We only have 13 volunteers so far and as you know we would need 25 to make the selection completely random. The deadline for volunteering is TODAY at 0.00. The random selection process will indeed take place tomorrow. If we don’t reach this number of 25, we would have to consider cancelling the whole self nomination process and would not be in a position to submit a recommendation for the new CS members of the Strategy Council to the GAID Secretariat. - Nominated candidates for the GAID Strategy Council: I only received so far 4 nominations. We also need much more to make this process meaningful. Deadline for nominations of candidates is 25 November. Nominations could be self-candidatures of nominations by others. To nominate through this process, send to wsis at ngocongo.org the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: In parallel to that, one CS seat of the GAID steering committee is also going to be open to rotation. The Steering Committee is composed of 10 members, including 2 from civil society. As also previously announced, I am also trying to mobilize the CS outgoing members of the Strategy Council and the HL Advisors to make a recommendation to the GAID Secretariat on the CS seat of the GAID Steering Committee to be renewed. I would come back to you later about that. Best, Philippe De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr . Envoyé : vendredi, 16. novembre 2007 21:27 À : Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Update on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council - need more volunteers and more candidates Philippe, I volunteer to be a member of the noncom. Please will you share the list of those who’ve already volunteered as well as the names of those put forward for nomination to the strategy council? Best, Lisa McLaughlin Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D. Mass Communication & Women’s Studies Williams Hall Miami University, Ohio 45056 USA tele: +1 513 5293547 fax: +1 513 5291835 On 11/16/07 11:09 AM, "CONGO - IS" 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! _______________________________________ -----Inline Message Follows----- Dear all, This is to suggest that we go into CS self-nomination through a NomCom process for the membership of the GAID Strategy Council (reminder: see GAID Secretariat note attached). As you know, 3-4 CS position of this structure might be open for rotation. Nomination are open until 30 November 2007, so that a CS self-nomination process should be finalized by that time (some flexibility might allow us to finish it in the early days of December). Please start volunteering to the NomCom according to the proposed guidelines below. I’ll inform you about the webpage in which the names will be published. Depending on when the seeds for the randomization process in selecting NomCom members would be drawn (I will have more information about that very shortly), the various deadlines could be slightly adjusted, but the process could remain unchanged. Selection of a CS Nomination Committee The Nom Com will be composed of 5 CS representatives, acting in their personal capacity and randomly selected among those who would volunteer. For the selection of 5 names to be random, we should try to have 5 times as many volunteers (25) for the volunteer pool as we want Nom Com members. Volunteers for serving in the Nomination Committee should announce themselves no later than 20 November 2007 (stating its name and CS affiliation at wsis at ngocongo.org). The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, will be published online. The Nom Com would be selected through a random selection process on 21 November 2007. · Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. · Volunteering for the pool does NOT disqualify anyone from selection for the Strategic Council, BUT serving on the Nom Com (that is, if you are randomly selected) does. · The more people who volunteer the better chance we have to get a representative selection in the Nom Com. · There will not be two persons from the same organisation in the Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee would start working on line fairly intensively on 21 November 2007 until 30 November 2005. Its work will be facilitated by a non voting facilitator (if nobody volunteers to do so, and if nobody objects, I would be happy to serve in this position). If the number of volunteers to serve in the NomCom does not reach 25 persons by 19 November, we would have to consider that there is no interest among this group to go into a self-nomination process for the Steering Committee CS membership. We would leave it completely to the GAID Secretariat to identify such membership. Candidates for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council Candidatures for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council is open to all representatives from civil society, including CS entities accredited to WSIS, NGOs with ECOSOC status and all other CS actors interested in ICT for Development and involved in the UN development agenda towards achieving the MDGs. Nominations (including self-nominations) and all relevant information must be sent to the NomCom facilitator NO LATER THAN 25 NOVEMBER 2007, 22:00 p.m. GMT / 24:00 p.m. Geneva Time with the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: The members of the NomCom will determine in due time their guidelines and criteria. They will be requested to come out with a recommendation to be forwarded to the GAID Secretariat on 1 December 2007. Since there would be 3 or 4 seats to be opened to rotation, it is expected that the NomCom recommends 4 to 6 names to the GAID Secretariat, to allow for some flexibility in the final membership of the Strategy Council. As a matter of principle, I strongly encourage you to contribute to this CS self-nomination process and to make it successful. Looking forward to reading you in this regard. Best regards, 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 Dear all, This is to suggest that we go into CS self-nomination through a NomCom process for the membership of the GAID Strategy Council (reminder: see GAID Secretariat note attached). As you know, 3-4 CS position of this structure might be open for rotation. Nomination are open until 30 November 2007, so that a CS self-nomination process should be finalized by that time (some flexibility might allow us to finish it in the early days of December). Please start volunteering to the NomCom according to the proposed guidelines below. I’ll inform you about the webpage in which the names will be published. Depending on when the seeds for the randomization process in selecting NomCom members would be drawn (I will have more information about that very shortly), the various deadlines could be slightly adjusted, but the process could remain unchanged. Selection of a CS Nomination Committee The Nom Com will be composed of 5 CS representatives, acting in their personal capacity and randomly selected among those who would volunteer. For the selection of 5 names to be random, we should try to have 5 times as many volunteers (25) for the volunteer pool as we want Nom Com members. Volunteers for serving in the Nomination Committee should announce themselves no later than 20 November 2007 (stating its name and CS affiliation at wsis at ngocongo.org). The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by date of receipt of message indicating interest, will be published online. The Nom Com would be selected through a random selection process on 21 November 2007. · Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. · Volunteering for the pool does NOT disqualify anyone from selection for the Strategic Council, BUT serving on the Nom Com (that is, if you are randomly selected) does. · The more people who volunteer the better chance we have to get a representative selection in the Nom Com. · There will not be two persons from the same organisation in the Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee would start working on line fairly intensively on 21 November 2007 until 30 November 2005. Its work will be facilitated by a non voting facilitator (if nobody volunteers to do so, and if nobody objects, I would be happy to serve in this position). If the number of volunteers to serve in the NomCom does not reach 25 persons by 19 November, we would have to consider that there is no interest among this group to go into a self-nomination process for the Steering Committee CS membership. We would leave it completely to the GAID Secretariat to identify such membership. Candidates for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council Candidatures for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council is open to all representatives from civil society, including CS entities accredited to WSIS, NGOs with ECOSOC status and all other CS actors interested in ICT for Development and involved in the UN development agenda towards achieving the MDGs. Nominations (including self-nominations) and all relevant information must be sent to the NomCom facilitator NO LATER THAN 25 NOVEMBER 2007, 22:00 p.m. GMT / 24:00 p.m. Geneva Time with the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: The members of the NomCom will determine in due time their guidelines and criteria. They will be requested to come out with a recommendation to be forwarded to the GAID Secretariat on 1 December 2007. Since there would be 3 or 4 seats to be opened to rotation, it is expected that the NomCom recommends 4 to 6 names to the GAID Secretariat, to allow for some flexibility in the final membership of the Strategy Council. As a matter of principle, I strongly encourage you to contribute to this CS self-nomination process and to make it successful. Looking forward to reading you in this regard. Best regards, 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 -----Inline Message Follows----- Dear all, This is the note of the GAID Secretariat regarding the renewal of membership of the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee. I also re-attached the recent e-mail I circulated in this regard a couple of days ago. As discussed, the deadline for nominations is 30 November 2007. As previously announced, we have not yet any idea of who, among the outgoing Strategy Council (see membership here) and Steering Committee members (see membership here), will be maintained and which ones will go out. I’ll come back to you early next week with some proposals regarding a CS self nomination process (please send any comment on that matter). The timeline as confirmed by the GAID Secretariat note is as follows: GAID Steering Committee GAID Strategy Council Deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members 15 August 2007 30 November 2007 Deadline for new nominations for membership 30 November 2007 30 November 2007 Announcement of the Appointment of new members End of December 2007 End of December 2007 Office taking of the new members 1 April 2008 1 April 2008 Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership May 2008 Kuala Lumpur May 2008 Kuala Lumpur Best regards, Philippe Dam De : steering-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:steering-bounces at un-gaid.org] De la part de Sarbuland Khan Envoyé : lundi, 29. octobre 2007 15:38 À : steering at un-gaid.org Objet : [GAID Steering] Renewal of Membership in the GAID Strategy Counciland Steering Committee Dear Colleagues, To ensure continuity and renewal of membership in the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee, the GAID Secretariat initiated a nomination process last 31 July 2007 for membership in both bodies. It is envisioned that approximately one-third of the membership in the Strategy Council and Steering Committee should rotate. According to the Terms of Reference adopted at the 27 September 2006 meeting of the Steering Committee (see attached), the term of the members of the GAID Steering Committee was due to end in September 2007, and the term of members of the GAID Strategy Council will conclude before the next meeting of the Strategy Council on May 2008 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during the World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT)). However, as agreed by the Steering Committee in its meeting last 19 September 2007 in New York, more time is needed for the consultation process for nominations, particularly to membership in the Steering Committee. It has been agreed that the term of the present membership in the Steering Committee be continued through March 2008 and to extend the Steering Committee consultation process to align with the timeframe for the process of rotation in the Strategy Council. The terms of the next GAID Steering Committee and Strategy Council would, therefore, run as follows: Steering Committee (one year term) 1 April 2008 - 31 March 2009 Strategy Council (two year term) 1 April 2008 31 March 2010 RENEWAL OF MEMBERSHIP OF EXISTING MEMBERS The Secretariat kindly requests current members, who have not yet done so, to indicate whether they would be available and interested to be considered as a candidate for renewal. We would be grateful to receive this information (addressed to dejesus3 at un-gaid.org) no later than 30 November 2007, both for Steering Committee members and Strategy Council members. NOMINATIONS OF NEW CANDIDATES The Secretariat invites nominations for new candidatures for the Steering Committee for approximately 4 seats, and the Strategy Council for approximately 20 seats (1/3 of the membership of each stakeholder group) by 30 November 2007. (Please see http://www.un-gaid.org/en/about/howgaidworks for the list of current members.) As is established practice, nominations for Member States are being solicited through the United Nations regional groups. Civil society and trade organizations are being invited to identify nominations from among their constituencies. There is no limit to the number of nominations that may be submitted. Qualified organizations may also independently express interest in membership. Nominations should be submitted to the Secretariat by the appropriate deadline noted above through the email address nominate at un-gaid.org. APPOINTMENT The list of recommended candidates will be developed, following consultations with the Strategy Council and the Steering Committee, and approved on behalf of the Secretary-General by the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The appointment of new members is anticipated to be announced by the end of December 2007. With my best personal regards, Sincerely, Sarbuland Khan Dear all, This is the note of the GAID Secretariat regarding the renewal of membership of the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee. I also re-attached the recent e-mail I circulated in this regard a couple of days ago. As discussed, the deadline for nominations is 30 November 2007. As previously announced, we have not yet any idea of who, among the outgoing Strategy Council (see membership here) and Steering Committee members (see membership here), will be maintained and which ones will go out. I’ll come back to you early next week with some proposals regarding a CS self nomination process (please send any comment on that matter). The timeline as confirmed by the GAID Secretariat note is as follows: GAID Steering Committee GAID Strategy Council Deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members 15 August 2007 30 November 2007 Deadline for new nominations for membership 30 November 2007 30 November 2007 Announcement of the Appointment of new members End of December 2007 End of December 2007 Office taking of the new members 1 April 2008 1 April 2008 Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership May 2008 Kuala Lumpur May 2008 Kuala Lumpur Best regards, Philippe Dam De : steering-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:steering-bounces at un-gaid.org] De la part de Sarbuland Khan Envoyé : lundi, 29. octobre 2007 15:38 À : steering at un-gaid.org Objet : [GAID Steering] Renewal of Membership in the GAID Strategy Counciland Steering Committee Dear Colleagues, To ensure continuity and renewal of membership in the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee, the GAID Secretariat initiated a nomination process last 31 July 2007 for membership in both bodies. It is envisioned that approximately one-third of the membership in the Strategy Council and Steering Committee should rotate. According to the Terms of Reference adopted at the 27 September 2006 meeting of the Steering Committee (see attached), the term of the members of the GAID Steering Committee was due to end in September 2007, and the term of members of the GAID Strategy Council will conclude before the next meeting of the Strategy Council on May 2008 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during the World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT)). However, as agreed by the Steering Committee in its meeting last 19 September 2007 in New York, more time is needed for the consultation process for nominations, particularly to membership in the Steering Committee. It has been agreed that the term of the present membership in the Steering Committee be continued through March 2008 and to extend the Steering Committee consultation process to align with the timeframe for the process of rotation in the Strategy Council. The terms of the next GAID Steering Committee and Strategy Council would, therefore, run as follows: Steering Committee (one year term) 1 April 2008 - 31 March 2009 Strategy Council (two year term) 1 April 2008 31 March 2010 RENEWAL OF MEMBERSHIP OF EXISTING MEMBERS The Secretariat kindly requests current members, who have not yet done so, to indicate whether they would be available and interested to be considered as a candidate for renewal. We would be grateful to receive this information (addressed to dejesus3 at un-gaid.org) no later than 30 November 2007, both for Steering Committee members and Strategy Council members. NOMINATIONS OF NEW CANDIDATES The Secretariat invites nominations for new candidatures for the Steering Committee for approximately 4 seats, and the Strategy Council for approximately 20 seats (1/3 of the membership of each stakeholder group) by 30 November 2007. (Please see http://www.un-gaid.org/en/about/howgaidworks for the list of current members.) As is established practice, nominations for Member States are being solicited through the United Nations regional groups. Civil society and trade organizations are being invited to identify nominations from among their constituencies. There is no limit to the number of nominations that may be submitted. Qualified organizations may also independently express interest in membership. Nominations should be submitted to the Secretariat by the appropriate deadline noted above through the email address nominate at un-gaid.org. APPOINTMENT The list of recommended candidates will be developed, following consultations with the Strategy Council and the Steering Committee, and approved on behalf of the Secretary-General by the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The appointment of new members is anticipated to be announced by the end of December 2007. With my best personal regards, Sincerely, Sarbuland Khan -----Inline Message Follows----- Dear all, As indicated in my previous e-mails, the renewal of the membership of GAID structures was postponed, to allow for greater consultation among stakeholders’ groups. The deadline for nominations is 30 November 2007. We therefore have until that date to come out with a CS self-organised recommendation on the membership of both the Steering Committee and the Strategy Council. Is there anyone among you willing to moderate any of these self-nomination processes? Our problem so far is that we have not yet any idea of who, among the outgoing StratC and Steering Committee members, will be maintained and which ones will go out. The GAID Secretariat had asked all outgoing members to express their interest to continue. As regards the Steering Committee, I understood that both Titi and Renate informed the GAID Secretariat of their interest to continue one more year. But there is no more information so far on who would stay on Board. There were also some discussions on whether the Steering Committee membership should be increased to 12 members (currently 10), but there is not yet any definite information on this (hopefully this would be one more for CS). As for the Strategy Council, it is understood that approximately one-third of the membership should rotate. But I have very little information of who expressed the willingness to continue. Out of 10 CS members so far, this would mean that 3 or 4 new members should be identified. But the deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members is also 30 November, meaning that we would not be able to know before 30 Nov. who would go out… We would anyway need to have 2 parallel processes to go with by 30 November, in identifying one individual for the Steering Committee membership. Any process such as this one would approximately need one month to be finalised, so that we need to start both no later that end October (next week!). A note by the GAID secretariat might be circulated soon, but I preferred to forward you what we knew so far! Let me remind that the deadlines for the nominations and appointment processes are as follows: GAID Steering Committee GAID Strategy Council Deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members 15 August 2007 30 November 2007 Deadline for new nominations for membership 30 November 2007 30 November 2007 Announcement of the Appointment of new members End of December 2007 End of December 2007 Office taking of the new members 1 April 2008 1 April 2008 Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership May 2008 Kuala Lumpur May 2008 Kuala Lumpur All the best, Philippe 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 Dear all, As indicated in my previous e-mails, the renewal of the membership of GAID structures was postponed, to allow for greater consultation among stakeholders’ groups. The deadline for nominations is 30 November 2007. We therefore have until that date to come out with a CS self-organised recommendation on the membership of both the Steering Committee and the Strategy Council. Is there anyone among you willing to moderate any of these self-nomination processes? Our problem so far is that we have not yet any idea of who, among the outgoing StratC and Steering Committee members, will be maintained and which ones will go out. The GAID Secretariat had asked all outgoing members to express their interest to continue. As regards the Steering Committee, I understood that both Titi and Renate informed the GAID Secretariat of their interest to continue one more year. But there is no more information so far on who would stay on Board. There were also some discussions on whether the Steering Committee membership should be increased to 12 members (currently 10), but there is not yet any definite information on this (hopefully this would be one more for CS). As for the Strategy Council, it is understood that approximately one-third of the membership should rotate. But I have very little information of who expressed the willingness to continue. Out of 10 CS members so far, this would mean that 3 or 4 new members should be identified. But the deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members is also 30 November, meaning that we would not be able to know before 30 Nov. who would go out… We would anyway need to have 2 parallel processes to go with by 30 November, in identifying one individual for the Steering Committee membership. Any process such as this one would approximately need one month to be finalised, so that we need to start both no later that end October (next week!). A note by the GAID secretariat might be circulated soon, but I preferred to forward you what we knew so far! Let me remind that the deadlines for the nominations and appointment processes are as follows: GAID Steering Committee GAID Strategy Council Deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members 15 August 2007 30 November 2007 Deadline for new nominations for membership 30 November 2007 30 November 2007 Announcement of the Appointment of new members End of December 2007 End of December 2007 Office taking of the new members 1 April 2008 1 April 2008 Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership May 2008 Kuala Lumpur May 2008 Kuala Lumpur All the best, Philippe 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ -------------- 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 Nov 20 10:48:18 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:48:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: 7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu Message-ID: Thank you Milton, I'll take it under advisement. I'm wanting the Icann's "General Manager of Public Participation" to walk me through the process of instiuting a program with Icann. Consensus taking is a fundamental property of 'botttom-up' participation. Voting is the very essence of "Public Participation". It's a requirement of democratic civil culture. If Icann is committed to, as the Chairman of the Board Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush stated in Rio: ..." We're looking at an industry-led, self-regulated, bottom-up, transparent process for the coordination of the Internet resources." ... Then a 'binding' Public Participation Voting mechanism is absolutely curcial. -- > * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding I just pick up a phone and call a Congressman on the DoC. - Kieren (GM), If you would please... just walk us through it as an exercise. Its important for people to hear, How it is done? (via Icann) --- 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 email at hakik.org Tue Nov 20 10:58:46 2007 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:58:46 +0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is today midnight - more volunteers needed. In-Reply-To: <200711201527.lAKFRLTP008150@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> References: <200711201527.lAKFRLTP008150@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20071120155433.C269CA6CD5@smtp2.electricembers.net> Please add my name in the NomCom. Best regards, Hakik Dr. Md. Hakikur Rahman Chairman SchoolNet Foundation Bangladesh web: www.schoolnetbd.org, www.hakik.org email: email at hakik.org, hakikur.rahman at gmail.com At 09:28 PM 11/20/2007, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam 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! >_______________________________________ > > >Thanks Lisa, > >Yes there is on line a list of volunteers to >serve in the NomCom and of self nominations for >the CS membership into the GAID Strategy Council >we received so far. The description of the whole >process as previously circulated on this list is >available on: >http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news&id=10462. >As you know, the GAID Secretariat announced that >3 to 4 CS seats in the Strategy Council will be >renewed (corresponding to approximately one >third of the 10 CS members of the Strategy >Council, composed of a total of 40 members). > >- >Volunteers >to serve in the NomCom: We only have 13 >volunteers so far and as you know we would need >25 to make the selection completely random. The >deadline for volunteering is TODAY at 0.00. The >random selection process will indeed take place >tomorrow. If we don’t reach this number of 25, >we would have to consider cancelling the whole >self nomination process and would not be in a >position to submit a recommendation for the new >CS members of the Strategy Council to the GAID Secretariat. > >- >Nominated >candidates for the GAID Strategy Council: I only >received so far 4 nominations. We also need much >more to make this process meaningful. Deadline >for nominations of candidates is 25 November. >Nominations could be self-candidatures of >nominations by others. To nominate through this >process, send to >wsis at ngocongo.org the following information: >Name: >CS Affiliation(s): >Country: >Gender: >Age: >Biographical Statement: >Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: > > > >In parallel to that, one CS seat of the GAID >steering committee is also going to be open to >rotation. The Steering Committee is composed of >10 members, including 2 from civil society. As >also previously announced, I am also trying to >mobilize the CS outgoing members of the Strategy >Council and the HL Advisors to make a >recommendation to the GAID Secretariat on the CS >seat of the GAID Steering Committee to be >renewed. I would come back to you later about that. > >Best, > >Philippe > > >---------- >De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org >[mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr. >Envoyé : vendredi, 16. novembre 2007 21:27 >À : Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space >Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Update on the CS >self-nomination process for GAID Strategy >Council - need more volunteers and more candidates > >Philippe, I volunteer to be a member of the >noncom. Please will you share the list of those >who’ve already volunteered as well as the names >of those put forward for nomination to the strategy council? > >Best, > >Lisa McLaughlin > > > >Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D. >Mass Communication & Women’s Studies >Williams Hall >Miami University, Ohio 45056 >USA >tele: +1 513 5293547 >fax: +1 513 5291835 > > >On 11/16/07 11:09 AM, "CONGO - IS" 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! >_______________________________________ > > >Reply-To: "Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space" >From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" >Sender: >To: "'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'" , > , > >Cc: "'CONGO - Philippe Dam'" , > >Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Suggested guidelines >- CS Self-Nomination processfor GAID Strategic Council membership >Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:06:15 +0100 >Message-ID: <200711061805.lA6I5RCn015077 at smtp1.infomaniak.ch> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005E_01C82B92.595F0C40" >X-Priority: 1 (Highest) >X-MSMail-Priority: High >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 >Thread-Index: Acggn7i9Gn4Z/SNURQW5sN3r025Uvg== >X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient >auto-whitelisted, not delayed by >milter-greylist-4.0 (mta-gw7.infomaniak.ch >[84.16.68.126]); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:05:54 +0100 (CET) >X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Mail Servers on mta-spa3 host >X-Antivirus-Code: 100000 >X-Spam-Score: - >Importance: High >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: >, >List-Unsubscribe: >, >x-spam-status: No, score=x tagged_above=-9999 required=4 tests=[] >x-virus-scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.greennet.org.uk >x-spam-level: >x-mailman-version: 2.1.5 >x-beenthere: plenary at wsis-cs.org >x-original-to: plenary at wsis-cs.org > >Dear all, > >This is to suggest that we go into CS >self-nomination through a NomCom process for the >membership of the GAID Strategy Council >(reminder: see GAID Secretariat note attached). >As you know, 3-4 CS position of this structure >might be open for rotation. Nomination are open >until 30 November 2007, so that a CS >self-nomination process should be finalized by >that time (some flexibility might allow us to >finish it in the early days of December). > >Please start volunteering to the NomCom >according to the proposed guidelines below. I’ll >inform you about the webpage in which the names >will be published. Depending on when the seeds >for the randomization process in selecting >NomCom members would be drawn (I will have more >information about that very shortly), the >various deadlines could be slightly adjusted, >but the process could remain unchanged. > >Selection of a CS Nomination Committee >The Nom Com will be composed of 5 CS >representatives, acting in their personal >capacity and randomly selected among those who >would volunteer. For the selection of 5 names to >be random, we should try to have 5 times as many >volunteers (25) for the volunteer pool as we want Nom Com members. > >Volunteers for serving in the Nomination >Committee should announce themselves no later >than 20 November 2007 (stating its name and CS >affiliation at >wsis at ngocongo.org). >The list of names of the volunteers, ordered by >date of receipt of message indicating interest, will be published online. > >The Nom Com would be selected through a random >selection process on 21 November 2007. > >· Members of the Nominations Committee >will preferably have to demonstrate a >long-standing engagement in the Information >Society-related processes within the UN, in >particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of >civil society self-organised working processes. >· Volunteering for the pool does NOT >disqualify anyone from selection for the >Strategic Council, BUT serving on the Nom Com >(that is, if you are randomly selected) does. >· The more people who volunteer the >better chance we have to get a representative selection in the Nom Com. >· There will not be two persons from >the same organisation in the Nomination Committee. > >The Nomination Committee would start working on >line fairly intensively on 21 November 2007 >until 30 November 2005. Its work will be >facilitated by a non voting facilitator (if >nobody volunteers to do so, and if nobody >objects, I would be happy to serve in this position). > >If the number of volunteers to serve in the >NomCom does not reach 25 persons by 19 November, >we would have to consider that there is no >interest among this group to go into a >self-nomination process for the Steering >Committee CS membership. We would leave it >completely to the GAID Secretariat to identify such membership. > >Candidates for the CS membership to the GA Strategy Council >Candidatures for the CS membership to the GA >Strategy Council is open to all representatives >from civil society, including CS entities >accredited to WSIS, NGOs with ECOSOC status and >all other CS actors interested in ICT for >Development and involved in the UN development >agenda towards achieving the MDGs. > >Nominations (including self-nominations) and all >relevant information must be sent to the NomCom >facilitator NO LATER THAN 25 NOVEMBER 2007, >22:00 p.m. GMT / 24:00 p.m. Geneva Time with the following information: > >Name: >CS Affiliation(s): >Country: >Gender: >Age: >Biographical Statement: >Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: > >The members of the NomCom will determine in due >time their guidelines and criteria. >They will be requested to come out with a >recommendation to be forwarded to the GAID Secretariat on 1 December 2007. >Since there would be 3 or 4 seats to be opened >to rotation, it is expected that the NomCom >recommends 4 to 6 names to the GAID Secretariat, >to allow for some flexibility in the final membership of the Strategy Council. > > >As a matter of principle, I strongly encourage >you to contribute to this CS self-nomination process and to make it successful. >Looking forward to reading you in this regard. > >Best regards, > >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 > > >Reply-To: "Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space" >From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" >Sender: >To: "'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'" , > , > >Cc: "'CONGO - Philippe Dam'" , > "'Renata Bloem'" >Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] TR: [GAID Steering] >Renewal of Membership intheGAID Strategy Counciland Steering Committee >Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:43:21 +0100 >Message-ID: <200711021742.lA2HgWA3024677 at smtp2.infomaniak.ch> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01C82B92.595A5150" >X-Priority: 1 (Highest) >X-MSMail-Priority: High >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 >Thread-Index: AcgaPjbQk0nXR93GQ0K8OIhqb34GnQDNRp6Q >X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient >auto-whitelisted, not delayed >bymilter-greylist-4.0 (mta-gw5.infomaniak.ch >[84.16.68.126]);Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:42:49 +0100 (CET) >X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Mail Servers on mta-spa6 host >X-Antivirus-Code: 100000 >X-Infomaniak-Spam: ham >X-Spam-Score: -345 >Importance: High >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: >, >List-Unsubscribe: >, >x-spam-status: No, score=x tagged_above=-9999 required=4 tests=[] >x-virus-scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.greennet.org.uk >x-spam-level: >x-mailman-version: 2.1.5 >x-beenthere: plenary at wsis-cs.org >x-original-to: plenary at wsis-cs.org > >Dear all, > >This is the note of the GAID Secretariat >regarding the renewal of membership of the GAID >Strategy Council and Steering Committee. >I also re-attached the recent e-mail I >circulated in this regard a couple of days ago. > >As discussed, the deadline for nominations is 30 >November 2007. As previously announced, we have >not yet any idea of who, among the outgoing >Strategy Council (see >membership >here) and Steering Committee members (see >membership >here), will be maintained and which ones will go out. > >I’ll come back to you early next week with some >proposals regarding a CS self nomination process >(please send any comment on that matter). > >The timeline as confirmed by the GAID Secretariat note is as follows: > > >GAID Steering Committee >GAID Strategy Council >Deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members > >15 August 2007 > >30 November 2007 >Deadline for new nominations for membership > >30 November 2007 > >30 November 2007 >Announcement of the Appointment of new members > >End of December 2007 > >End of December 2007 >Office taking of the new members > >1 April 2008 > >1 April 2008 >Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership >May 2008 >Kuala Lumpur >May 2008 >Kuala Lumpur > >Best regards, > >Philippe Dam > > > > >---------- >De : steering-bounces at un-gaid.org >[mailto:steering-bounces at un-gaid.org] De la part de Sarbuland Khan >Envoyé : lundi, 29. octobre 2007 15:38 >À : steering at un-gaid.org >Objet : [GAID Steering] Renewal of Membership in >the GAID Strategy Counciland Steering Committee > >Dear Colleagues, > >To ensure continuity and renewal of membership >in the GAID Strategy Council and Steering >Committee, the GAID Secretariat initiated a >nomination process last 31 July 2007 for >membership in both bodies. It is envisioned that >approximately one-third of the membership in the >Strategy Council and Steering Committee should rotate. > >According to the Terms of Reference adopted at >the 27 September 2006 meeting of the Steering >Committee (see attached), the term of the >members of the GAID Steering Committee was due >to end in September 2007, and the term of >members of the GAID Strategy Council will >conclude before the next meeting of the Strategy >Council on May 2008 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, >during the World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT)). > >However, as agreed by the Steering Committee in >its meeting last 19 September 2007 in New York, >more time is needed for the consultation process >for nominations, particularly to membership in >the Steering Committee. It has been agreed that >the term of the present membership in the >Steering Committee be continued through March >2008 and to extend the Steering Committee >consultation process to align with the timeframe >for the process of rotation in the Strategy Council. > >The terms of the next GAID Steering Committee >and Strategy Council would, therefore, run as follows: > >Steering Committee (one year term) >1 April 2008 - 31 March 2009 > >Strategy Council (two year term) >1 April 2008 31 March 2010 > > >RENEWAL OF MEMBERSHIP OF EXISTING MEMBERS > >The Secretariat kindly requests current members, >who have not yet done so, to indicate whether >they would be available and interested to be >considered as a candidate for renewal. > >We would be grateful to receive this information >(addressed to dejesus3 at un-gaid.org) no later >than 30 November 2007, both for Steering >Committee members and Strategy Council members. > > >NOMINATIONS OF NEW CANDIDATES > >The Secretariat invites nominations for new >candidatures for the Steering Committee for >approximately 4 seats, and the Strategy Council >for approximately 20 seats (1/3 of the >membership of each stakeholder group) by 30 >November 2007. (Please see >http://www.un-gaid.org/en/about/howgaidworks for the list of current members.) > >As is established practice, nominations for >Member States are being solicited through the >United Nations regional groups. Civil society >and trade organizations are being invited to >identify nominations from among their >constituencies. There is no limit to the number >of nominations that may be submitted. Qualified >organizations may also independently express >interest in membership. Nominations should be >submitted to the Secretariat by the appropriate >deadline noted above through the email address nominate at un-gaid.org. > > >APPOINTMENT > >The list of recommended candidates will be >developed, following consultations with the >Strategy Council and the Steering Committee, and >approved on behalf of the Secretary-General by >the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of >Economic and Social Affairs. The appointment of >new members is anticipated to be announced by the end of December 2007. > >With my best personal regards, > >Sincerely, > >Sarbuland Khan > > > >Reply-To: "Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space" >From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" >Sender: >To: "'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'" , > >Cc: "'Renata BLOEM'" >Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Up date on renewal of >GAIDstructures(StrategyCouncil and Steering Committee) >Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:13:28 +0100 >Message-ID: <200710221712.l9MHCkLr026028 at smtp2.infomaniak.ch> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0053_01C82B92.595A5150" >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 >Thread-Index: AcgUzt0LHmyHPjrpR4mFPoKEQg2EXQ== >X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient >auto-whitelisted, not >delayedbymilter-greylist-3.0 >(mta-gw7.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.125]);Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:12:56 +0200 (CEST) >X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Mail Servers on mta-spa2 host >X-Antivirus-Code: 100000 >X-Infomaniak-Spam: ham >X-Spam-Score: -250 >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: >, >List-Unsubscribe: >, >x-spam-status: No,score=-1.669 >tagged_above=-9999 >required=4tests=[CAPS_SUBJ=-0.1,HAS_ENVELOPE=0.01, >HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, >LC_SUBJ=-0.02,PDFSTOCK_SIZE=0.01, >PREP_SUBJ=-0.05, SPF_PASS=-1,SUBJECT_CLEANLIST2=-0.5, UC_SUBJ=-0.02] >x-virus-scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.greennet.org.uk >x-spam-level: >x-mailman-version: 2.1.5 >x-beenthere: plenary at wsis-cs.org >x-original-to: plenary at wsis-cs.org > >Dear all, > >As indicated in my previous e-mails, the renewal >of the membership of GAID structures was >postponed, to allow for greater consultation >among stakeholders’ groups. The deadline for >nominations is 30 November 2007. We therefore >have until that date to come out with a CS >self-organised recommendation on the membership >of both the Steering Committee and the Strategy >Council. Is there anyone among you willing to >moderate any of these self-nomination processes? > >Our problem so far is that we have not yet any >idea of who, among the outgoing StratC and >Steering Committee members, will be maintained >and which ones will go out. The GAID Secretariat >had asked all outgoing members to express their interest to continue. > >As regards the Steering Committee, I understood >that both Titi and Renate informed the GAID >Secretariat of their interest to continue one >more year. But there is no more information so >far on who would stay on Board. There were also >some discussions on whether the Steering >Committee membership should be increased to 12 >members (currently 10), but there is not yet any >definite information on this (hopefully this would be one more for CS). > >As for the Strategy Council, it is understood >that approximately one-third of the membership >should rotate. But I have very little >information of who expressed the willingness to >continue. Out of 10 CS members so far, this >would mean that 3 or 4 new members should be >identified. But the deadline for expression of >renewal by outgoing members is also 30 November, >meaning that we would not be able to know before 30 Nov. who would go out > >We would anyway need to have 2 parallel >processes to go with by 30 November, in >identifying one individual for the Steering >Committee membership. Any process such as this >one would approximately need one month to be >finalised, so that we need to start both no >later that end October (next week!). > >A note by the GAID secretariat might be >circulated soon, but I preferred to forward you what we knew so far! > >Let me remind that the deadlines for the >nominations and appointment processes are as follows: > > >GAID Steering Committee >GAID Strategy Council >Deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members > >15 August 2007 > >30 November 2007 >Deadline for new nominations for membership > >30 November 2007 > >30 November 2007 >Announcement of the Appointment of new members > >End of December 2007 > >End of December 2007 >Office taking of the new members > >1 April 2008 > >1 April 2008 >Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership >May 2008 >Kuala Lumpur >May 2008 >Kuala Lumpur > >All the best, > >Philippe > > >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 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Plenary mailing list >Plenary at wsis-cs.org >http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Tue Nov 20 12:00:24 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:00:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: References: <811770.26901.qm@web50208.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <474312A8.4040206@rits.org.br> Dear Robin, No time to elaborate further now (I promise I will as soon as possible): the multimedia report is indeed great! My analogy with Jack the Ripper was just a figure of speech to sort of wake up the audience, tired of listening to much of the same as the report describes. I do not want to take ICANN apart (I actually think some within ICANN are inadvertently or intentionally helping this to happen), just to think of ways to spread autonomy to its various structures on a step-by-step basis -- if the sequence converges, as the techies like to say, at the end there will be little or nothing for the DoC to peek at and mess with -- the NRO people are getting almost there already. I am working on my little speech to circulate a hopefully more meaningful proposal soon. For this, we need a method, much like the imperial doctor's in the movie "From Hell" ;) but not for similar purposes of course. Congrats! --c.a. Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > A wonderful move from you Robin. Kudos > After going through the report at first glance, some caught my > attention and I can be mute. > It is > "the speaker lists will continue to be dominated by older men from > developed countries, who are sent to IGF by large companies and > governments to advocate for their own corporate or national agendas" > I may add that and if some one comes out with a counter view, you hear > them barking in such an intimidating manner as to cow the gullible > ones out of the forum. > My fear is that Internet Governance will now be dominated by corporate > agenda(strategic partner) issues while social (boundary partners) > issues are left unattended. > Someone up there must do something. > > Aaron > > > On 11/20/07, Nnenna wrote: >> Thanks a million Robin for this link. Been there since hours now. >> It is a great report, especially for those who could not be physically >> absent.. >> >> Was good to 'see' you all >> >> Nnenna >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Robin Gross >> To: a2k discuss list ; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Open >> Standards DCOS ; expression at ipjustice.org; >> privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:08:39 AM >> Subject: [governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum >> (IGF) >> >> >> Links to audio, video, photos on IGF 2007 ... >> http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/19/2007-igf-rio-wrap-up/ >> >> apologies for cross-posting >> >> ------------------ >> >> >> IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) >> >> The 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) >> is officially over. The second meeting >> hosted by the United Nations to advance >> discussion on issues related to Internet governance was held in Rio de >> Janeiro, Brazil from 12 – 15 November 2007. >> >> The 4-day international conference focused on 5 main themes: Openness, >> Access, Security, Diversity, and issues related to the management of >> Critical Internet Resources (CIR). Capacity building was a cross-cutting >> issue through all the main themes. Over 2,000 registered participants >> from 109 countries attended the IGF's various main plenary sessions, >> workshops, best practice sessions and other related meetings. >> >> Overall, the IGF-Rio was a success; it built upon the inaugural meeting >> in Athens, >> Greece in October >> - November 2006, improving upon it in many ways, although back-sliding >> in a few others. >> >> This brief wrap-up of the 2007 IGF >> is meant >> to serve as >> a means of improving the forum in preparation for the 2008 IGF in New >> Delhi, India, which is scheduled for 8 – 11 December 2008. The first of >> three Open Consultations to organize IGF 2008 will be held in Geneva, >> Switzerland from 25 – 27 February 2008. >> >> Where 2007 IGF-Rio Excelled: >> >> 1. High quality of the workshops and best practice sessions >> >> The best part of IGF 2007 was undoubtedly the various workshops >> , "dynamic coalition" >> meetings, >> and best practice sessions, which were independently organized by the >> meeting's participants. The level of quality of the dialogue in many of >> these sessions was outstanding, with diverse stakeholders coming >> together to engage on a common topic and present different viewpoints. >> All of the new ideas discussed at this year's forum — indeed all >> discussion of "emerging issues" — came from the independently organized >> workshops and best practice sessions. As IGF Chairman Nitin Desai put it >> during the 2007 closing session: like the Internet itself, all the real >> action at this forum was at the edges. >> >> In addition to the robust quality of the non-main session discussions, >> IGF-Rio offered an incredible number (84 >> ) of >> meetings on a >> broad range of subjects – indeed so many that participants had to choose >> between several interesting sessions that were scheduled concurrently. >> But don't fret: you can still watch or listen >> to all >> missed sessions >> for years to come via the Internet. >> >> There were workshops that discussed open standards, the free expression >> concerns with ICANN deciding what ideas may be expressed in top level >> domain names, overbroad intellectual property rights >> , human >> rights issues >> in ICT policies, digital education >> , >> an international cyberlaw clinic >> , >> freedom of expression , an 'Internet >> Bill of Rights' >> , >> network neutrality issues and many, many more. (See the events IP >> Justice was involved with at IGF-Rio here) >> . >> >> >> 2. World-class technical capabilities and remote participation >> opportunities >> >> The Brazilian hosts and IGF Secretariat receive >> high marks for their technical capabilities in organizing and managing >> IGF 2007. Despite the large number of participants all demanding online >> access at the same time, the Brazilians delivered — and even exceeded >> expectations in many cases. The technology simply worked. >> >> All of the main sessions were webcast live so people around the world >> could watch (and still can >> ). And >> unlike most >> online webcasts, these video streams were smooth, with virtually no >> latency, like watching a TV program. The workshops and other sessions >> were all audio cast live, recorded, and will be posted to the Internet >> as MP3 files for download in the coming weeks. >> >> Several language translations and live text transcriptions >> of the sessions were available, making the >> discussions understandable for millions of more people. The remote >> participation component of the meeting also allowed for those not in Rio >> to send moderators questions real-time via email or special chat >> sessions set up specifically for this meeting. >> >> This technical capacity was a marked improvement from last year's IGF, >> setting a new gold standard for technical facilitation of international >> conferences. >> >> 3. Offline interactions and networking opportunities >> >> One of the best aspects of IGF-Rio was the incredible networking >> opportunities in the hallways, coffee shops, evening programs, and other >> informal IGF-related activities in and around the conference venue. >> >> When thousands of people from all corners of the world with a common >> interest in the Internet gather together the synergy can be electric. >> New ideas were tossed around in these informal settings — without >> moderators, presentations, or pre-prepared conclusions. Participants >> were able to pick out key points made in the main sessions or workshops, >> and explore them more fully in small informal discussion circles. The >> particular lay-out of the conference venue, where IGF participants could >> gather and further discuss issues without foot traffic from other hotel >> guests significantly contributed to the positive networking >> opportunities at this year's meeting. >> >> The spontaneity of informal conversations and opportunities to meet new >> people in the hallways provided sufficient value to justify the trip to >> IGF-Rio — even if one is not an official speaker at the forum. And the >> networking opportunities in the conference hallways contributed to the >> creation of several new IGF Dynamic Coalitions, such as the coalition on >> digital education >> >> and the coalition on gender issues >> . >> >> Improvements for IGF 2008: >> >> >> 1. Human Rights and other controversial topics avoided in main sessions >> >> Unfortunately not everything about IGF 2007 was a success. One important >> area where IGF 2006 was clearly superior to IGF 2007 was with respect to >> the discussion of controversial topics, such as online censorship or >> other human rights. >> >> Anyone at IGF 2006 will remember >> that >> countries like >> China and Iran, and companies like Cisco Systems and Yahoo! were taken >> to task by the Internet community for their role in contributing to >> Internet censorship. Unfortunately this year, critical discussion of >> human rights concerns was discouraged, and main session organizers >> walked on egg-shells to avoid offending China or businesses who assist >> in the repression of Internet freedom and democracy. IGF participants >> have repeatedly been warned that if they raise such critical concerns, >> repressive governments and companies will pull-out of participation in >> the forum – and we can't have that! >> >> The Chairman of the "Openness" session >> , >> Brazilian law >> professor Ronaldo Lemos described >> >> several aspects to "Openness" and he explained >> >> the >> developmental impact of Open Standards for Internet governance (note: >> Susy Struble reported >> >> on the work of >> the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) >> during another session). >> >> While the main session on "Openness" >> >> included significant discussion on the threat to free expression that >> overbroad intellectual property rules create, those comments had to come >> from "discussants" such as Canadian cyberlaw Professor Michael Geist >> , the >> audience, and >> remote participants, since the main panelists lacked expertise on the >> tension between freedom of expression and intellectual property from >> civil society's viewpoint. And although the topic of "access to >> knowledge" is listed as a main topic for "Openness", no experts on that >> issue were included on that panel. >> >> Amnesty International's representative on the "Openness" session, Nick >> Dearden, discussed >> >> the importance of freedom of expression on the Internet and called on >> the IGF >> >> to >> elevate discussion on free expression at the forum. US Ambassador David >> Gross described >> >> why enabling >> the free flow of information on the Internet should be one of the most >> important Internet policy goals. >> >> Unfortunately discussion about the privacy rights of Internet users was >> significantly down-graded in the main "Security" session >> >> this >> year (while those who spread fear of pornography have been elevated to a >> special status). Although Katitza Rodriguez >> >> and Ralf >> Bandrath >> >> made valuable contributions on privacy during the session. Issues of >> importance for the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) >> communities were marginalized, with only a single FOSS speaker, Georg >> Greve >> , >> on one >> main session, "Security" to explain the need for transparency with >> computer security. >> >> Although human rights issues permeate through all of the forum's main >> themes, human rights concerns were given short shrift in the meeting's >> organization. For IGF to maintain any credibility as a forum responsive >> to concerns of Internet users and one working towards "an Internet for >> development", it must include focused discussion on human rights, and >> specifically include the issue of human rights as a main theme for IGF >> 2008. Indeed the governments of Brazil and Italy issued a joint >> statement >> during >> the forum calling for human rights to a specific focus of IGF 2008. >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> , >> Executive >> Director of the Association of Progressive Communications noted during >> the "Opening Ceremony" that that Internet is a public good and should be >> governed based on public interest principles including human rights, >> free expression, open standards, privacy, balanced intellectual >> property, interoperability, creativity, transparency, and accountability. >> >> During the May 2007 IGF Open Consultations >> , numerous civil >> society voices >> (and some governments like the Council of Europe) called for human >> rights to be discussed as a cross-cutting theme at IGF-Rio; but China >> vetoed that request during the consultations. Similarly, during >> preparations for IGF 2006 in Athens, a repressive Central American >> government vetoed the call for human rights to be fully addressed at IGF >> 2006. The United Nations should not allow repressive governments to veto >> calls for human rights to be discussed more fully at IGF. >> >> I noticed government and business representatives wearing "VIP" badges, >> but did not see any civil society leaders with "VIP" Badges. More must >> be done to give civil society voices the same value as government and >> business at the UN. The multi-stakeholder nature of IGF is viewed as one >> of its core features, giving it legitimacy where other fora have failed. >> But IGF risks slipping backwards to a forum where government and >> business concerns are given precedence (even veto power!), while civil >> society concerns are marginalized as insignificant or too controversial. >> >> Despite the alluring rhetoric of multi-stakeholderism at IGF, the >> reality is that some stakeholders are more equal than others. >> >> 2. Glaring lack of gender balance and exclusion of young voices in main >> sessions >> >> A disappointment in the meeting's organization was the over-whelming >> majority of speakers on main sessions who were men – much, much older >> men. For example, of the 7 speakers on the main "Openness" session, not >> a single woman was included as a main panelist, and only one woman (of >> 6) was given the lesser role of "discussant" during this session. The >> so-called "Emerging Issues" >> >> session also did not include any female perspectives in the debate, and >> despite the session's title, it did not include any speakers who >> contribute to "new" thinking. Rather than the title of "Emerging >> Issues", this session could more accurately have been described as >> "fading away". >> >> Anyone who works on Internet policy knows that women play a crucial role >> in advancing dialogue on these issues and numerous women in Rio would >> have made excellent contributions to these discussions if allowed to >> contribute. Government and business in particular made no apparent >> effort to consider gender balance in the sessions. Nearly all of the >> speakers representing government and business were men, leaving civil >> society with an even heavier obligation to nominate women as main >> session speakers in order to achieve some level of overall balance. >> Business and government should be required to make nominate some female >> speakers for main session panels if they wish to participate in meetings >> held under the United Nations flag. >> >> Despite the obvious innovation that has come from young people on the >> Internet, it appears that main session organizers consider the >> perspectives of people under the age of 55 to be irrelevant. It is >> undisputable that the creators of the Internet's most revolutionary >> tools such as search engines like Google, or Peer-to-Peer (P2P) >> file-sharing programs, or online communities such as YouTube, Facebook, >> and Second Life come from young innovators and are often geared toward >> young people. Sadly one speaker (Andrew Keen) on the "Emerging Issues" >> session openly dismissed the concerns of youth as not worth listening >> to. But it would have been a breath of fresh air to hear from the >> leaders of tomorrow at this forum. >> >> The lack of funding to bring women and voices of youth (and participants >> from developing countries) to IGF is a major contributing factor to the >> problem of gender and age imbalance in the forum. As long as there >> continues to be no funding to bring women, youth, and developing country >> panelists to IGF, the speaker lists will continue to be dominated by >> older men from developed countries, who are sent to IGF by large >> companies and governments to advocate for their own corporate or >> national agendas. >> >> 3. Main sessions dominated by established players >> >> In stark contrast to the robust dialogue in workshops and other non-main >> sessions, the IGF-Rio main session discussions was largely insignificant >> in substance. More must be done to include a diversity of viewpoints, >> instead of the same speakers and the same perspectives on all the main >> panels. >> >> Main session speakers tended to be the same voices we heard at last >> year's main sessions. A number of speakers were panelists on several >> main sessions this year, but there are many qualified experts who hold a >> wide range of views and expertise on ICT policy issues. >> >> The main session on "Critical Internet Resources" >> >> (CIR), the most controversial topic for many IGF participants, >> unfortunately resulted in a missed opportunity. Only one panelist on >> that session, Professor Milton Mueller openly confronted the problems >> with the current management structure of the Internet. Professor Mueller >> made several interventions on the meaning on Critical Internet Resources >> , >> on the >> role of governments at ICANN >> , the >> dominance of the >> United States Government at ICANN >> , the >> future of ICANN >> , >> and the >> future of global governance >> . >> >> The other note-worthy intervention >> >> during the >> CIR session came from Carlos Afonso of cgi.br who provided a possible >> framework for redistributing ICANN's functions among several linked >> entities with his /"Jack the Ripper"/ proposal. So while it was a step >> forward to even permit the controversial CIR topic on the agenda (unlike >> IGF 2006), the dominance of established players and current management >> insiders resulted in a controlled discussion which barely touched upon >> the concerns of those seeking improvement in the Internet's management. >> >> Another example: 4 people who have served as ICANN board members and 2 >> representatives from the same company (Cisco Systems) spoke on the >> "Emerging Issues" main session. Nearly every speaker on that session was >> also a main session speaker at last year's IGF … yawn … another missed >> opportunity. The list of examples could go on, but I think you get the >> point. >> >> We will do better in Delhi. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ________________________________ >> Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 11:39:24 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:39:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: You and I and the council of europe Message-ID: <050501c82b93$ea6fee10$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> I haven't seen anyone point to this document as yet... It seems on first and quick glance to be a most useful and valuable one and goes considerably further and more specific than the parallel output of the WSIS process. MG -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] Sent: November 20, 2007 7:30 AM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: You and I and the council of europe Michael, See this paper entitled "Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet (see https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1207291 &Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=F FAC75). It was presented during this IGF session http://www.intgovforum.org/BPP2.php?went=39. Tom !DSPAM:2676,4742fd9b86771696272657! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 11:45:49 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:45:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] Council of Europe Statement: The Internet as a Public Service Message-ID: <052101c82b94$cea56880$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> (sorry for the original subject line... MG -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: November 20, 2007 8:39 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] FW: You and I and the council of europe I haven't seen anyone point to this document as yet... It seems on first and quick glance to be a most useful and valuable one and goes considerably further and more specific than the parallel output of the WSIS process. MG -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] Sent: November 20, 2007 7:30 AM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: You and I and the council of europe Michael, See this paper entitled "Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet (see https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1207291 &Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=F FAC75). It was presented during this IGF session http://www.intgovforum.org/BPP2.php?went=39. Tom !DSPAM:2676,47430e2486771449120409! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Nov 20 13:59:27 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:59:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Council of Europe Statement: The Internet as a Public Service In-Reply-To: <052101c82b94$cea56880$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <052101c82b94$cea56880$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Le 20 nov. 07 à 17:45, michael gurstein a écrit : > > I haven't seen anyone point to this document as yet... It seems on > first and quick glance to be a most useful and valuable one and > goes considerably further and more specific than the parallel > output of the WSIS process. (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec(2007)16) I share this view (and, currently, the disclaimer re: first and quick glance). Actually, this CoE Recommendation is more or less rather consolidating previous documents, specially the "Declaration on Human Rights and the Rule of Law in the Information Society", adopted on 13 May 2005 (http://www.coe.int/t/e/integrated_projects/democracy/ 02_Activities/00_Declaration_on_Information_Society/). On this, see also reports published in edrigram (European Digital Rights - EDRI - newsletter), both issues dated 20 April 2005 and 24 May 2005 : http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.8/CoE and http:// www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.10/CoE BTW, the group who prepared this 2005 Declaration (Multidisciplinary Ad-hoc Committee of Experts on the Information Society (CAHSI)) was chaired by Greek Ambassador George Papadatos (some of you may remember he was head of Greek delegation to WSIS as well as the main organizer of IGF I in Athens), and the CoE Secretariat to this group was led by Michael Remmert, who was at that time leading the CoE "Good Governance in the Information Society" project, and is now responsible for the "CoE Ad Hoc Committee on e-democracy" (CAHDE). Some of you may have met him, I know he was in Rio, with the CoE delegation. What's good with this new Recommendation is that it gives a higher normative level to the content of the Declaration, taking into account the hierarchy of these instruments. What's bad (inter alia) with it is that it adds some rather strong prescriptive recommendation to CoE Member States to sign AND ratify the CoE cybercrime Convention, which is clearly one of the main priorities of the CoE re: ICTs, including at IGF. And there are many issues with this Convention (see: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/ number5.12/cybercrime-convention-dangerous). What's more or less "neutral" with the text is that most of its provisions may turn out in one way or another, depending on implementation by CoE member States on the one hand, and by future documents (including other Recommendations) that would precise these provisions. Stay tuned, edrigram will have another article in its next issue to be published tomorrow evening (http://www.edri.org/ edrigram) on such CoE current developments. However, this Recommendation is probably one of the most advanced w.r.t. access, and this makes the difference, although I don't understand why and how the CoE needs to be so prescriptive in terms of economic strategies: it should rather let these sovereign choices to member States, while concentrating on the objectives to be achieved. Anyhow, to my knowledge, this Recommendation has been drafted directly by the CDMC (Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services, http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human%5FRights/ Media/), and not by any of its group of specialists (see list at http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/1_Intergovernmental_Co- operation/), and adopted through a rather quick/light procedure, as the CoE wanted to have it ready for IGF II. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Nov 20 15:49:55 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:49:55 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, the issue here is how public input is structured to *formally* affect the policy-making processes within ICANN, once collected at the front door. If there is no formal/structural "inner connection" that the public can rely upon, then no matter what Kieren does it is all for surface show, and in effect it becomes no more than a distraction of effort and resources. It's like an engine running in neutral without the gears engaged. In the end just a waste of fuel and a way to wear down the engine parts. When ICANN's bylaws contain an *explicit and detailed* description of how public input is to be used *formally* to influence policy-making at ICANN, then we can *begin* to talk about public voice at ICANN in the context of political governance. At this point in time, I don't believe that ICANN's processes for public input would satisfy the relevant requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act that applies to US federal agencies. That would seem to be a minimum standard as an informal benchmark, if not a formal legal requirement at the moment since ICANN is not a federal agency per se. So, I agree: Re-establishing public voting for policy-makers at ICANN would be one way to engage some gears. APA-like requirements to formally/explicitly incorporate public input into the bowels of policy-making processes would be another. The more the merrier. Dan PS -- Then, apply transparency-in-money tools along the lines of maplight.org to shine the sunlight on the political influences of those involved. Let's use this Internet for the disinfecting properties it ultimately can have. At 7:48 AM -0800 11/20/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: >Thank you Milton, > >I'll take it under advisement. >I'm wanting the Icann's "General Manager of Public Participation" to walk me >through the process of instiuting a program with Icann. > >Consensus taking is a fundamental property of 'botttom-up' participation. >Voting is the very essence of "Public Participation". It's a requirement of >democratic civil culture. > >If Icann is committed to, as the Chairman of the Board Mr. Peter Dengate >Thrush >stated in Rio: > >..." We're looking at an industry-led, self-regulated, >bottom-up, transparent process for the coordination of the Internet >resources." >... > >Then a 'binding' Public Participation Voting mechanism is absolutely curcial. > >-- > >> * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding >I just pick up a phone and call a Congressman on the DoC. > >- > >Kieren (GM), If you would please... >just walk us through it as an exercise. >Its important for people to hear, >How it is done? (via Icann) > >--- >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 20 17:07:26 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:07:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <20071116150634.GA25525@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <20071116150634.GA25525@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <47435A9E.3040809@cavebear.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:24:43PM -0800, > Karl Auerbach wrote > a message of 116 lines which said: > >> Then there is the broader view of consistency, a view that I hold: >> That different root systems may offer different TLDs, but that where >> a TLD name is in common (e.g. .net or .org or .com, etc) that it has >> precisely the same contents, i.e. the delegation is the same. > > That's a reasonable thing to do but you never provided a way to > implement it. Actually I did but given the flutter on this thread it easily may have been overlooked. What I suggested is that the existing law of trade/service marks does most of the trick. The existing legal system provides a context and set of mechanisms that allow those who offer goods/services (such as a TLD) to resolve who has the right to use that mark (the TLD name). In addition, enlightened self interest will suggest to a root operator that is deciding what TLDs should be in its root zone to avoid those disputed TLDs. > If there is a body in charge of this enforcement, congratulations, you > have invented a new ICANN and we have one root again. We don't need a new overlord of TLD names; the existing legal systems coupled with the desire of root providers (competing root server groups) to avoid creating surprising results for their users (and thus causing themselves support costs and reputation harm) will shun those TLDs in which the disputants refuse to come to a settlement. --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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 18:13:06 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:13:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] US White Paper on Public Health for IHE Message-ID: Might these health record standards be determinants for other fundamentals? Building a Roadmap for Health Information Systems Interoperability for Public Health White Paper Call for Public Review (November 20 - January 19, 2007) The Public Health Data Standards Consortium (PHDSC) and the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) invite public health, clinical and information technology experts to review the White Paper on Building a Roadmap for Health Information Systems Interoperability for Public Health. The public review period will be open through January 19, 2007. Please go to http://www.ihe.net/Technical_Framework/index.cfm#pcc to download the White Paper and submit your comments. You may submit your comments directly at http://forums.rsna.org/showthread.php?threadid=1297 Instructions to Submit Your Comments: Please note that the Radiology Society of North America (RSNA) serves as a host for the White Paper public review process. The thread "Public Comments on PHDSC White Paper" has been created on November 20, 2007 to collect your comments. Please click Post Reply button to submit your comments to this thread. You do not need to register with RSNA/IHE to submit your comments. When you click Post Reply button, you will be seen as an Unregistered User. We request that you provide your name, affiliation and e-mail address at the end of your comment. The White Paper has been developed by the PHDSC-IHE Task Force participants to facilitate standardization of health information exchanges between clinical care and public health. The objective of the White Paper is to engage the public health community in a dialogue with health information technology (HIT) vendors to assure that the work processes and data needs of public health stakeholders in health information exchanges are 1) well understood and agreed upon by the stakeholders and then (2) communicated to the developers of the interoperable clinical Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems and Public Health information systems (EHR-PH Systems). We would like to invite the reviewers to join our Task Force to participate in the formation of a Public Health Domain at IHE and to facilitate collaboration between public health and HIT vendor communities in enabling electronic information exchange between clinical and public health settings. We believe that this White Paper may serve as a framing document for the creation of the Public Health Domain at IHE. For more information about the PHDSC-IHE Public Health Task Force, please contact Dr. Anna Orlova, PHDSC Executive Director at < aorlova at jhsph.edu >. Sincerely, Anna Orlova, PhD Executive Director Public Health Data Standards Consortium 624 N. Broadway Room 382 Baltimore MD 21205 Phone: 410-614-3463 Cell:410-419-6314 Fax: 410-614-3097 E-mail: aorlova at jhsph.edu "This PHDSC listserv to which you are subscribed is intended for information dissemination and for the discussion of public health data standards issues. It is not moderated; therefore the discussions represent the views of the individual participants and do not necessarily represent the views of the Consortium. This listserv should only be used for its intended purpose. It is NOT intended for commercial or marketing purposes, discussion of specific vendor products/services or as a forum for personal disagreements or unprofessional communication at any time. This listserv is archived and information is available at http://list.nih.gov." If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail message to LISTSERV at LIST.NIH.GOV. Leave the subject line of the e-mail blank. Write a message that includes the following: unsubscribe, the name of the list you want to unsubscribe to, and your complete first and last names (example: Unsubscribe PH-CONSORTIUM-L Jane Doe). If your e-mail address has changed, please unsubscribe using your old e-mail address and subscribe using your new e-mail address. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Nov 20 19:30:39 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:30:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> >> Yeah, the issue here is how public input is structured to *formally* >> affect the policy-making processes within ICANN, once collected at >> the front door. >> If there is no formal/structural "inner connection" that the public >> can rely upon, then no matter what Kieren does it is all for surface >> show, and in effect it becomes no more than a distraction of effort >> and resources... Utter gibberish and a perfect example of what I was talking about. I wrote: > The amount of time spent decrying every aspect of ICANN's work would > be more understandable if people actually asked questions rather than > threw around accusations based on hearsay and a few snippets of > information inaccurately extrapolated. Why don't you just ask? I can supply you with a link to a pdf file that explains precisely what ICANN is doing with respect to providing and dealing with information. It's not the first time I have supplied this link to this mailing list. It is not the first time I have mentioned this process, or encouraged people to take part, or directed people to the discussions or summary of discussions of this issue. It is not the first time I have flagged up a meeting on this topic, or the first time I have sat watching an online chatroom during that meeting. It is not the first time I have explained to people exactly what the process is, or the first time I have promoted changes and proposed changes both on the ICANN site, ICANN blog, this mailing list and other mailing lists. But it seems that the supply of information - accurate, helpful information - is seen as less valuable to some than the opportunity to go off half-cock and produce paragraphs of conspiratorial codswallop. I also wrote: > I think it's time I spent more time getting more people to participate > within the ICANN processes, and less time answering the queries of > those determined to find fault with the organisation. I think this only helps show that my conclusion is right. If you ever do fancy contributing rather than sniping, if you would like people to value your opinion as one formed from understanding and reflection, a good place to start would be the link I referred to above. It is this: http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-17oct07.p df Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:50 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Yeah, the issue here is how public input is structured to *formally* affect the policy-making processes within ICANN, once collected at the front door. If there is no formal/structural "inner connection" that the public can rely upon, then no matter what Kieren does it is all for surface show, and in effect it becomes no more than a distraction of effort and resources. It's like an engine running in neutral without the gears engaged. In the end just a waste of fuel and a way to wear down the engine parts. When ICANN's bylaws contain an *explicit and detailed* description of how public input is to be used *formally* to influence policy-making at ICANN, then we can *begin* to talk about public voice at ICANN in the context of political governance. At this point in time, I don't believe that ICANN's processes for public input would satisfy the relevant requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act that applies to US federal agencies. That would seem to be a minimum standard as an informal benchmark, if not a formal legal requirement at the moment since ICANN is not a federal agency per se. So, I agree: Re-establishing public voting for policy-makers at ICANN would be one way to engage some gears. APA-like requirements to formally/explicitly incorporate public input into the bowels of policy-making processes would be another. The more the merrier. Dan PS -- Then, apply transparency-in-money tools along the lines of maplight.org to shine the sunlight on the political influences of those involved. Let's use this Internet for the disinfecting properties it ultimately can have. At 7:48 AM -0800 11/20/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: >Thank you Milton, > >I'll take it under advisement. >I'm wanting the Icann's "General Manager of Public Participation" to walk me >through the process of instiuting a program with Icann. > >Consensus taking is a fundamental property of 'botttom-up' participation. >Voting is the very essence of "Public Participation". It's a requirement of >democratic civil culture. > >If Icann is committed to, as the Chairman of the Board Mr. Peter Dengate >Thrush >stated in Rio: > >..." We're looking at an industry-led, self-regulated, >bottom-up, transparent process for the coordination of the Internet >resources." >... > >Then a 'binding' Public Participation Voting mechanism is absolutely curcial. > >-- > >> * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding >I just pick up a phone and call a Congressman on the DoC. > >- > >Kieren (GM), If you would please... >just walk us through it as an exercise. >Its important for people to hear, >How it is done? (via Icann) > >--- >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Nov 20 19:37:20 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:37:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005601c82bd6$aed50190$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I'm not sure that what you outline could ever be envisioned as "working together". What you are saying is: I want you to reinstate a system that broke down and has caused seven years of argument. That fits neither the definition of "working" or "together". Kieren -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote TO: Mr. Kieren McCarthy General Manager of Public Participation Ok Kieren lets work together, We would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, which was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 See Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. (walk me through it) Which Icann list(s) require posting too?, Who should we contact directly? and How should we best approach the subject matter? (provide some suggested text) You lay it out here and we'll organize and see it through. Team Work! Thnx Y ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Nov 20 19:52:19 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:52:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <005a01c82bd8$c5b0ae80$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: > * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will > be starting soon > * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding > * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at > large itself and advocate that position. Well, if your whole reason to get involved in ICANN is to try to impose on the organisation some personal notion of democracy, then I have to admit there are pretty limited routes. It is also fairly difficult to discuss, for example, the global economic impact of the Internet within ICANN's processes. If however you are involved in ICANN because you want the expansion of the Internet's IP address space and domain name system to work in the best interests of all its users now and into the future, then you will find a multitude of routes open, available and highly effective. Moreover, if learning about how the Internet works in order to provide meaningful input on how those systems need to be built into the future is seen as being "a waste of time", then you really are in the wrong place. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 6:19 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Yehuda: It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost the election in the US and Europe. This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small stakes individual internet users have in domain name issues. To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be starting soon * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at large itself and advocate that position. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 20 21:33:10 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:33:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <474398E6.30609@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > If there is no formal/structural "inner connection" that the public can > rely upon, then no matter what Kieren does it is all for surface show Yes and no. Kieren has done an excellent job of giving outsiders -- and the public is very much an ICANN outsider as compared to the privileged "stakeholders" -- a place to nail comments. But there is no evidence that ICANN actually uses those comments in any way that amounts to either "open" or "transparent" behavior, and certainly not in a way that creates a chain of "accountability". Why do I say this? First of all, there are few things that have ever been written that are so crystal clear that there is no ambiguity. If people in ICANN actually read and considered what was written to ICANN there would be questions about meaning and some degree of discussion. The absence of those questions and discussion is, to me, rather persuasive proof of an ICANN attitude of distance if not disdain. Second, we have seen over the years how ICANN reacts with a sharp jerk and a jump to the sky, a salute, and a kow tow whenever one of ICANN's privileged stakeholders - registries and intellectual property groups being two - say even the smallest thing. But when there is an outpouring of comment from the public. ICANN doesn't even react. So Kieren has done a nice job - and things have improved enormously - but the main problem, which is that ICANN ignores the public and gives great preference to selected industrial groups, remains. > At this point in time, I don't believe that ICANN's processes for public > input would satisfy the relevant requirements of the Administrative > Procedures Act that applies to US federal agencies. When I was on the board I kept a public journal of the input I received, the choices I made, and the criteria and methods I used to make those choices. It is still up on the web at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/diary/index.htm That kind of thing took a great deal of work - and it recorded for all to see my mistakes as well as my good choices. I doubt that many of ICANN's board members are willing to undertake a similar level of disclosure. Yet, it does seem incumbent on ICANN's directors to demonstrate in a concrete and clear manner that they actually make decisions that are, as required by law, both informed and independent and not simply moos and bahs of herd. ICANN's directors operate as if debate and disagreement are some sort of pestilence to be avoided at all costs. Yet we ought to recognize that ICANN is a deeply political cauldron. And we should all understand that disagreement, even strong disagreement with strong opinions strongly expressed, are intrinsic aspects. But there are too many within ICANN who feel that marching along in perfect time to the music with a smile is part and parcel of being an ICANN decision maker. Hopefully with ICANN's new chairman the board will come to understand that energetic disagreement and debate - in a constructive spirit - is not something that needs to be swept out of view as it has been in the past. However, ICANN's use of a nominating committee will tend to produce board members who are more like polished stones - smooth, centerist, and compromising - than rough rocks - sharp, opinionated, and advocates of their positions. If one believes that progress is better made by energetic advocacy rather than mediocratic compromise, then ICANN's nominating committee processes may well doom the hope that ICANN can escape from its self constructed insularity from the community of internet users. > So, I agree: Re-establishing public voting for policy-makers at ICANN > would be one way to engage some gears. History has shown that it is really the only way. --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 Tue Nov 20 22:30:20 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:30:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <005601c82bd6$aed50190$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005601c82bd6$aed50190$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <4743A64C.1060001@cavebear.com> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > I'm not sure that what you outline could ever be envisioned as "working > together". > > What you are saying is: I want you to reinstate a system that broke down and > has caused seven years of argument. ICANN's election system did not "break down". The election system worked. Those elections worked even though certain ICANN insiders disrupted the process. But ICANN's then "boardsquatters" along with certain insiders wanted to escape ICANN's original promise to have elected directors. ICANN was very, very afraid of the legal rights that are created for internet users by such a process - rights that are routine in every other public benefit corporation in California were too extreme for ICANN. The election system system worked - except that the results it produced and the questions that were raised along the way made ICANN uncomfortable. ICANN even went so far as to engage in unlawful activity in an attempt to prevent the elected directors from performing their duties. There were, as in any first time adventure, few flaws. These could have been repaired. But no effort was made to repair them. Instead those flaws were inflated for the sole purpose of providing an excuse to dismantle elections. The proposition that ICANN's elections in year 2000 "failed" is simply and completely untrue. The system that replaced it - the ALAC + Ombudsman has itself failed far more completely than even the most inflated reprise of the year 2000 election. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Nov 20 22:55:31 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:55:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: >http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-17oct07.pdf Kieren, stop your bluster. This is not about you. I read this document when you posted it before, and it contains utterly nothing in terms of formal requirements for incorporating comments from the public into policy *decisions*. I refer to the section "ICANN CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES" on pp. 18-19. The principles listed involve lots of ways that people can *look in* on ICANN deliberations (though the transaction costs of such monitoring, not to mention active participation, are high, and still work against broad accountability in practice). At the end is where it determines that there will be a "public participation web site" and what is to be done with that input. My issue here is not whether the public has a place to voice its opinions (let us assume for the moment that it is working fine in all respects), the point is whether those public opinions will be *taken into account* by those *actually deciding policy* at ICANN. So, in particular, on p.19, there is the following bullet point, with regard to public comments: * Request explicit discussion of that summary and analysis by the relevant body while discussing the topic under consideration This only requires that explicit *mention* be made in summary of public comments, but does nothing to require the "relevant body" at ICANN to *address and respond meaningfully to the substance* of those comments in an explicit manner, so as to create a comprehensive rational justification for policy that becomes part of ICANN's public and legal record. The relevant body can say "thank you very much, now let's move on" and is not formally required to address the substance of the comments. But, when such policy is finally delivered to the Board, does the Board have the authority to address the detailed substance of those public comments? It remains unclear as a procedural matter, so far as I know. Everyone seems to be passing the buck to someone else. ----- As a comparison, let me refer you to a statement on Regulations.gov, the US federal counterpart to your public participation web site: "As part of the rulemaking process, the Department or Agency is required to consider the public comments received on the proposed regulation. When the Department or Agency publishes the text of the final regulation in the Federal Register, it generally incorporates a response to the significant issues raised by those who submitted comments and discusses any changes made to the regulation as a result." http://www.regulations.gov -- see FAQ item "What is a Rulemaking?" The point here is that the rulemaking bodies of US federal agencies are generally required to consider public comments substantively (not merely mention or summarize them or hear or listen to them), and respond explicitly to those comments, including a coherent rationale for resulting agency rules in light of the substance of those comments. It suggests that public comments can have an impact on changing the substance of the rules before they are finalized. In short, if a member of the public submits a substantive comment to the agency (during a public comment period) suggesting a change in some proposed rule, the agency must explain how and why the rule that is finally promulgated has a rational justification in light of the issues raised in that comment. It may not ignore the substance of the comment, and the rational basis for the rule is subject to explicit legal review -- it becomes part of the legal record and is actionable in court. If the agency blows by the comment in a way that suggests that it did not take the issue into account in a genuinely substantive manner, that rule may well be vulnerable to legal challenge and reversal by the court system. This kind of tangible impact and legal enforceability of public comments on policy-making is what seems to be missing from ICANN's bylaws -- it certainly is not contained in the document you referenced here. It makes ICANN's public transparency ineffectual in real political terms, because it does not require ICANN's policy-making bodies to incorporate the substance of public comments systematically and explicitly into its policy-making decisions. This is where the gears might actually get engaged between the engine (of public comments to ICANN) and the drive-train (of ICANN policy-making). ----- One of the logistical challenges at ICANN at present is that public comments are open only at the end of long drawn-out policy-making processes where policy makers have already hardened their positions, there is little time left to consider changes once the comment period closes, and thus substantive issues are least likely to be addressed in a substantive manner by a volunteer policy-making body under deadline. One possible strategy to address this problem is to open public input much earlier in the process, so that members of the public can offer input at a time when it might have more potential to make an impact on the policy-makers at ICANN. And, to preclude the sorts of deadlines after the end of public comment periods that undermine the feasibility of addressing public comments substantively. This could address the time crunch issue. Another thing that could help is to formally require policy decisions at ICANN to include explicit responses to all substantive issues raised by the public, and to require coherent and rational justification for the resulting policy in light of those issues -- and to determine some way of legally enforcing claims against the policy if it appears the justification was not fully legitimate, with the entity that has enforcement authority being meaningfully separated from the power structure that creates the policy in the first place (this is called an "independent judiciary" in policy circles, and it is a fundamental prerequisite for genuinely democratic forms of governance, in the nature of "checks and balances"). These sorts of things should be added to ICANN's bylaws so that they have formal weight in the institutional structure overall. ----- See, Kieren, I'm not blaming you personally. So far as I know you are doing your job just fine, at least well enough given your relatively short time on the job. I also don't blame the specific policy-makers, since they are volunteering their time often under difficult time pressure and contentious conditions of deliberation. (Except for those who are paid to do this work by their regular employers that make these duties part of their official private job descriptions.) The problem seems to be that you are tossing all of your hard work into a black hole where it has no meaningful chance for actual impact on policy-making inside ICANN. And policy-makers are being placed in a double-bind trying to simultaneously come up with a "consensus" process under deadline, and to address public comments at the last moment. The problem is not with the individuals involved, it is with the structure of the process, and responsibility rests with those who structure that process. If this dysfunction is intentional, then it is nefarious (on the part of those who structure ICANN's administrative procedures). If it is unintentional, then it points to room (and call) for *significant* improvement in the structure of these administrative procedures. I wish you wouldn't take this so personally. I didn't accuse you of writing the bylaws, or failing to elicit public comments, etc. My problems with ICANN's administrative procedures are not in your court, because I assume you have no individual authority to change them. I address these issues to those who *do* have the authority to decide how things run at ICANN. Of course, if you are put in the position of being a spokesperson for those with that authority (like a presidential press secretary), then you are in a really tough position, and I don't envy you because to do your job means you have to push back at even admitting problems in this area, thus obstructing even the consideration of potential solutions. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Nov 20 23:24:34 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:24:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <474398E6.30609@cavebear.com> References: <474398E6.30609@cavebear.com> Message-ID: At 6:33 PM -0800 11/20/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >But there is no evidence that ICANN actually uses those comments in any >way that amounts to either "open" or "transparent" behavior, and >certainly not in a way that creates a chain of "accountability". ... the main problem, which is that ICANN ignores the public and gives >great preference to selected industrial groups, remains. Thank you Karl, this was (and is) precisely my point. I sent a long-winded reply just earlier, showing how the ICANN procedures in place now do not formally require incorporation of the substance of public comments into the substance of ICANN policy decisions, and providing a comparison with US federal administrative procedures that do. 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 Tue Nov 20 23:36:11 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:36:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Bloody hell - why on earth didn't you boil this down and email it as a comment to either of the frameworks' public comment periods? I'm not sure I agree with you that the federal wording you quote provides that much extra weight to public comment, but I have no problem discussing that and what the value of public comment should be in ICANN processes. I'll tell you quite bluntly what the problem with public comments are the moment: it's a vicious circle. Poor quality comments (for whatever reason) means the input isn't valued, which leads to people not bothering, which leads to whatever comments are made not being taken seriously. I am trying to break this circle by making sure summary/analyses of comments are produced and are then explicitly reviewed by the body in question. At the moment, and until public comments warrant greater respect, I think that's the most one can expect. If we manage to get to a position where well-considered, intelligent and thoughtful comments are regularly received and enable ICANN as an organisation to make better policy decisions, then I can see an easy case for beefing up their value within the system itself. >From ICANN's side there is a major issue - as you quite rightly point out - that thick reports are stuck out with almost no notice and people are expected to provide largely unstructured input on these reports in a very short timeframe. This system cannot last and pretty much everyone agrees as much. If you look for example at what was done with the new gTLDs report - and how a long session at Los Angeles was structured to discuss the report point-by-point. I think you can expect to see more of that sort of approach. There are two other useful factors here. The GAC, funnily enough, will ensure that documents are provided earlier and put out for review for longer because they cannot work in the bylaws' stated timeframe. And the new translation policy that we should have in place and running properly by mid-2008 will mean documents have to be provided with some time in order to make them available in other languages. Add to this a general feeling that ICANN has to move to a model where it supplies executive summaries of reports. Plus early efforts to introduce an organisation-wide numbering system for documents, plus great improvements in the pipeline for ICANN's websites, and most of these problems should start fading away. I am also arguing that the best way for ICANN to progress adequately is to explicitly strip new policy documents into separate issues and encourage debate on each from whoever is interested i.e. you simply don't expect everyone to be interested in every aspect. But that's just my perspective: I am not, and have never been, a policy wonk, so it may not be workable in practice. As for me not getting personally upset. Honestly, I do not take these things personally. But I do find it infuriating when broad criticism is leveled at the organisation without any precise information, and without any constructive suggestions for improvement. To change from one system to another, you have to know what precise changes you will make, review them in the wider context of their impact on other processes, and be certain that you will end up in a better position. Just saying "this doesn't work" or "there is a better way" is less than useful because it fosters defensiveness while achieving nothing. While I have been at ICANN I have seen a huge amount of positive change. I have also seen a few pieces of policy go through that I don't agree with - and in each case that is because people didn't bother to present the opposite case, or they refused to engage in constructive conversation. My job is to make sure that people are easily able to present their views and that those views are considered. I cannot and do not differentiate what those views are, although I do have a bias for views that consider others' perspectives and seek consensus - wherever they come from. What I find frustrating is when people don't take those opportunities and then complain after the fact that their views weren't taken into account. The system isn't perfect but it is getting better and if you can see obvious flaws or holes please point them out and I will do what I can to fix them. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-17oct07. pdf Kieren, stop your bluster. This is not about you. I read this document when you posted it before, and it contains utterly nothing in terms of formal requirements for incorporating comments from the public into policy *decisions*. I refer to the section "ICANN CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES" on pp. 18-19. The principles listed involve lots of ways that people can *look in* on ICANN deliberations (though the transaction costs of such monitoring, not to mention active participation, are high, and still work against broad accountability in practice). At the end is where it determines that there will be a "public participation web site" and what is to be done with that input. My issue here is not whether the public has a place to voice its opinions (let us assume for the moment that it is working fine in all respects), the point is whether those public opinions will be *taken into account* by those *actually deciding policy* at ICANN. So, in particular, on p.19, there is the following bullet point, with regard to public comments: * Request explicit discussion of that summary and analysis by the relevant body while discussing the topic under consideration This only requires that explicit *mention* be made in summary of public comments, but does nothing to require the "relevant body" at ICANN to *address and respond meaningfully to the substance* of those comments in an explicit manner, so as to create a comprehensive rational justification for policy that becomes part of ICANN's public and legal record. The relevant body can say "thank you very much, now let's move on" and is not formally required to address the substance of the comments. But, when such policy is finally delivered to the Board, does the Board have the authority to address the detailed substance of those public comments? It remains unclear as a procedural matter, so far as I know. Everyone seems to be passing the buck to someone else. ----- As a comparison, let me refer you to a statement on Regulations.gov, the US federal counterpart to your public participation web site: "As part of the rulemaking process, the Department or Agency is required to consider the public comments received on the proposed regulation. When the Department or Agency publishes the text of the final regulation in the Federal Register, it generally incorporates a response to the significant issues raised by those who submitted comments and discusses any changes made to the regulation as a result." http://www.regulations.gov -- see FAQ item "What is a Rulemaking?" The point here is that the rulemaking bodies of US federal agencies are generally required to consider public comments substantively (not merely mention or summarize them or hear or listen to them), and respond explicitly to those comments, including a coherent rationale for resulting agency rules in light of the substance of those comments. It suggests that public comments can have an impact on changing the substance of the rules before they are finalized. In short, if a member of the public submits a substantive comment to the agency (during a public comment period) suggesting a change in some proposed rule, the agency must explain how and why the rule that is finally promulgated has a rational justification in light of the issues raised in that comment. It may not ignore the substance of the comment, and the rational basis for the rule is subject to explicit legal review -- it becomes part of the legal record and is actionable in court. If the agency blows by the comment in a way that suggests that it did not take the issue into account in a genuinely substantive manner, that rule may well be vulnerable to legal challenge and reversal by the court system. This kind of tangible impact and legal enforceability of public comments on policy-making is what seems to be missing from ICANN's bylaws -- it certainly is not contained in the document you referenced here. It makes ICANN's public transparency ineffectual in real political terms, because it does not require ICANN's policy-making bodies to incorporate the substance of public comments systematically and explicitly into its policy-making decisions. This is where the gears might actually get engaged between the engine (of public comments to ICANN) and the drive-train (of ICANN policy-making). ----- One of the logistical challenges at ICANN at present is that public comments are open only at the end of long drawn-out policy-making processes where policy makers have already hardened their positions, there is little time left to consider changes once the comment period closes, and thus substantive issues are least likely to be addressed in a substantive manner by a volunteer policy-making body under deadline. One possible strategy to address this problem is to open public input much earlier in the process, so that members of the public can offer input at a time when it might have more potential to make an impact on the policy-makers at ICANN. And, to preclude the sorts of deadlines after the end of public comment periods that undermine the feasibility of addressing public comments substantively. This could address the time crunch issue. Another thing that could help is to formally require policy decisions at ICANN to include explicit responses to all substantive issues raised by the public, and to require coherent and rational justification for the resulting policy in light of those issues -- and to determine some way of legally enforcing claims against the policy if it appears the justification was not fully legitimate, with the entity that has enforcement authority being meaningfully separated from the power structure that creates the policy in the first place (this is called an "independent judiciary" in policy circles, and it is a fundamental prerequisite for genuinely democratic forms of governance, in the nature of "checks and balances"). These sorts of things should be added to ICANN's bylaws so that they have formal weight in the institutional structure overall. ----- See, Kieren, I'm not blaming you personally. So far as I know you are doing your job just fine, at least well enough given your relatively short time on the job. I also don't blame the specific policy-makers, since they are volunteering their time often under difficult time pressure and contentious conditions of deliberation. (Except for those who are paid to do this work by their regular employers that make these duties part of their official private job descriptions.) The problem seems to be that you are tossing all of your hard work into a black hole where it has no meaningful chance for actual impact on policy-making inside ICANN. And policy-makers are being placed in a double-bind trying to simultaneously come up with a "consensus" process under deadline, and to address public comments at the last moment. The problem is not with the individuals involved, it is with the structure of the process, and responsibility rests with those who structure that process. If this dysfunction is intentional, then it is nefarious (on the part of those who structure ICANN's administrative procedures). If it is unintentional, then it points to room (and call) for *significant* improvement in the structure of these administrative procedures. I wish you wouldn't take this so personally. I didn't accuse you of writing the bylaws, or failing to elicit public comments, etc. My problems with ICANN's administrative procedures are not in your court, because I assume you have no individual authority to change them. I address these issues to those who *do* have the authority to decide how things run at ICANN. Of course, if you are put in the position of being a spokesperson for those with that authority (like a presidential press secretary), then you are in a really tough position, and I don't envy you because to do your job means you have to push back at even admitting problems in this area, thus obstructing even the consideration of potential solutions. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From donna.austin at icann.org Tue Nov 20 23:45:26 2007 From: donna.austin at icann.org (Donna.Austin) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:45:26 +1100 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> Something got up your nose then mate? -----Original Message----- From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2007 3:36 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Bloody hell - why on earth didn't you boil this down and email it as a comment to either of the frameworks' public comment periods? I'm not sure I agree with you that the federal wording you quote provides that much extra weight to public comment, but I have no problem discussing that and what the value of public comment should be in ICANN processes. I'll tell you quite bluntly what the problem with public comments are the moment: it's a vicious circle. Poor quality comments (for whatever reason) means the input isn't valued, which leads to people not bothering, which leads to whatever comments are made not being taken seriously. I am trying to break this circle by making sure summary/analyses of comments are produced and are then explicitly reviewed by the body in question. At the moment, and until public comments warrant greater respect, I think that's the most one can expect. If we manage to get to a position where well-considered, intelligent and thoughtful comments are regularly received and enable ICANN as an organisation to make better policy decisions, then I can see an easy case for beefing up their value within the system itself. >From ICANN's side there is a major issue - as you quite rightly point out - that thick reports are stuck out with almost no notice and people are expected to provide largely unstructured input on these reports in a very short timeframe. This system cannot last and pretty much everyone agrees as much. If you look for example at what was done with the new gTLDs report - and how a long session at Los Angeles was structured to discuss the report point-by-point. I think you can expect to see more of that sort of approach. There are two other useful factors here. The GAC, funnily enough, will ensure that documents are provided earlier and put out for review for longer because they cannot work in the bylaws' stated timeframe. And the new translation policy that we should have in place and running properly by mid-2008 will mean documents have to be provided with some time in order to make them available in other languages. Add to this a general feeling that ICANN has to move to a model where it supplies executive summaries of reports. Plus early efforts to introduce an organisation-wide numbering system for documents, plus great improvements in the pipeline for ICANN's websites, and most of these problems should start fading away. I am also arguing that the best way for ICANN to progress adequately is to explicitly strip new policy documents into separate issues and encourage debate on each from whoever is interested i.e. you simply don't expect everyone to be interested in every aspect. But that's just my perspective: I am not, and have never been, a policy wonk, so it may not be workable in practice. As for me not getting personally upset. Honestly, I do not take these things personally. But I do find it infuriating when broad criticism is leveled at the organisation without any precise information, and without any constructive suggestions for improvement. To change from one system to another, you have to know what precise changes you will make, review them in the wider context of their impact on other processes, and be certain that you will end up in a better position. Just saying "this doesn't work" or "there is a better way" is less than useful because it fosters defensiveness while achieving nothing. While I have been at ICANN I have seen a huge amount of positive change. I have also seen a few pieces of policy go through that I don't agree with - and in each case that is because people didn't bother to present the opposite case, or they refused to engage in constructive conversation. My job is to make sure that people are easily able to present their views and that those views are considered. I cannot and do not differentiate what those views are, although I do have a bias for views that consider others' perspectives and seek consensus - wherever they come from. What I find frustrating is when people don't take those opportunities and then complain after the fact that their views weren't taken into account. The system isn't perfect but it is getting better and if you can see obvious flaws or holes please point them out and I will do what I can to fix them. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-17oct07. pdf Kieren, stop your bluster. This is not about you. I read this document when you posted it before, and it contains utterly nothing in terms of formal requirements for incorporating comments from the public into policy *decisions*. I refer to the section "ICANN CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES" on pp. 18-19. The principles listed involve lots of ways that people can *look in* on ICANN deliberations (though the transaction costs of such monitoring, not to mention active participation, are high, and still work against broad accountability in practice). At the end is where it determines that there will be a "public participation web site" and what is to be done with that input. My issue here is not whether the public has a place to voice its opinions (let us assume for the moment that it is working fine in all respects), the point is whether those public opinions will be *taken into account* by those *actually deciding policy* at ICANN. So, in particular, on p.19, there is the following bullet point, with regard to public comments: * Request explicit discussion of that summary and analysis by the relevant body while discussing the topic under consideration This only requires that explicit *mention* be made in summary of public comments, but does nothing to require the "relevant body" at ICANN to *address and respond meaningfully to the substance* of those comments in an explicit manner, so as to create a comprehensive rational justification for policy that becomes part of ICANN's public and legal record. The relevant body can say "thank you very much, now let's move on" and is not formally required to address the substance of the comments. But, when such policy is finally delivered to the Board, does the Board have the authority to address the detailed substance of those public comments? It remains unclear as a procedural matter, so far as I know. Everyone seems to be passing the buck to someone else. ----- As a comparison, let me refer you to a statement on Regulations.gov, the US federal counterpart to your public participation web site: "As part of the rulemaking process, the Department or Agency is required to consider the public comments received on the proposed regulation. When the Department or Agency publishes the text of the final regulation in the Federal Register, it generally incorporates a response to the significant issues raised by those who submitted comments and discusses any changes made to the regulation as a result." http://www.regulations.gov -- see FAQ item "What is a Rulemaking?" The point here is that the rulemaking bodies of US federal agencies are generally required to consider public comments substantively (not merely mention or summarize them or hear or listen to them), and respond explicitly to those comments, including a coherent rationale for resulting agency rules in light of the substance of those comments. It suggests that public comments can have an impact on changing the substance of the rules before they are finalized. In short, if a member of the public submits a substantive comment to the agency (during a public comment period) suggesting a change in some proposed rule, the agency must explain how and why the rule that is finally promulgated has a rational justification in light of the issues raised in that comment. It may not ignore the substance of the comment, and the rational basis for the rule is subject to explicit legal review -- it becomes part of the legal record and is actionable in court. If the agency blows by the comment in a way that suggests that it did not take the issue into account in a genuinely substantive manner, that rule may well be vulnerable to legal challenge and reversal by the court system. This kind of tangible impact and legal enforceability of public comments on policy-making is what seems to be missing from ICANN's bylaws -- it certainly is not contained in the document you referenced here. It makes ICANN's public transparency ineffectual in real political terms, because it does not require ICANN's policy-making bodies to incorporate the substance of public comments systematically and explicitly into its policy-making decisions. This is where the gears might actually get engaged between the engine (of public comments to ICANN) and the drive-train (of ICANN policy-making). ----- One of the logistical challenges at ICANN at present is that public comments are open only at the end of long drawn-out policy-making processes where policy makers have already hardened their positions, there is little time left to consider changes once the comment period closes, and thus substantive issues are least likely to be addressed in a substantive manner by a volunteer policy-making body under deadline. One possible strategy to address this problem is to open public input much earlier in the process, so that members of the public can offer input at a time when it might have more potential to make an impact on the policy-makers at ICANN. And, to preclude the sorts of deadlines after the end of public comment periods that undermine the feasibility of addressing public comments substantively. This could address the time crunch issue. Another thing that could help is to formally require policy decisions at ICANN to include explicit responses to all substantive issues raised by the public, and to require coherent and rational justification for the resulting policy in light of those issues -- and to determine some way of legally enforcing claims against the policy if it appears the justification was not fully legitimate, with the entity that has enforcement authority being meaningfully separated from the power structure that creates the policy in the first place (this is called an "independent judiciary" in policy circles, and it is a fundamental prerequisite for genuinely democratic forms of governance, in the nature of "checks and balances"). These sorts of things should be added to ICANN's bylaws so that they have formal weight in the institutional structure overall. ----- See, Kieren, I'm not blaming you personally. So far as I know you are doing your job just fine, at least well enough given your relatively short time on the job. I also don't blame the specific policy-makers, since they are volunteering their time often under difficult time pressure and contentious conditions of deliberation. (Except for those who are paid to do this work by their regular employers that make these duties part of their official private job descriptions.) The problem seems to be that you are tossing all of your hard work into a black hole where it has no meaningful chance for actual impact on policy-making inside ICANN. And policy-makers are being placed in a double-bind trying to simultaneously come up with a "consensus" process under deadline, and to address public comments at the last moment. The problem is not with the individuals involved, it is with the structure of the process, and responsibility rests with those who structure that process. If this dysfunction is intentional, then it is nefarious (on the part of those who structure ICANN's administrative procedures). If it is unintentional, then it points to room (and call) for *significant* improvement in the structure of these administrative procedures. I wish you wouldn't take this so personally. I didn't accuse you of writing the bylaws, or failing to elicit public comments, etc. My problems with ICANN's administrative procedures are not in your court, because I assume you have no individual authority to change them. I address these issues to those who *do* have the authority to decide how things run at ICANN. Of course, if you are put in the position of being a spokesperson for those with that authority (like a presidential press secretary), then you are in a really tough position, and I don't envy you because to do your job means you have to push back at even admitting problems in this area, thus obstructing even the consideration of potential solutions. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 21 00:20:21 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:20:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: At 8:36 PM -0800 11/20/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >Bloody hell - why on earth didn't you boil this down and email it as a >comment to either of the frameworks' public comment periods? Short answer: I didn't have the time, at the time, due to other pressing obligations. Even though I spend a good deal of time paying attention to IG and ICANN issues, I don't get paid a farthing for it, and it has to take a back seat to efforts to get paid. I can't keep up on *every* proceeding happening at ICANN, as I'm sure no one really can. I saw the announcements and thought "gee, I'd like to get into that" and then thought "gee, I don't have time to research and address this properly" and left with "darn, it'll have to work itself out without me." Not that my individual voice is really likely to turn the aircraft carrier, which does undermine the incentive to risk finite (and thus precious) time resources on action that could easily be abjectly ignored... I have a lot of incoming bogies to shoot down in my data stream, and sometimes I can't prioritize the ones you want at the times you want it. This time you were just lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view). A different week and I may have been off doing something else. This is a persistent reality for all members of the public, as well as many members of the SOs and ACs. The idea of important policy being decided by many individuals who have little hope of spending full time resources on deliberation puts ICANN between a rock and a hard place. Without electing full-time paid legislators to represent the public (heck, most national-level legislators also have several full-time paid staff dedicated to their individual offices), separate from the various quasi-formal stakeholder groups currently surrounding and embodying ICANN policy-making, I don't see how this can ultimately be resolved. And by itself, such a step may likely still be insufficient to create productive policy making procedures at ICANN, for example if it is not also accompanied by some way of creating an independent judiciary to review the results of legislation. Dan PS -- I suppose that one way to get paid for dealing with ICANN issues is to try to get hired as staff. Don't think that I haven't considered it once or twice along the way. But I've ultimately shied away from it, because I doubt that I would be qualified for a position that has real influence in addressing these structural matters or influencing productive change in policy processes, and it would be agonizing for me to have to adhere to a system that was so at odds with itself, especially if it does not have an internal culture of talking truth to power (which is rare in this world -- the default assumption is that any random organization does not have this culture, even though it offers a significant survival advantage for most organizations). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 00:22:36 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:52:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <002c01c82bfe$887e1130$997a3390$@net> Dan Krimm wrote: > Short answer: I didn't have the time, at the time, due to other > pressing obligations. > > Even though I spend a good deal of time paying attention to IG and > ICANN issues, I don't get paid a farthing for it, and it has to take a back .. and the time difference between ranting on mailing lists and blogs about ICANN, and submitting these as comments to ICANN is ... ? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 21 00:41:25 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:41:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <002c01c82bfe$887e1130$997a3390$@net> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <002c01c82bfe$887e1130$997a3390$@net> Message-ID: At 10:52 AM +0530 11/21/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Dan Krimm wrote: > >> Short answer: I didn't have the time, at the time, due to other >> pressing obligations. >> >> Even though I spend a good deal of time paying attention to IG and >> ICANN issues, I don't get paid a farthing for it, and it has to take a >back > >.. and the time difference between ranting on mailing lists and blogs about >ICANN, and submitting these as comments to ICANN is ... ? That was then, and this is now. If I'd had this much disposable time available then, I would have done it then. My schedule is not particularly regular, and I can only do so many things simultaneously. Sometimes I have it, and sometimes I don't. Real life gets in the way of cyberspace sometimes. I suppose you're going to criticize me for that? I am skeptical of your implied skepticism. :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Wed Nov 21 10:09:55 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:09:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <002c01c82bfe$887e1130$997a3390$@net> Message-ID: <20071121063954.A1970678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Suresh "ranting on mailing lists " ... I find the debates rich and enlightening (thanks to you, Kieren, Dan, Karl, Vittorio, MM et al) and it would be sad to have these diverted due to ad-hominem. Regards, Guru Ps - hope to come in on the substantive issues later!! -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Dan Krimm' Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Dan Krimm wrote: > Short answer: I didn't have the time, at the time, due to other > pressing obligations. > > Even though I spend a good deal of time paying attention to IG and > ICANN issues, I don't get paid a farthing for it, and it has to take a back .. and the time difference between ranting on mailing lists and blogs about ICANN, and submitting these as comments to ICANN is ... ? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 01:55:05 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:25:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <20071121063954.A1970678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <002c01c82bfe$887e1130$997a3390$@net> <20071121063954.A1970678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <003d01c82c0b$73dee8f0$5b9cbad0$@net> Guru at ITfC wrote: > I find the debates rich and enlightening (thanks to you, Kieren, Dan, > Karl, Vittorio, MM et al) and it would be sad to have these diverted due to > ad-hominem. The content is rich. Yes. But how productive is it, as opposed to submitting these to a formal comments process? Most of my issues are with the "position papers" being put out by the "Internet Governance Project", as it happens. Yes there's a lot to fix about ICANN. I am not defending them as such - but the inadequate civil society opposition ICANN actually gets .. slyly underhand, biased papers from the IGP, or incoherent and rambling blogs / emails from, say, Karl - completely unbiased, but with a technical slant I differ with and way too many axes to grind with ICANN thanks to past history ... don't really help at all. Karl was attacking the idea of centrist and smooth / go with the flow people being on the ICANN board instead of people who are more opinionated. But well, having been on boards myself (at least to organize netops and antispam conferences), I would take a bit of issue with that. I must admit that while I have posted plenty about domaining on circleid.com, I missed the chance to participate in the GNSO comments phase on domain tasting - the add grace period needing to go away is one place where I completely endorse Karl's viewpoint .. so I am probably pointing fingers at this lack of participation in a formal comments process, when I haven't really participated myself. Aside from that, my point has been that the only way the ICANN process can be fixed is from within ICANN. And Kieren, in my view, is trying hard to fix it. Whether he runs into failure from entrenched interests (which is an inherent risk of any public policy process, participative / public-private or not) is something that does need to be seen. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Nov 21 02:11:23 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:11:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: Kieren, To follow your advice, we are to make public comments whose 'input isn't valued.' That, as Dr. Spock would say, is illogical. The ICANN workshop in Rio was typical, I felt like I was in the presence of the Politburo, where 'public' questioning was theoretically occurring but noone could speak except the ICANN high commissioners. Here's my advice for IGF III: take feedback and questions in public, from the likely informed public you will find there, enough with the over-defensiveness already. And do let us know when input is valued by ICANN, then some of us may bother. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 11/20/07 11:36 PM >>> Bloody hell - why on earth didn't you boil this down and email it as a comment to either of the frameworks' public comment periods? I'm not sure I agree with you that the federal wording you quote provides that much extra weight to public comment, but I have no problem discussing that and what the value of public comment should be in ICANN processes. I'll tell you quite bluntly what the problem with public comments are the moment: it's a vicious circle. Poor quality comments (for whatever reason) means the input isn't valued, which leads to people not bothering, which leads to whatever comments are made not being taken seriously. I am trying to break this circle by making sure summary/analyses of comments are produced and are then explicitly reviewed by the body in question. At the moment, and until public comments warrant greater respect, I think that's the most one can expect. If we manage to get to a position where well-considered, intelligent and thoughtful comments are regularly received and enable ICANN as an organisation to make better policy decisions, then I can see an easy case for beefing up their value within the system itself. >From ICANN's side there is a major issue - as you quite rightly point out - that thick reports are stuck out with almost no notice and people are expected to provide largely unstructured input on these reports in a very short timeframe. This system cannot last and pretty much everyone agrees as much. If you look for example at what was done with the new gTLDs report - and how a long session at Los Angeles was structured to discuss the report point-by-point. I think you can expect to see more of that sort of approach. There are two other useful factors here. The GAC, funnily enough, will ensure that documents are provided earlier and put out for review for longer because they cannot work in the bylaws' stated timeframe. And the new translation policy that we should have in place and running properly by mid-2008 will mean documents have to be provided with some time in order to make them available in other languages. Add to this a general feeling that ICANN has to move to a model where it supplies executive summaries of reports. Plus early efforts to introduce an organisation-wide numbering system for documents, plus great improvements in the pipeline for ICANN's websites, and most of these problems should start fading away. I am also arguing that the best way for ICANN to progress adequately is to explicitly strip new policy documents into separate issues and encourage debate on each from whoever is interested i.e. you simply don't expect everyone to be interested in every aspect. But that's just my perspective: I am not, and have never been, a policy wonk, so it may not be workable in practice. As for me not getting personally upset. Honestly, I do not take these things personally. But I do find it infuriating when broad criticism is leveled at the organisation without any precise information, and without any constructive suggestions for improvement. To change from one system to another, you have to know what precise changes you will make, review them in the wider context of their impact on other processes, and be certain that you will end up in a better position. Just saying "this doesn't work" or "there is a better way" is less than useful because it fosters defensiveness while achieving nothing. While I have been at ICANN I have seen a huge amount of positive change. I have also seen a few pieces of policy go through that I don't agree with - and in each case that is because people didn't bother to present the opposite case, or they refused to engage in constructive conversation. My job is to make sure that people are easily able to present their views and that those views are considered. I cannot and do not differentiate what those views are, although I do have a bias for views that consider others' perspectives and seek consensus - wherever they come from. What I find frustrating is when people don't take those opportunities and then complain after the fact that their views weren't taken into account. The system isn't perfect but it is getting better and if you can see obvious flaws or holes please point them out and I will do what I can to fix them. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-17oct07. pdf Kieren, stop your bluster. This is not about you. I read this document when you posted it before, and it contains utterly nothing in terms of formal requirements for incorporating comments from the public into policy *decisions*. I refer to the section "ICANN CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES" on pp. 18-19. The principles listed involve lots of ways that people can *look in* on ICANN deliberations (though the transaction costs of such monitoring, not to mention active participation, are high, and still work against broad accountability in practice). At the end is where it determines that there will be a "public participation web site" and what is to be done with that input. My issue here is not whether the public has a place to voice its opinions (let us assume for the moment that it is working fine in all respects), the point is whether those public opinions will be *taken into account* by those *actually deciding policy* at ICANN. So, in particular, on p.19, there is the following bullet point, with regard to public comments: * Request explicit discussion of that summary and analysis by the relevant body while discussing the topic under consideration This only requires that explicit *mention* be made in summary of public comments, but does nothing to require the "relevant body" at ICANN to *address and respond meaningfully to the substance* of those comments in an explicit manner, so as to create a comprehensive rational justification for policy that becomes part of ICANN's public and legal record. The relevant body can say "thank you very much, now let's move on" and is not formally required to address the substance of the comments. But, when such policy is finally delivered to the Board, does the Board have the authority to address the detailed substance of those public comments? It remains unclear as a procedural matter, so far as I know. Everyone seems to be passing the buck to someone else. ----- As a comparison, let me refer you to a statement on Regulations.gov, the US federal counterpart to your public participation web site: "As part of the rulemaking process, the Department or Agency is required to consider the public comments received on the proposed regulation. When the Department or Agency publishes the text of the final regulation in the Federal Register, it generally incorporates a response to the significant issues raised by those who submitted comments and discusses any changes made to the regulation as a result." http://www.regulations.gov -- see FAQ item "What is a Rulemaking?" The point here is that the rulemaking bodies of US federal agencies are generally required to consider public comments substantively (not merely mention or summarize them or hear or listen to them), and respond explicitly to those comments, including a coherent rationale for resulting agency rules in light of the substance of those comments. It suggests that public comments can have an impact on changing the substance of the rules before they are finalized. In short, if a member of the public submits a substantive comment to the agency (during a public comment period) suggesting a change in some proposed rule, the agency must explain how and why the rule that is finally promulgated has a rational justification in light of the issues raised in that comment. It may not ignore the substance of the comment, and the rational basis for the rule is subject to explicit legal review -- it becomes part of the legal record and is actionable in court. If the agency blows by the comment in a way that suggests that it did not take the issue into account in a genuinely substantive manner, that rule may well be vulnerable to legal challenge and reversal by the court system. This kind of tangible impact and legal enforceability of public comments on policy-making is what seems to be missing from ICANN's bylaws -- it certainly is not contained in the document you referenced here. It makes ICANN's public transparency ineffectual in real political terms, because it does not require ICANN's policy-making bodies to incorporate the substance of public comments systematically and explicitly into its policy-making decisions. This is where the gears might actually get engaged between the engine (of public comments to ICANN) and the drive-train (of ICANN policy-making). ----- One of the logistical challenges at ICANN at present is that public comments are open only at the end of long drawn-out policy-making processes where policy makers have already hardened their positions, there is little time left to consider changes once the comment period closes, and thus substantive issues are least likely to be addressed in a substantive manner by a volunteer policy-making body under deadline. One possible strategy to address this problem is to open public input much earlier in the process, so that members of the public can offer input at a time when it might have more potential to make an impact on the policy-makers at ICANN. And, to preclude the sorts of deadlines after the end of public comment periods that undermine the feasibility of addressing public comments substantively. This could address the time crunch issue. Another thing that could help is to formally require policy decisions at ICANN to include explicit responses to all substantive issues raised by the public, and to require coherent and rational justification for the resulting policy in light of those issues -- and to determine some way of legally enforcing claims against the policy if it appears the justification was not fully legitimate, with the entity that has enforcement authority being meaningfully separated from the power structure that creates the policy in the first place (this is called an "independent judiciary" in policy circles, and it is a fundamental prerequisite for genuinely democratic forms of governance, in the nature of "checks and balances"). These sorts of things should be added to ICANN's bylaws so that they have formal weight in the institutional structure overall. ----- See, Kieren, I'm not blaming you personally. So far as I know you are doing your job just fine, at least well enough given your relatively short time on the job. I also don't blame the specific policy-makers, since they are volunteering their time often under difficult time pressure and contentious conditions of deliberation. (Except for those who are paid to do this work by their regular employers that make these duties part of their official private job descriptions.) The problem seems to be that you are tossing all of your hard work into a black hole where it has no meaningful chance for actual impact on policy-making inside ICANN. And policy-makers are being placed in a double-bind trying to simultaneously come up with a "consensus" process under deadline, and to address public comments at the last moment. The problem is not with the individuals involved, it is with the structure of the process, and responsibility rests with those who structure that process. If this dysfunction is intentional, then it is nefarious (on the part of those who structure ICANN's administrative procedures). If it is unintentional, then it points to room (and call) for *significant* improvement in the structure of these administrative procedures. I wish you wouldn't take this so personally. I didn't accuse you of writing the bylaws, or failing to elicit public comments, etc. My problems with ICANN's administrative procedures are not in your court, because I assume you have no individual authority to change them. I address these issues to those who *do* have the authority to decide how things run at ICANN. Of course, if you are put in the position of being a spokesperson for those with that authority (like a presidential press secretary), then you are in a really tough position, and I don't envy you because to do your job means you have to push back at even admitting problems in this area, thus obstructing even the consideration of potential solutions. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Anita at ITforChange.net Wed Nov 21 02:27:31 2007 From: Anita at ITforChange.net (Anita) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:57:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is today midnight - more volunteers needed. In-Reply-To: <200711201527.lAKFRLTP008150@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20071121072738.DAC5DE1505@smtp3.electricembers.net> Would like to volunteer anita gurumurthy IT for Change www.ITforChange.net Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98455 46406 _____ From: CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:58 PM To: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc: 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Subject: [governance] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is today midnight - more volunteers needed. Importance: High Thanks Lisa, Yes there is on line a list of volunteers to serve in the NomCom and of self nominations for the CS membership into the GAID Strategy Council we received so far. The description of the whole process as previously circulated on this list is available on: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news &id=10462. As you know, the GAID Secretariat announced that 3 to 4 CS seats in the Strategy Council will be renewed (corresponding to approximately one third of the 10 CS members of the Strategy Council, composed of a total of 40 members). - Volunteers to serve in the NomCom: We only have 13 volunteers so far and as you know we would need 25 to make the selection completely random. The deadline for volunteering is TODAY at 0.00. The random selection process will indeed take place tomorrow. If we don’t reach this number of 25, we would have to consider cancelling the whole self nomination process and would not be in a position to submit a recommendation for the new CS members of the Strategy Council to the GAID Secretariat. - Nominated candidates for the GAID Strategy Council: I only received so far 4 nominations. We also need much more to make this process meaningful. Deadline for nominations of candidates is 25 November. Nominations could be self-candidatures of nominations by others. To nominate through this process, send to wsis at ngocongo.org the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: In parallel to that, one CS seat of the GAID steering committee is also going to be open to rotation. The Steering Committee is composed of 10 members, including 2 from civil society. As also previously announced, I am also trying to mobilize the CS outgoing members of the Strategy Council and the HL Advisors to make a recommendation to the GAID Secretariat on the CS seat of the GAID Steering Committee to be renewed. I would come back to you later about that. Best, Philippe _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr. Envoyé : vendredi, 16. novembre 2007 21:27 À : Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Update on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council - need more volunteers and more candidates Philippe, I volunteer to be a member of the noncom. Please will you share the list of those who’ve already volunteered as well as the names of those put forward for nomination to the strategy council? Best, Lisa McLaughlin Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D. Mass Communication & Women’s Studies Williams Hall Miami University, Ohio 45056 USA tele: +1 513 5293547 fax: +1 513 5291835 On 11/16/07 11:09 AM, "CONGO - IS" 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! _______________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Wed Nov 21 03:28:56 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:28:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: At 8:36 PM -0800 11/20/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >I'll tell you quite bluntly what the problem with public comments are the >moment: it's a vicious circle. Poor quality comments (for whatever reason) >means the input isn't valued, which leads to people not bothering, which >leads to whatever comments are made not being taken seriously. Getting back to this point, in light of Lee's comment: This may be less of a "vicious circle" than a chicken-egg conundrum: who goes first. The only systematic solution I see to this is to formally require substantive responses by ICANN policy bodies to substantive comments from the public, regardless of whether "the input is valued" or not. This is the part of the cycle under ICANN's direct control. So, your action item: >I am trying to break this circle by making sure summary/analyses of comments >are produced and are then explicitly reviewed by the body in question. ... is a useful start, but I think it needs to be augmented in order to fully engage the gears: "And after review, the body in question must include in the final report explicit responses to all matters of relevant substance raised by the public, rationally and coherently justifying the final policy proposal in light of public comments, before the report can be delivered to the Board." Yes, this creates more work, but it is necessary in order to support meaningful accountability of ICANN to public voice. It also requires reference to the original comments, and not only the summary, which can be helpful in pre-digesting the task but should not preempt the policy body from addressing the individual comments directly, as it is the body's responsibility to ensure that it has indeed addressed all the substantive issues. (If there are some similar comments, I think they can legitimately be grouped into a single response, but the volume of comments conforming to a single viewpoint ought to be noted in the process and incorporated into the evaluation driving the response.) Once the question of "value" is addressed formally through procedural mandates required of "the body in question" it ensures that public input will be taken into account regardless of what the body in question thinks about it. The body will at least be forced to address the substance -- in principle it might even lead to a greater chance of changes in the recommended policy before finalizing the report. And if the body cannot provide a rational justification for its response, it will be open to legitimate criticism, which should entail some formal recourse with meaningful authority to correct the policy and/or return it to the body for further work. Once ICANN treats public comments with absolutely guaranteed procedural respect, then folks like Lee will be more inclined to participate substantively, because they will not feel it is such a likely waste of their finite time. ICANN needs to decide that it is time to fix the egg from its end unilaterally, and then it has a chance of hatching a better chicken in terms of public response. I think you do realize this, but you may be hoping that what you've implemented so far will be enough to engage the public more systematically. I'm sorry to say that I don't think that will be the case without the sorts of additional procedural steps I've described. Of course, it may be that you do not have the unilateral authority to establish these additional procedural mandates. In that case, if you want to achieve your goal of robust public participation, you will need to appeal to authorities inside ICANN who do have the power to establish and enforce procedures such as these. 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 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Wed Nov 21 06:03:17 2007 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:03:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is today midnight - more volunteers needed. In-Reply-To: <20071121072738.DAC5DE1505@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20071121072738.DAC5DE1505@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47441075.6090101@isoc.be> I also would like to volunteer. Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw /Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen Belgium GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ www.isoc.be Anita schreef: > > Would like to volunteer > > > > /a//nita //g//urumurthy/ > > IT for Change > > www.ITforChange.net > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel:98455 46406 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:58 PM > *To:* 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; > governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org > *Cc:* 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' > *Subject:* [governance] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is today > midnight - more volunteers needed. > *Importance:* High > > > > Thanks Lisa, > > > > Yes there is on line a list of volunteers to serve in the NomCom and > of self nominations for the CS membership into the GAID Strategy > Council we received so far. The description of the whole process as > previously circulated on this list is available on: > http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news&id=10462 > . As you know, > the GAID Secretariat announced that 3 to 4 *CS seats in the Strategy > Council* will be renewed (corresponding to approximately one third of > the 10 CS members of the Strategy Council, composed of a total of 40 > members). > > > > - *Volunteers to serve in the NomCom > *: We only have > 13 volunteers so far and as you know we would need 25 to make the > selection completely random. The *deadline for volunteering is TODAY > at 0.00*. The random selection process will indeed take place > tomorrow. If we don’t reach this number of 25, we would have to > consider cancelling the whole self nomination process and would not be > in a position to submit a recommendation for the new CS members of the > Strategy Council to the GAID Secretariat. > > > > - *Nominated candidates for the GAID Strategy Council > *: I only > received so far 4 nominations. We also need much more to make this > process meaningful. Deadline for nominations of candidates is *25 > November*. Nominations could be self-candidatures of nominations by > others. To nominate through this process, send to wsis at ngocongo.org > the following information: > > /Name: > CS Affiliation(s): > Country: > /Gender: > /Age: > Biographical Statement: > Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council:/ > > > > > > > > In parallel to that, one CS seat of the GAID *steering committee* is > also going to be open to rotation. The Steering Committee is composed > of 10 members, including 2 from civil society. As also previously > announced, I am also trying to mobilize the CS outgoing members of the > Strategy Council and the HL Advisors to make a recommendation to the > GAID Secretariat on the CS seat of the GAID Steering Committee to be > renewed. I would come back to you later about that. > > > > Best, > > > > Philippe > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *De :* plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org > [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] *De la part de* McLaughlin, Lisa > M. Dr. > *Envoyé :* vendredi, 16. novembre 2007 21:27 > *À :* Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space > *Objet :* Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Update on the CS self-nomination > process for GAID Strategy Council - need more volunteers and more > candidates > > > > Philippe, I volunteer to be a member of the noncom. Please will you > share the list of those who’ve already volunteered as well as the > names of those put forward for nomination to the strategy council? > > Best, > > Lisa McLaughlin > > > > Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D. > Mass Communication & Women’s Studies > Williams Hall > Miami University, Ohio 45056 > USA > tele: +1 513 5293547 > fax: +1 513 5291835 > > > On 11/16/07 11:09 AM, "CONGO - IS" 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! > _______________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1142 - Release Date: 2007-11-20 17:44 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 06:54:14 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:54:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <002c01c82bfe$887e1130$997a3390$@net> Message-ID: <954259bd0711210354j164f637cq51e164b31b7c7a26@mail.gmail.com> Dear Dan and Suresh, Interesting exchange about the time taken to write. It just illustrates the difference between a debate (as it dynamically erupts from time to time on this list) and a contribution to a consultation process where you do not know whether somebody is going to actually even read it. This is the core of the discussion and the vicious circle that Kieren was describing. The whole thing is about *feedback loops*. In a mailing list discussion, the feedback is immediate, prompting people to reply and immediately nurture the thread. In public consultations, people with busy schedules postpone their contribution until it is too late, often because they want to "polish" it, feeling it is more formal. For information, Peter Dengate Thrush, during a workshop we organized in Rio on "multi-stakeholder policy development" made a very precise comment in that regard, saying that there is a "need to give feedback on inputs and give recognition to those who contribute". I think the notion is sinking in. This thread was useful if it encourages ICANN (and Kieren in his function) to address two elements : - how to make sure that submissions to consultations are duly taken into account and addressed in the PDP : this includes drafting summaries of comments and explicit comments on why suggestions were not retained (yes, it's additional work but important) - how to encourage more dynamic and informal contributions, including potentially taking into account threads on this governance list (short synthetic papers could be posted on this list by Kieren to start threads like the one we are participating in now, the comments could be taken into account in the summary or people could submit summary contributions after reviewing the exchange, like I try to do here). Hope this helps moving the ball forward. Best Bertrand On Nov 21, 2007 6:41 AM, Dan Krimm wrote: > At 10:52 AM +0530 11/21/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >Dan Krimm wrote: > > > >> Short answer: I didn't have the time, at the time, due to other > >> pressing obligations. > >> > >> Even though I spend a good deal of time paying attention to IG and > >> ICANN issues, I don't get paid a farthing for it, and it has to take a > >back > > > >.. and the time difference between ranting on mailing lists and blogs > about > >ICANN, and submitting these as comments to ICANN is ... ? > > > That was then, and this is now. > > If I'd had this much disposable time available then, I would have done it > then. My schedule is not particularly regular, and I can only do so many > things simultaneously. Sometimes I have it, and sometimes I don't. > > Real life gets in the way of cyberspace sometimes. I suppose you're going > to criticize me for that? > > I am skeptical of your implied skepticism. > > :-) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 07:07:49 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:37:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <954259bd0711210354j164f637cq51e164b31b7c7a26@mail.gmail.com> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <002c01c82bfe$887e1130$997a3390$@net> <954259bd0711210354j164f637cq51e164b31b7c7a26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009001c82c37$24d98e00$6e8caa00$@net> I do take your point about feedback potentially going into a black hole, when it is sent directly to an organization .. and the somewhat one sided nature of such feedback as compared to discussion on mailing lists. ICANN did something good in hiring Kieren, till recently a fairly vocal, and non poisonous, accurate critic of quite a lot that was ICANN related. The problem of course is that comment processes can be deluged with astroturf (for example this little initiative of the IGPs.. http://www.circleid.com/posts/send_a_message_to_ntia/) .. and in such cases, the recipient of those comments 1. Counts the number of comments, treats them all as one comment with a certain degree of support 2. Sees if anybody important (or influential) is making those comments If there’s enough (read: thousands rather than a few dozen) such comments, or if someone important makes them, there’s a certain value to the astroturfing. Else, reasoned position papers, and an open mind to discuss those papers does help. What doesn’t help is shrill abuse and innuendo masquerading as public policy or academic research. Just about the same rules apply to mailing lists, e&oe the rather instant response timelines involved. srs From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dan Krimm; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Dear Dan and Suresh, Interesting exchange about the time taken to write. It just illustrates the difference between a debate (as it dynamically erupts from time to time on this list) and a contribution to a consultation process where you do not know whether somebody is going to actually even read it. This is the core of the discussion and the vicious circle that Kieren was describing. The whole thing is about feedback loops. In a mailing list discussion, the feedback is immediate, prompting people to reply and immediately nurture the thread. In public consultations, people with busy schedules postpone their contribution until it is too late, often because they want to "polish" it, feeling it is more formal. For information, Peter Dengate Thrush, during a workshop we organized in Rio on "multi-stakeholder policy development" made a very precise comment in that regard, saying that there is a "need to give feedback on inputs and give recognition to those who contribute". I think the notion is sinking in. This thread was useful if it encourages ICANN (and Kieren in his function) to address two elements : - how to make sure that submissions to consultations are duly taken into account and addressed in the PDP : this includes drafting summaries of comments and explicit comments on why suggestions were not retained (yes, it's additional work but important) - how to encourage more dynamic and informal contributions, including potentially taking into account threads on this governance list (short synthetic papers could be posted on this list by Kieren to start threads like the one we are participating in now, the comments could be taken into account in the summary or people could submit summary contributions after reviewing the exchange, like I try to do here). Hope this helps moving the ball forward. Best Bertrand On Nov 21, 2007 6:41 AM, Dan Krimm wrote: At 10:52 AM +0530 11/21/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Dan Krimm wrote: > >> Short answer: I didn't have the time, at the time, due to other >> pressing obligations. >> >> Even though I spend a good deal of time paying attention to IG and >> ICANN issues, I don't get paid a farthing for it, and it has to take a >back > >.. and the time difference between ranting on mailing lists and blogs about >ICANN, and submitting these as comments to ICANN is ... ? That was then, and this is now. If I'd had this much disposable time available then, I would have done it then. My schedule is not particularly regular, and I can only do so many things simultaneously. Sometimes I have it, and sometimes I don't. Real life gets in the way of cyberspace sometimes. I suppose you're going to criticize me for that? I am skeptical of your implied skepticism. :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Nov 21 08:01:30 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:01:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: Bertrand, Dan, Suresh, I agree with your take Bertrand, and suggest further this thread could be seen as a start towards assisting ICANN, through Kieren's efforts, to refine further its own 'Adminsitrative Procedures Act'-type processes to show that ICANN has taken account of feedback and comment from interested or disinterested parties. Suggesting it would be more helpful to submit suggestions through a process wheere noone is listening, well I already commented on that. I had suggested this years back with regard specifically to ICANN's processes or rather lack thereof for gTLD allocations in various presentations to ICANN and the OECD; and ICANN processes are indeed more open and transparent than they were back then. But as Kieren notes there is still no formal tracking (maybe use the Digital Object Identifier to tag all inputs?) of comments and suggestions, no summary to show that ICANN has reviewed and considered salient points, if there were any, before coming to a decision etc. The regulator needs to keep growing up, that's all. Slowly but surely. Kieren, hope you're having fun playing adult to the awkward teenager who does not yet listen ! ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 11/21/07 6:54 AM >>> Dear Dan and Suresh, Interesting exchange about the time taken to write. It just illustrates the difference between a debate (as it dynamically erupts from time to time on this list) and a contribution to a consultation process where you do not know whether somebody is going to actually even read it. This is the core of the discussion and the vicious circle that Kieren was describing. The whole thing is about *feedback loops*. In a mailing list discussion, the feedback is immediate, prompting people to reply and immediately nurture the thread. In public consultations, people with busy schedules postpone their contribution until it is too late, often because they want to "polish" it, feeling it is more formal. For information, Peter Dengate Thrush, during a workshop we organized in Rio on "multi-stakeholder policy development" made a very precise comment in that regard, saying that there is a "need to give feedback on inputs and give recognition to those who contribute". I think the notion is sinking in. This thread was useful if it encourages ICANN (and Kieren in his function) to address two elements : - how to make sure that submissions to consultations are duly taken into account and addressed in the PDP : this includes drafting summaries of comments and explicit comments on why suggestions were not retained (yes, it's additional work but important) - how to encourage more dynamic and informal contributions, including potentially taking into account threads on this governance list (short synthetic papers could be posted on this list by Kieren to start threads like the one we are participating in now, the comments could be taken into account in the summary or people could submit summary contributions after reviewing the exchange, like I try to do here). Hope this helps moving the ball forward. Best Bertrand On Nov 21, 2007 6:41 AM, Dan Krimm wrote: > At 10:52 AM +0530 11/21/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >Dan Krimm wrote: > > > >> Short answer: I didn't have the time, at the time, due to other > >> pressing obligations. > >> > >> Even though I spend a good deal of time paying attention to IG and > >> ICANN issues, I don't get paid a farthing for it, and it has to take a > >back > > > >.. and the time difference between ranting on mailing lists and blogs > about > >ICANN, and submitting these as comments to ICANN is ... ? > > > That was then, and this is now. > > If I'd had this much disposable time available then, I would have done it > then. My schedule is not particularly regular, and I can only do so many > things simultaneously. Sometimes I have it, and sometimes I don't. > > Real life gets in the way of cyberspace sometimes. I suppose you're going > to criticize me for that? > > I am skeptical of your implied skepticism. > > :-) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Nov 21 09:22:09 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:22:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <005601c82bd6$aed50190$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005601c82bd6$aed50190$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] > > What you are saying is: I want you to reinstate a system that broke down > and has caused seven years of argument. > Kieren, if you're interested in "public participation" then you have to offer people some form of direct influence. What Dan Krimm was saying was simply that rational people don't invest time and effort in participation for participation's sake. They want a reasonable chance that their voices and preferences matter. Voting gave them that. Things like ALAC and sending emails to a comment board that has no influence other than what those in positions of authority choose to give it, don't. To say that voting for the Board "broke down" is factually false; this is all well-documented and there's no need to rehash the debate. To say that voting was wrong because it caused "seven years of argument" is a rather dangerous statement for you to make: ICANN has caused ten years of argument and the arguments will continue for years -- does that mean should we get rid of it, too? Apparently, your real job is not promoting "public participation" but promoting "public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's managers choose." I would encourage you to look into Hong Kong's system of selecting a Chief Executive, which was imposed on it by mainland China. It was designed to block direct elections but provide some form of public input, while making sure that nothing can happen that the mainland government does not control. Some of us with broader political experience are quite familiar with such structures. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Nov 21 09:44:21 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:44:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] > > I'll tell you quite bluntly what the problem with public comments are the > moment: it's a vicious circle. Poor quality comments (for whatever reason) > means the input isn't valued, which leads to people not bothering, which > leads to whatever comments are made not being taken seriously. > > I am trying to break this circle by making sure summary/analyses of > comments are produced and are then explicitly reviewed by the body in > question. > Actually I agree with much of what Kieren has written in that message and it's good to see that he has some appreciation for the problems of dumping out three or four 120 page policy reports full of acronyms and technical references and then asking for meaningful public comments in 14 days. Even those of us deeply steeped in the ICANN GNSO processes were simply unable to keep up. That system can be rationalized, and I trust Kieren to help do that, and I trust ICANN's board members to sincerely address it. But that's not really the problem! The real problem is that there is very little high-level political accountability of the sort that would come from electing Board members or other external checks and balances. Look folks, this is not all that difficult to understand. We don't expect millions of ordinary Indians, Brazilians or Americans to keep tabs on the day to day regulatory processes of every specialized federal government agency. This applies in spades to a global agency. We do, however, want the public to have the power to throw the bums out of office, either directly or indirectly, when something goes seriously wrong and the agency makes a decision that has bad consequences. That is what is lacking with respect to ICANN. After the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, the President and others completely bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina, what was needed was not more "public comment" and not "more public participation in FEMA." What was needed was direct accountability. Thank God we had midterm elections not too long afterwards and the Republicans paid the price for their mistakes by losing control of Congress. If ICANN makes a similar mistake what happens? Kieren invites you to spend $3000 traveling to an ICANN meeting and spend the better part of your life fixing the problem? If you look at US regulatory agencies, which are required by law to institute notice and comment, there are only a few professional or semi-professional lobbyists who can afford to keep up with everything a specialized regulatory agency does on a weekly basis. The day to day policy machinations of ICANN will increasingly become the province of specialists -- industry vested interests and a few dedicated public interest groups. But there still must be broader public accountability. It is impossible for this accountability to take the form of large numbers of ordinary people directly participating in ICANN processes. It can only take the form of some low cost preference aggregation mechanism such as voting. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 10:30:33 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:30:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <11528.46410.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kieren, As there are some on this list that may not fully understand the ICANN processes, it would be appreciated if in your capacity as ICANN Public Participation Manager you could clearly spell out for the list members the process by which requests for policy change (such as a call to "reinstate the vote") can properly be addressed within ICANN. Simply put, how do we obtain representation within ICANN? What's the process? Thanks, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 10:35:10 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:35:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <005601c82bd6$aed50190$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20071121153510.GB25372@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [21/11/07 09:22 -0500]: >Apparently, your real job is not promoting "public participation" but >promoting "public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's >managers choose." I would encourage you to look into Hong Kong's system of Like your "project" is "internet governance as defined by you"? The HK / mainland china equation is not as appropriate an analogy as you think.. ICANN is hamstrung more by the lack of consensus and conflicting interests among entrenched groups of stakeholders than anything else .. You can't blame everything on DoC oversight of ICANN, you know .. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Nov 21 10:37:07 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:37:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] CS meeting on other post WSIS issues - minutes In-Reply-To: <200711141331.lAEDVQdq014729@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200711211537.lALFb4n2016236@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached and below the minutes of the CS meeting addressing other post WSIS processes (discussing CSTD, multi-stakeholder implementation at the international level, GAID and other issues), taking place on 15 November, 13.00 to 14.00. Among the two main outcomes of this meeting: - Compilation of a CS written submission to the CTSD Panel (28-30 November 2007), notably addressing expectations of CS entities towards the up coming 11th session of the Commission. - Drafting of a CS joint letter to be addressed to international organisations having a moderation / facilitation role in the WSIS multi-stakeholder implementation at the international level, stressing suggestions and expectations of civil society actors involved in this process. More information on these two initiatives will be circulated on this list soon. Best, Philippe === Civil society meeting on on-going post WSIS Processes 15 November 2007, Rio Civil society organisations present in Rio met on the occasion of the second meeting of the IGF to address and exchange information on other on going post-WSIS processes, beyond Internet Governance issues. 1. Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) - CSTD Intersession Panel (Kuala Lumpur, 28-30 November 2007) After some updates on the preparations of the CSTD intersession panel, participants made a number of comments regarding the organisation of this event, including the need to make possible remote inputs to the Panel and the extension of the time devoted to the WSIS follow-up and implementation process. The Panel should also help better preparing the next main session of the CSTD and the discussions should also continue after the Kuala Lumpur meeting. There was also a call for greater interactions with civil society actors in preparing this intersession event. It was agreed that a joint written submission to the CSTD Panel would be drafted by NGOs interested in this process, notably addressing expectations of CS entities towards the up coming 11th session of the Commission. Some comments were made regarding the way the IGF outcomes would be presented to the CSTD. - 11th session of the CSTD (Geneva, May 2008) An update was presented regarding the state of preparation of the 11th session of the CSTD: three working days might be devoted to the follow-up to WSIS, including an informal joint panel with GAID and a panel with the Regional Commissions. It is also expected that another interactive dialogue would take place with the leading facilitating agencies. The exact content of these three days would be discussed during the CSTD Bureau meeting in Kuala Lumpur. It was noted that the CSTD requested the UN Secretary-General to include information on the process of enhanced cooperation in his annual report. This means that the CSTD could request some action on enhanced cooperation, if there is a consensus on that point. 2. Multi-stakeholder implementation at the international process A participant provided updates on the progresses made in the Action Line processes in which she has been involved. Based the recent experience of civil society entities having participated in the multi-stakeholder implementation process at the international level, there was an agreement that the action line facilitation process was not satisfactory. The WSIS implementation is not a priority for many organisations which committed to do so. Some critical analysis should be done by those CS organisations interested to continue to engage. Participants agreed that a CS letter should be addressed to organisations having a facilitating / moderating role in the implementation of WSIS Action Lines, stressing that if there is no valuable flow of information from the implementation process, the follow-up would also be disconnected. 3. Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) An update report was given regarding the attempt of a CS self recommendation process, in the framework of the membership rotation of the Strategy Council and Steering Committee. One participant mentioned that the deliberations of the NomCom should be made public, for the sake of increasing the transparency of the process. A brief update was also given on the outcomes of the GAID Steering Committee meeting which took place in September 2007. 4. GK-3 Conference (Kuala Lumpur, 11-13 December 2007) Some precisions were given on the last minute funding made available for civil society participants in the upcoming GK-3 conference. 5. Other business - Flow of information from the IGF proceedings to UN Organisations: a discussion emerged in the middle of the meeting to see how discussions taking place in the IGF could come back in the work of relevant international organisations involved. A participant mentioned that a liaison committee of any format could facilitate bringing back IGF discussions in various international organisations. It was also mentioned that this proposition could be mentioned as an emerging issue during the IGF main session. - Update on the status of the ICTRC: there is no news since the last up date circulated to the Plenary list regarding the status of the ICTRC, an Iranian NGOs whose offices have been closed down in Tehran. The Executive Director of this CS entity, Sohrab Razzaghi, has not yet been released by the Iranian authorities. _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mercredi 14 novembre 2007 11:32 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : 'Philippe Dam' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] CS meeting on other post WSIS issues - Thursday15 November, 13:00-14:00 Dear all, After discussing with a number among you, it appeared that there is an interest to discuss about other post WSIS issues and processes, beyond IGF. The IGF Secretariat kindly attributed us a room during lunchtime tomorrow. The meeting will basically take place between the sessions on Taking stock and the way forward and Emerging Issues. Date: Thursday 15 November Time: 13:00-14:00 Venue: Room Queluz VI (Queluz VI is on the lower level of the hotel, one floor down the IGF Internet Point and Village Square). Proposed agenda: a. CSTD (intersession Panel, 28-30 November / 11th session, May 2008) b. Multi-stakeholder implementation at the international level c. GAID d. GK-3 Conference e. Other business .. Feel free to make additional proposals or suggestions through this list. All the best, Philippe 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: minutes CS meeting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38400 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 10:46:43 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:46:43 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [21/11/07 09:44 -0500]: >If you look at US regulatory agencies, which are required by law to >institute notice and comment, there are only a few professional or >semi-professional lobbyists who can afford to keep up with everything a >specialized regulatory agency does on a weekly basis. The day to day >policy machinations of ICANN will increasingly become the province of >specialists [...] * It already is the province of specialists. And while it does have an open comments mechanism, so far, only the specialists, and specialist lobbyists, have enough of a stake, and enough expertise, to make meaningful contributions. * However much of a mess FEMA was, or any other federal agency is, there isnt any way the public can "throw out" the people running that agency - those are not elected posts. The one way that is possible is oversight from elected representatives - the senate subcommittees in charge of whatever, the secretary of state for whatever, and finally up the chain to the white house. * So, who do you give oversight over ICANN? You are not going to get DoC give up its oversight, face it. And even if you hand it over to the UN, what would happen is that broad policy directions get set by the politicians and some UN agency (an existing one, or an entirely new one) is set up with employees to run it. With oversight from the general assembly, and from UN member states who are members of that UN agency. >this accountability to take the form of large numbers of ordinary people >directly participating in ICANN processes. It can only take the form of >some low cost preference aggregation mechanism such as voting. Participation in icann processes doesnt really need you to fly to whatever resort ICANN is meeting in (in fact I do wish they would go meet in some completely ugly city like Des Moines IA so you wont get too many people motivated to go there just for the beaches.. oh wait, there's an ICANN meeting coming up sooner or later in new delhi, I guess .. yup that will do very nicely indeed) And participation + awareness in a process is kind of essential when you want people to vote for policy decisions and representatives charged with setting and implementing these policies. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 21 10:56:27 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:56:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20071121155801.86B992BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> At 07:46 11/21/2007 -0800, you wrote: >* So, who do you give oversight over ICANN? You are not going to get DoC >give up its oversight, face it. And even if you hand it over to the UN, There's a blog entry by Alejandro Pisanty about some of Milton's ideas: http://pisanty.blogspot.com/2007/11/some-messages-coming-out-of-igf.html Best, Veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 10:59:55 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:59:55 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <005601c82bd6$aed50190$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <006c01c82c57$8fd66af0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Ad hominem attack. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > -----Original Message----- > From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] > > What you are saying is: I want you to reinstate a system that broke down > and has caused seven years of argument. > Kieren, if you're interested in "public participation" then you have to offer people some form of direct influence. What Dan Krimm was saying was simply that rational people don't invest time and effort in participation for participation's sake. They want a reasonable chance that their voices and preferences matter. Voting gave them that. Things like ALAC and sending emails to a comment board that has no influence other than what those in positions of authority choose to give it, don't. To say that voting for the Board "broke down" is factually false; this is all well-documented and there's no need to rehash the debate. To say that voting was wrong because it caused "seven years of argument" is a rather dangerous statement for you to make: ICANN has caused ten years of argument and the arguments will continue for years -- does that mean should we get rid of it, too? Apparently, your real job is not promoting "public participation" but promoting "public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's managers choose." I would encourage you to look into Hong Kong's system of selecting a Chief Executive, which was imposed on it by mainland China. It was designed to block direct elections but provide some form of public input, while making sure that nothing can happen that the mainland government does not control. Some of us with broader political experience are quite familiar with such structures. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 11:07:21 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:07:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <007301c82c58$99867850$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I think there are some reasonable discussion points in here, although why they need to be provided in such a negative fashion is beyond me. In the same way that I think the public comment process is gradually improving (check out the past few comment periods - more comments; better comments); I am also hoping that the remote participation element for ICANN's meetings can be improved and increased. But it's difficult because at the moment most people don't bother trying to interact online. I am hoping this will gradually increase, people will then make suggestions for improvement, the improvements will encourage more participation, and we eventually end up in a position where it is *preferable* to attend an ICANN meeting in person but that you don't feel disadvantaged if you don't. It's a long road though. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > -----Original Message----- > From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] > > I'll tell you quite bluntly what the problem with public comments are the > moment: it's a vicious circle. Poor quality comments (for whatever reason) > means the input isn't valued, which leads to people not bothering, which > leads to whatever comments are made not being taken seriously. > > I am trying to break this circle by making sure summary/analyses of > comments are produced and are then explicitly reviewed by the body in > question. > Actually I agree with much of what Kieren has written in that message and it's good to see that he has some appreciation for the problems of dumping out three or four 120 page policy reports full of acronyms and technical references and then asking for meaningful public comments in 14 days. Even those of us deeply steeped in the ICANN GNSO processes were simply unable to keep up. That system can be rationalized, and I trust Kieren to help do that, and I trust ICANN's board members to sincerely address it. But that's not really the problem! The real problem is that there is very little high-level political accountability of the sort that would come from electing Board members or other external checks and balances. Look folks, this is not all that difficult to understand. We don't expect millions of ordinary Indians, Brazilians or Americans to keep tabs on the day to day regulatory processes of every specialized federal government agency. This applies in spades to a global agency. We do, however, want the public to have the power to throw the bums out of office, either directly or indirectly, when something goes seriously wrong and the agency makes a decision that has bad consequences. That is what is lacking with respect to ICANN. After the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, the President and others completely bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina, what was needed was not more "public comment" and not "more public participation in FEMA." What was needed was direct accountability. Thank God we had midterm elections not too long afterwards and the Republicans paid the price for their mistakes by losing control of Congress. If ICANN makes a similar mistake what happens? Kieren invites you to spend $3000 traveling to an ICANN meeting and spend the better part of your life fixing the problem? If you look at US regulatory agencies, which are required by law to institute notice and comment, there are only a few professional or semi-professional lobbyists who can afford to keep up with everything a specialized regulatory agency does on a weekly basis. The day to day policy machinations of ICANN will increasingly become the province of specialists -- industry vested interests and a few dedicated public interest groups. But there still must be broader public accountability. It is impossible for this accountability to take the form of large numbers of ordinary people directly participating in ICANN processes. It can only take the form of some low cost preference aggregation mechanism such as voting. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 11:16:57 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:46:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <006c01c82c57$8fd66af0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005601c82bd6$aed50190$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <006c01c82c57$8fd66af0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <00e901c82c59$f1e669a0$d5b33ce0$@net> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > Ad hominem attack. > Well yes, it is Milton Mueller. So you expected anything different? Ignore him. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 21 11:40:26 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:40:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] vicious circles In-Reply-To: <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <47445F7A.7020509@wzb.eu> Hi Kieren, it seems there is more than one vicious circle at work. Some people think that an At Large membership needs to earn its right to have voting board members. Earning in the sense of developing well working regional At Large organizations, producing constructive inputs to or comments on policy processes, cooperating amicably with ICANN staff and above all, acknowledging the overall ICANN structure. Other people think that participation in ICANN might well be a waste of time unless there is some form guaranty that comments made have indeed some political impact. (I remember an exchange between Annette Mühlberg, in her then role as ALAC chair, and Vint Cerf. Annette requested feedback from the board on some input from ALAC. Vint looked at her as if it had never occured to him that it could be insufficient to merely allow ALAC to offer comments on issues.) I would be good if we could overcome the polemic tone between both camps and find a solution that accomodates the concerns of both sides. jeanette Kieren McCarthy wrote: > Bloody hell - why on earth didn't you boil this down and email it as a > comment to either of the frameworks' public comment periods? > > I'm not sure I agree with you that the federal wording you quote provides > that much extra weight to public comment, but I have no problem discussing > that and what the value of public comment should be in ICANN processes. > > I'll tell you quite bluntly what the problem with public comments are the > moment: it's a vicious circle. Poor quality comments (for whatever reason) > means the input isn't valued, which leads to people not bothering, which > leads to whatever comments are made not being taken seriously. > > I am trying to break this circle by making sure summary/analyses of comments > are produced and are then explicitly reviewed by the body in question. > > At the moment, and until public comments warrant greater respect, I think > that's the most one can expect. If we manage to get to a position where > well-considered, intelligent and thoughtful comments are regularly received > and enable ICANN as an organisation to make better policy decisions, then I > can see an easy case for beefing up their value within the system itself. > > From ICANN's side there is a major issue - as you quite rightly point out - > that thick reports are stuck out with almost no notice and people are > expected to provide largely unstructured input on these reports in a very > short timeframe. > > This system cannot last and pretty much everyone agrees as much. If you look > for example at what was done with the new gTLDs report - and how a long > session at Los Angeles was structured to discuss the report point-by-point. > I think you can expect to see more of that sort of approach. > > There are two other useful factors here. The GAC, funnily enough, will > ensure that documents are provided earlier and put out for review for longer > because they cannot work in the bylaws' stated timeframe. > > And the new translation policy that we should have in place and running > properly by mid-2008 will mean documents have to be provided with some time > in order to make them available in other languages. > > Add to this a general feeling that ICANN has to move to a model where it > supplies executive summaries of reports. Plus early efforts to introduce an > organisation-wide numbering system for documents, plus great improvements in > the pipeline for ICANN's websites, and most of these problems should start > fading away. > > I am also arguing that the best way for ICANN to progress adequately is to > explicitly strip new policy documents into separate issues and encourage > debate on each from whoever is interested i.e. you simply don't expect > everyone to be interested in every aspect. > > But that's just my perspective: I am not, and have never been, a policy > wonk, so it may not be workable in practice. > > > As for me not getting personally upset. Honestly, I do not take these things > personally. But I do find it infuriating when broad criticism is leveled at > the organisation without any precise information, and without any > constructive suggestions for improvement. > > To change from one system to another, you have to know what precise changes > you will make, review them in the wider context of their impact on other > processes, and be certain that you will end up in a better position. > > Just saying "this doesn't work" or "there is a better way" is less than > useful because it fosters defensiveness while achieving nothing. While I > have been at ICANN I have seen a huge amount of positive change. I have also > seen a few pieces of policy go through that I don't agree with - and in each > case that is because people didn't bother to present the opposite case, or > they refused to engage in constructive conversation. > > My job is to make sure that people are easily able to present their views > and that those views are considered. I cannot and do not differentiate what > those views are, although I do have a bias for views that consider others' > perspectives and seek consensus - wherever they come from. > > What I find frustrating is when people don't take those opportunities and > then complain after the fact that their views weren't taken into account. > > The system isn't perfect but it is getting better and if you can see obvious > flaws or holes please point them out and I will do what I can to fix them. > > > > Kieren > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:56 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > >> http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-17oct07. > pdf > > > Kieren, stop your bluster. This is not about you. > > I read this document when you posted it before, and it contains utterly > nothing in terms of formal requirements for incorporating comments from the > public into policy *decisions*. I refer to the section "ICANN CONSULTATION > PRINCIPLES" on pp. 18-19. > > The principles listed involve lots of ways that people can *look in* on > ICANN deliberations (though the transaction costs of such monitoring, not > to mention active participation, are high, and still work against broad > accountability in practice). At the end is where it determines that there > will be a "public participation web site" and what is to be done with that > input. My issue here is not whether the public has a place to voice its > opinions (let us assume for the moment that it is working fine in all > respects), the point is whether those public opinions will be *taken into > account* by those *actually deciding policy* at ICANN. > > So, in particular, on p.19, there is the following bullet point, with > regard to public comments: > > * Request explicit discussion of that summary and analysis by the relevant > body while discussing the topic under consideration > > This only requires that explicit *mention* be made in summary of public > comments, but does nothing to require the "relevant body" at ICANN to > *address and respond meaningfully to the substance* of those comments in an > explicit manner, so as to create a comprehensive rational justification for > policy that becomes part of ICANN's public and legal record. The relevant > body can say "thank you very much, now let's move on" and is not formally > required to address the substance of the comments. > > But, when such policy is finally delivered to the Board, does the Board > have the authority to address the detailed substance of those public > comments? It remains unclear as a procedural matter, so far as I know. > Everyone seems to be passing the buck to someone else. > > ----- > > As a comparison, let me refer you to a statement on Regulations.gov, the US > federal counterpart to your public participation web site: > > "As part of the rulemaking process, the Department or Agency is required to > consider the public comments received on the proposed regulation. When the > Department or Agency publishes the text of the final regulation in the > Federal Register, it generally incorporates a response to the significant > issues raised by those who submitted comments and discusses any changes > made to the regulation as a result." > > http://www.regulations.gov -- see FAQ item "What is a Rulemaking?" > > The point here is that the rulemaking bodies of US federal agencies are > generally required to consider public comments substantively (not merely > mention or summarize them or hear or listen to them), and respond > explicitly to those comments, including a coherent rationale for resulting > agency rules in light of the substance of those comments. It suggests that > public comments can have an impact on changing the substance of the rules > before they are finalized. > > In short, if a member of the public submits a substantive comment to the > agency (during a public comment period) suggesting a change in some > proposed rule, the agency must explain how and why the rule that is finally > promulgated has a rational justification in light of the issues raised in > that comment. It may not ignore the substance of the comment, and the > rational basis for the rule is subject to explicit legal review -- it > becomes part of the legal record and is actionable in court. If the agency > blows by the comment in a way that suggests that it did not take the issue > into account in a genuinely substantive manner, that rule may well be > vulnerable to legal challenge and reversal by the court system. > > This kind of tangible impact and legal enforceability of public comments on > policy-making is what seems to be missing from ICANN's bylaws -- it > certainly is not contained in the document you referenced here. It makes > ICANN's public transparency ineffectual in real political terms, because it > does not require ICANN's policy-making bodies to incorporate the substance > of public comments systematically and explicitly into its policy-making > decisions. This is where the gears might actually get engaged between the > engine (of public comments to ICANN) and the drive-train (of ICANN > policy-making). > > ----- > > One of the logistical challenges at ICANN at present is that public > comments are open only at the end of long drawn-out policy-making processes > where policy makers have already hardened their positions, there is little > time left to consider changes once the comment period closes, and thus > substantive issues are least likely to be addressed in a substantive manner > by a volunteer policy-making body under deadline. > > One possible strategy to address this problem is to open public input much > earlier in the process, so that members of the public can offer input at a > time when it might have more potential to make an impact on the > policy-makers at ICANN. And, to preclude the sorts of deadlines after the > end of public comment periods that undermine the feasibility of addressing > public comments substantively. This could address the time crunch issue. > > Another thing that could help is to formally require policy decisions at > ICANN to include explicit responses to all substantive issues raised by the > public, and to require coherent and rational justification for the > resulting policy in light of those issues -- and to determine some way of > legally enforcing claims against the policy if it appears the justification > was not fully legitimate, with the entity that has enforcement authority > being meaningfully separated from the power structure that creates the > policy in the first place (this is called an "independent judiciary" in > policy circles, and it is a fundamental prerequisite for genuinely > democratic forms of governance, in the nature of "checks and balances"). > > These sorts of things should be added to ICANN's bylaws so that they have > formal weight in the institutional structure overall. > > ----- > > See, Kieren, I'm not blaming you personally. So far as I know you are > doing your job just fine, at least well enough given your relatively short > time on the job. I also don't blame the specific policy-makers, since they > are volunteering their time often under difficult time pressure and > contentious conditions of deliberation. (Except for those who are paid to > do this work by their regular employers that make these duties part of > their official private job descriptions.) > > The problem seems to be that you are tossing all of your hard work into a > black hole where it has no meaningful chance for actual impact on > policy-making inside ICANN. And policy-makers are being placed in a > double-bind trying to simultaneously come up with a "consensus" process > under deadline, and to address public comments at the last moment. The > problem is not with the individuals involved, it is with the structure of > the process, and responsibility rests with those who structure that process. > > If this dysfunction is intentional, then it is nefarious (on the part of > those who structure ICANN's administrative procedures). If it is > unintentional, then it points to room (and call) for *significant* > improvement in the structure of these administrative procedures. > > I wish you wouldn't take this so personally. I didn't accuse you of > writing the bylaws, or failing to elicit public comments, etc. My problems > with ICANN's administrative procedures are not in your court, because I > assume you have no individual authority to change them. > > I address these issues to those who *do* have the authority to decide how > things run at ICANN. > > Of course, if you are put in the position of being a spokesperson for those > with that authority (like a presidential press secretary), then you are in > a really tough position, and I don't envy you because to do your job means > you have to push back at even admitting problems in this area, thus > obstructing even the consideration of potential solutions. > > Dan > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 21 11:53:16 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:53:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] vicious circles In-Reply-To: <47445F7A.7020509@wzb.eu> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47445F7A.7020509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20071121165804.365712BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:40 11/21/2007 +0000, you wrote: >Hi Kieren, > >it seems there is more than one vicious circle at work. Jeanette, the vicious is probably because it seems there are people here who don't want to give Kieren, and all the newcomers like him, a chance. Perhaps one of the reasons why people are not quite interested in the discussions around the IGF is that they already know what each of the (old) participants will say. In such a situation, people like Kieren, who bring something new, could have been welcome, but instead they are being harassed. 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 12:01:05 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:01:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <11528.46410.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <11528.46410.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008901c82c60$1be7ae70$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > As there are some on this list that may not fully > understand the ICANN processes, it would be > appreciated if in your capacity as ICANN Public > Participation Manager you could clearly spell out for > the list members the process by which requests for > policy change (such as a call to "reinstate the vote") > can properly be addressed within ICANN. > Simply put, how do we obtain representation within > ICANN? What's the process? Actually, this is good timing Danny. As we speak I am trying to piece together exactly how ICANN does work so I can usefully direct people to the right parts of the organisation and maximize the impact of people's input (so creating a positive feedback loop). So, taking this one example: if you felt that the introduction of some kind of voting system by Internet users in order to choose Board members was absolutely the right way to go, this would (in my opinion) be the best way to do it. 1. Read the review report of the NomCom. Go through the parts that refer to its role of choosing Board members and ask for consideration to be given on whether the NomCom need to review its own role in this regard. My understanding at the moment is that the independent evaluators are reviewing the report in light of comments and will put out an amended draft that will then be up for public comment and, presumably, there will be a second public meeting on it. Provide input on both. http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#nomcom-review 2. Most significantly - get involved in the upcoming independent review of ALAC. I think an evaluator is due to be chosen very soon, at which point they will ask for public comment. You would need to review the terms of reference to give decent input. http://www.icann.org/reviews/alac-28feb07.htm 3. In terms of pragmatics - you have to review objectively why the voting system was dropped; ask people in a fair and non-presumptive way what their views of it were and why they felt what happened had happened. As soon as you can have people from opposing ends debating the issue calmly there is hope for progress. I think everyone will be surprised how much people want the idea to work. Here is the transcript at the Ghana meeting that would serve as useful background: http://www.icann.org/at-large/final-report-05nov01.htm 4. In terms of structure. The hope from just about everyone is that Internet users through whatever structure will get to choose Board members. Currently that structure is ALAC. If you want to get to the point where this voting actually happens, you just have to engage with the system as it is. You may dream of a revolution but the reality is if you want to change the system, you join a party and work through that party. http://alac.icann.org/applications/ So, join ALAC - not only join it but strengthen it. If creating an ALS is a hassle, find ways to make it simpler. Build up such a strong committee that you can claim represents millions of Internet users - and then start providing useful, powerful statements on ongoing policy to build up ALAC's stature. One ALAC is a respected body, it can pretty much decide what it wants to do with itself. ALAC could either request an issues paper on voting, or it could vote to rearrange its structure, or it could wait for the next independent review to reform itself. What can't be stressed too heavily though is that if people insist on change before they have demonstrated value, it will simply drag out the issue for another seven years. Put another way: if you can persuade people that a voting system would work in the Internet's and ICANN best interests, then it will happen. If you don't seek to persuade but instead try to get into a position where you plan to demand the change, you will fail. Ultimately, despite all the noise and argument, 90 percent of the people involved in ICANN are there to make the model work. Anything that sounds as if it will damage that model will never pick up sufficient backing. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:31 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Kieren, As there are some on this list that may not fully understand the ICANN processes, it would be appreciated if in your capacity as ICANN Public Participation Manager you could clearly spell out for the list members the process by which requests for policy change (such as a call to "reinstate the vote") can properly be addressed within ICANN. Simply put, how do we obtain representation within ICANN? What's the process? Thanks, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Nov 21 13:28:45 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:28:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> Message-ID: <82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org> Le 21 nov. 07 à 16:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > * So, who do you give oversight over ICANN? You are not going to > get DoC > give up its oversight, face it. And even if you hand it over to the > UN, > what would happen is that broad policy directions get set by the > politicians and some UN agency (an existing one, or an entirely new > one) is > set up with employees to run it. With oversight from the general > assembly, > and from UN member states who are members of that UN agency. Doesn't this advocate in favor of day to day policy making, as well as first levels of control, as close as possible to end users? And leave only higher coordination levels to global entities? The closer you are, the better you understand what affects *you*, the greater chances of control you have, directly or through elected or in any other way accountable people? All other issues left aside, I don't find an election process a la at- large to ICANN satisfactory, though better than what is currently offered. I understand that an electoral process is never fully satisfactory, but we can cope with it as the "least worst", provided that it remains manageable. By manageable, I mean that, as a voter, you have enough means of finding your way through it, understand what is at stake, what are the proposals from the different candidates, and have a reasonable chance to make a reasonably informed choice; and as a candidate, that you have reasonable chances to convey your message (although we know that all candidates never have equal chances). Municipal elections are more manageable than higher level local elections which are in turn more manageable than national/federal elections. But it almost stops here. e.g. in the European Union, we have in each country direct elections of Members of European Parliament. We do know that the European Parliament matters a lot - although it has less power than the European Council, i.e. the governments representatives and less actual power than the European Commission. We do also know that most part of our national legislations derives from European legislation. Still, we do have a much higher level of abstention at these elections. And there is almost no accountability, specially compared to members of national Parliaments. They're too far from us directly, they're too far from us through the media (specially mainstream media), etc. From time to time, some news gets through the citizens, but that's so complex to explain and to understand. You need a high level of background of how it works, etc. before even getting to understand the issue. (NB. this is only an example to show the problem, I'm NOT advocating a decentralization mapped on (or only on) political organization based on nation state model. Actually, it's interesting that at-large elections have been designed by geographic regions, i.e. rather UN- inspired division). Could you simply imagine how these problems scale when dealing with an organization like ICANN? The election process at ICANN has been quite extensively documented. In particular, there are statistics that showed the extreme diversity of participation rates among countries and regions. This is not only due to disparity of the number of Internet users - notwithstanding the fact that even non current Internet users should have their say -, but also due to lack of information on what is at stake, not to mention the simple fact that such elections were running. It has been shown that in countries where the mainstream media informed about the process, the participation rate was higher by far than in other countries in same region with comparable rate of Internet users. > And participation + awareness in a process is kind of essential > when you > want people to vote for policy decisions and representatives > charged with > setting and implementing these policies. Exactly. Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Nov 21 14:00:08 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:00:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: List of volunteers for NomCom Message-ID: <200711211859.lALIxIdt013023@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to announce that the list of volunteers for the NomCom is now finalized and blocked. We received so far 23 volunteers, which are listed in the order received below and at http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news &id=10463. The random selection process would take place later tonight, as described in the second part of this e-mail. I think we can still go with 23 volunteers Anyway, we still need more nominations Best, Ph 1. Wolfgang Kleinwächter (University of Aarhus) 2. Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change) 3. Adam Peake (GLOCOM) 4. François Ullman (Ingénieurs du Monde) 5. Tijani Ben Jemaa (World Federation of Ingeneering Organisations) 6. Shahid Uddin Akbar (ICT Consultant, KATALYST/SwissContact, Bangladesh) 7. Vittorio Bertola 8. Micheal Gurstein (Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training) 9. Delphine Nana (ACSIS) 10. Linda McLaughlin (Mass Communication & Women's Studies, Miami University) 11. Gurumurthy Kasinathan (IT for Change) 12. Ezendu Ariwa (London Metropolitan University) 13. Richard Vincent (Indiana State University) 14. John Mathiason (Syracuse University) 15. Nnenna Nwakanma (ICT Consultant) 16. Hakikur Rahman (SchoolNet Foundation Bangladesh) 17. Ian Peter (Ian Peter and Associates) 18. Louis Pouzin (Eurolinc) 19. Anita Gurumurthy (IT for Change) 20. Ginger Paque (UNA Venezuale, Diplo Foundation) 21. Rudi Vansnick (Internet Society Belgium) 22. Edgard Mandrault (ACSIS) 23. Sylvie Niombo (AZUR Developpement) • Names of volunteers are sorted numerically in the order they were received at wsis at ngocongo.org. Before the volunteering period is over, if errors are noted or if a volunteer removes his or herself, the list will be fixed so that there are no empty lines. However, the sorted list of volunteers and their sorting number will be finalized and frozen on 20 November 2007, 24:00. • The random selection process will be established on the randomizing RFC3797 program. The random seeds will be based on the following lottery drawings (main draws only, not the bonus numbers) taking place on 21 November 2007: - Ireland - England - US • The random process will produce an ordered list of numbers. The names of volunteers randomly selected for the CS Nom Com will be determined according to the number which is attributed to them. The 5 first valid volunteers corresponding to the first numbers of the list will serve for the CS Nom Com. Ex: If the ordered list of numbers is e.g. 15, 3, 23, 21, 5, 6, 4; volunteer #15 will be the first selected. If volunteer #3 has removed his or herself or is not available, the second volunteer to be selected will be volunteer #23... etc until we have 5 acting Nom Com members. Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Nov 21 14:44:15 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:44:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F7A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >* [ICANN]is already is the province of specialists. >And while it does have an open comments mechanism, >so far, only the specialists, and specialist lobbyists, >have enough of a stake, and enough expertise, to make >meaningful contributions. Thanks for the echo, that is precisely what I implied. My point was that you need a broader accountability than merely open comments. _Your_ point is....? >* However much of a mess FEMA was, or any other >federal agency is, there isnt any way the public >can "throw out" the people running that agency - >those are not elected posts. The one way that is >possible is oversight from elected representatives >- the senate subcommittees in charge of whatever, >the secretary of state for whatever, and finally >up the chain to the white house. Another echo. My point was that without this higher level of accountability from elected officials public comments and "participation" would be meaningless. Your point? >* So, who do you give oversight over ICANN? The global Internet-using public. >You are not going to get DoC >give up its oversight, face it. Oh yes, I believe that we will eventually. But even if that goal is not achieved, it is worthwhile to keep the pressure on it so that the authority is not abused any more than it has been. >And even if you hand it over to the UN, >what would happen is that broad policy >directions get set by the politicians >and some UN agency Highly revelatory. You've been criticizing IGP papers on this topic but now I can tell you haven't read any of them. We have consistently proposed making ICANN accountable to the global public, and not to the UN or any other intergovernmental agency. We have proposed de-nationalization, not multi-lateralization. Enough said. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 21 14:52:32 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:52:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <008901c82c60$1be7ae70$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <814242.72553.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kieren, Thanks for the response. If I may summarize your recommendations with regard to the process by which representational issues may be addressed... (1) You recommend that members of the public concerned with this issue should submit their comments to two entities that have either commenced or will soon commence an ICANN Structural/Operational Review Process; namely the Nominating Committee Review Group managed by InterIsle Consulting and the At-Large Advisory Committee Review Group that still hasn't been selected. These two groups (per the ICANN bylaws) are theoretically "independent of the organization under review". With regard to the first group that reviewed the ICANN College of Cardinals (the Nominating Committee), I see that it was assisted by a working group comprised exclusively of current and former board members: Alejandro Pisanty, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Njeri Rionge, Mouhamet Diop, Jonathan Cohen and Steve Goldstein. Additionally, the organization charged with conducting the review counts as one its its primary consultants former board member Lyman Chapin -- nice way to handle the concept of "independent" review; Further, this set of reviewers chose to only interview 47 people (53% of these people just happened to be from the USA, and 64% were either ICANN board members, members of ICANN Staff or former Nominating Committee members). It appears that InterIsle had no particular interest in casting a wider net, and that they arrived at recommendations that continue to promote secrecy as the modus operandi of choice. Feel free to contrast that approach with the fully open and transparent methodology employed by the GNSO in its process to elect board directors. And yet for some reason you deem it important for us to express our views to this particular group whose recommendations (the product of extensive discussions with ICANN Staff and Board) remain the antithesis of openness and transparency. Go figure. (2) Next you would like us to send through comments to a group that will at some point evaluate the non-performance of the ALAC. Nevermind the fact that this review is already two years overdue and that it took a full year even after the LSE report was made public to get the Board Governance Committee to produce a first set of recommendations -- basically you are saying that given the current timetable perhaps in another two years ICANN will get around to producing some cosmetic revisions to the ALAC model and that we are advised to patiently wait for a representative opportunity in some distant future. More to the point, you are actually recommending that in order to advocate for the principle of representation we should now join a group (ALAC and its RALOs) that has never once in the last five years shown any interest in fighting for representative rights for their own community -- Thanks, but that kind of useless assistance we don't need. Sorry, but making the ICANN model work will require a bit more than what you have recommended -- it will require ICANN to actually respect the White Paper priciple of "representation" instead of just continuing to give it lip service and short shrift. The current process that you have outlined to address major and ongoing public concerns is deficient. It's clear, and I thank you for that, but it's still deficient as it fails to properly address the legitimate need for full multistakeholder representation within ICANN. My advice (for what it's worth) to list participants: send your letters of concern directly to the new ICANN Chairman of the Board. At the very least, we'll soon see if he's listening. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 15:21:13 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:21:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <814242.72553.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <008901c82c60$1be7ae70$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <814242.72553.qm@web52206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e301c82c7c$107a0c60$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I understand where you're coming from Danny. But you asked me what the best method was and that's the answer. What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that participation within those structures won't work. I don't agree. I think it will work. Moreover what I am saying is that *unless* people participate in those structures, there won't be change along the lines you suggested. If you have other suggestions that could practically work please throw them in. The problem with your suggestion of writing letters to the chairman is that the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix this?" and we end up in the exact same place that we are now. Now if you could present a clear case as to why such a change would be in ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of suggested routes for getting there, then I think you'd find he would start looking at it seriously. If that whole case was to come from within the ICANN structure, it would add further weight. But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and offering no solution is not going to achieve much. Just my two cents. I should also say that if people do participate in ICANN's processes they not only benefit from engagement with others but also gain the advantages that come with participation, one of which is that I would consider it my duty to make sure that that participation was given the appropriate consideration. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:53 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Kieren, Thanks for the response. If I may summarize your recommendations with regard to the process by which representational issues may be addressed... (1) You recommend that members of the public concerned with this issue should submit their comments to two entities that have either commenced or will soon commence an ICANN Structural/Operational Review Process; namely the Nominating Committee Review Group managed by InterIsle Consulting and the At-Large Advisory Committee Review Group that still hasn't been selected. These two groups (per the ICANN bylaws) are theoretically "independent of the organization under review". With regard to the first group that reviewed the ICANN College of Cardinals (the Nominating Committee), I see that it was assisted by a working group comprised exclusively of current and former board members: Alejandro Pisanty, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Njeri Rionge, Mouhamet Diop, Jonathan Cohen and Steve Goldstein. Additionally, the organization charged with conducting the review counts as one its its primary consultants former board member Lyman Chapin -- nice way to handle the concept of "independent" review; Further, this set of reviewers chose to only interview 47 people (53% of these people just happened to be from the USA, and 64% were either ICANN board members, members of ICANN Staff or former Nominating Committee members). It appears that InterIsle had no particular interest in casting a wider net, and that they arrived at recommendations that continue to promote secrecy as the modus operandi of choice. Feel free to contrast that approach with the fully open and transparent methodology employed by the GNSO in its process to elect board directors. And yet for some reason you deem it important for us to express our views to this particular group whose recommendations (the product of extensive discussions with ICANN Staff and Board) remain the antithesis of openness and transparency. Go figure. (2) Next you would like us to send through comments to a group that will at some point evaluate the non-performance of the ALAC. Nevermind the fact that this review is already two years overdue and that it took a full year even after the LSE report was made public to get the Board Governance Committee to produce a first set of recommendations -- basically you are saying that given the current timetable perhaps in another two years ICANN will get around to producing some cosmetic revisions to the ALAC model and that we are advised to patiently wait for a representative opportunity in some distant future. More to the point, you are actually recommending that in order to advocate for the principle of representation we should now join a group (ALAC and its RALOs) that has never once in the last five years shown any interest in fighting for representative rights for their own community -- Thanks, but that kind of useless assistance we don't need. Sorry, but making the ICANN model work will require a bit more than what you have recommended -- it will require ICANN to actually respect the White Paper priciple of "representation" instead of just continuing to give it lip service and short shrift. The current process that you have outlined to address major and ongoing public concerns is deficient. It's clear, and I thank you for that, but it's still deficient as it fails to properly address the legitimate need for full multistakeholder representation within ICANN. My advice (for what it's worth) to list participants: send your letters of concern directly to the new ICANN Chairman of the Board. At the very least, we'll soon see if he's listening. ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 20:06:03 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:06:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> <82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071122010603.GB8834@hserus.net> Meryem Marzouki [21/11/07 19:28 +0100]: > Doesn't this advocate in favor of day to day policy making, as well as > first levels of control, as close as possible to end users? And leave only > higher coordination levels to global entities? The closer you are, the This wont unfortunately work .. there's enough of a gap between global operational concerns and local concerns .. with 90%++ of local concerns being caused by reasons that just can't be laid at ICANN's door. For example, on a mailing list just like this one, before the Athens IGF (run by APDIP out of bangkok and largely focused on asiapac IG issues), Several members from Bangladesh raised the issue of the .bd ccTLD - that was managed by the local government owned incumbent telco, with oversight from their local ministry of posts and telecommunications. suresh at frodo 16:40:33 <~> $ dnsqr ns bd 2 bd: 84 bytes, 1+3+0+0 records, response, noerror query: 2 bd answer: bd 86299 NS dns.bd answer: bd 86299 NS slave.bttb.net answer: bd 86299 NS dns.bttb.net Basically - one, dns.bd, on their link from teleglobe (which seems routed through asia, though it is an ARIN allocated netblock) and the other two on what looks like a satellite link as the traceroute goes through Israeli satellite provider Bezeq - bezeq.pos6-3.ar03.ldn01.pccwbtn.net etc Now, that's not exactly an ideal setup and it meant the .bd ccTLD was frequently not quite reachable for most of the world (and sometimes even less for bangladesh internet users). Laying their travails at ICANN's door instead of their monopoly telco's would hardly be useful or appropriate would it? Similarly, right around then, there was a fairly acrimonious battle for the .id ccTLD, with the local ISP association trying (successfully, later) to take control of the .id ccTLD from its previous owner, who was civil society (runs the indonesian cert, early ISOC member etc etc). Again, entirely local and not really something you can blame on ICANN, I guess? > By manageable, I mean that, as a voter, you have enough means of finding > your way through it, understand what is at stake, what are the proposals > from the different candidates, and have a reasonable chance to make a So, how many voters do you think are going to be actually there who fit that profile and who arent already icann regulars (like most on the list) or on the fringes of ICANN as observers (like me, my focus is largely on antispam and cybersecurity events, I'm not doing igov fulltime possibly with a tenured post to research igov like some here) :) I saw several civil society groups concerned with women's rights, egov, generalized ICT etc take a lot of interest in igov, and demand a stake in ICANN and igov as a matter of right, when I was at Athens. Sadly, not very many of them had the vaguest knowledge of the issues that were being debated, and/or at the most were seeing one small section of the problem through the prism of their existing work, not the big picture. This resulted in their being uninformed, and such groups would need a lot of capacity building, or at least an *unbiased* overview of a broad range of igov issues, ICANN history / current affairs etc (and possibly a peek into the politics that follow ICANN around) before they can participate meaningfully. Or else, they merely become pawns in the hands of one group or the other that claims to represent public / civil society interests but has its own agenda, which may not be very congruent to these interests at all. Somewhat like moveon.org pulling the same dirty tricks that their opposite numbers on the republican side (and right wing commentators like Coulter, Hannity etc) have been pulling for quite some time besides their usual tactic of grassroots campaigns with heavily slanted views of a political situation and encourage people reading it to astroturf public policy comment processes. [side note - http://hserus.livejournal.com/15144.html on my reaction to Moveon's disgusting "General Betray Us" ad] > Municipal elections are more manageable than higher level local elections > which are in turn more manageable than national/federal elections. But it > almost stops here. e.g. in the European Union, we have in each country Oh, there's switzerland too, where the citizens of every canton have the right to vote on matters all the way from where to build a new public toilet to much more significant matters. But the problem there is that local government models just do not scale to something that is globally scoped. Not easily at least. > Could you simply imagine how these problems scale when dealing with an > organization like ICANN? The election process at ICANN has been quite Fully agree here but we are not going to fix this by changing the voting process. Or by anything else other than UNBIASEDLY educating civil society groups that believe they have a stake in the ICANN process, and encouraging them to participate in it, even remotely - they dont need to spend $5000+ per person to attend every ICANN meeting (plane ticket, hotel etc), but they can definitely participate remotely, get civil society groups they work with who are closer to the region where ICANN is meeting to come over etc etc. [again because as this IGF's videocasts showed, remote participation in a meeting may not be as easy or feasible, can go wrong and is in the wrong timezone for a lot of people anyway ...]. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 20:07:03 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:07:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <00e301c82c7c$107a0c60$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <993205.54072.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kieren, You know, you really should make an effort to read the public comments submitted once in a while... I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public comment submitted at this URL: http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html Here's the gist of it: A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat at-large directors on the ICANN board. The solution: Those directors that are not currently elected by ICANN’s Supporting Organizations come to the board by way of ICANN’s “Nominating Committee”, a body populated exclusively by special-interest representatives. This committee must be eliminated and must be replaced by a new committee populated exclusively by public-interest representatives. These representatives will be drawn from the pool of candidates that previously stood for at-large election. These voices of the public will then, through the same set of processes used by the current Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large directors that will take their seats on the ICANN board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor the principle of balanced representation). By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of the Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?". Prior Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived at a consensus-based recommendation to have the at-large seated on one third of the Board). Unfortunately, we have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is superior to that of the commmunity and who feel quite comfortable rejecting consensus-based determinations. Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded as the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead of as a functionary that is charged with pushing the prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that instead are screaming for accountability via true multistakeholder representation. Time will tell. best wishes, and again thanks for your perspective. --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > I understand where you're coming from Danny. But you > asked me what the best > method was and that's the answer. > > What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that > participation within > those structures won't work. I don't agree. I think > it will work. Moreover > what I am saying is that *unless* people participate > in those structures, > there won't be change along the lines you suggested. > > If you have other suggestions that could practically > work please throw them > in. > > The problem with your suggestion of writing letters > to the chairman is that > the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix this?" > and we end up in the > exact same place that we are now. > > Now if you could present a clear case as to why such > a change would be in > ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of > suggested routes for > getting there, then I think you'd find he would > start looking at it > seriously. If that whole case was to come from > within the ICANN structure, > it would add further weight. > > But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and > offering no solution is > not going to achieve much. > > Just my two cents. > > I should also say that if people do participate in > ICANN's processes they > not only benefit from engagement with others but > also gain the advantages > that come with participation, one of which is that I > would consider it my > duty to make sure that that participation was given > the appropriate > consideration. > > > > > Kieren > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 20:11:57 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:11:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F7A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9F7A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20071122011157.GC8834@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [21/11/07 14:44 -0500]: >Thanks for the echo, that is precisely what I implied. My point was that >you need a broader accountability than merely open comments. _Your_ >point is....? My point is that you are not going to get your way imposed on a process merely by churning out slanted comments. >>* So, who do you give oversight over ICANN? > >The global Internet-using public. So read my next email for why that is a pipe dream. Or translates into something rather different from that high sounding ideal. >Oh yes, I believe that we will eventually. But even if that goal is not >achieved, it is worthwhile to keep the pressure on it so that the >authority is not abused any more than it has been. Funnily enough DoC has been largely hands off on ICANN. >Highly revelatory. You've been criticizing IGP papers on this topic but >now I can tell you haven't read any of them. We have consistently >proposed making ICANN accountable to the global public, and not to the I know what you have proposed. I didnt say IGF was proposing this at all. I am telling you the two alternatives that will emerge .. if you hand a process over to "the general public" you either have * Civil society groups claiming to represent the general public - or various sections of it. or * Governments, and intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, that are, in the end analysis, voted into power by the general public (e&oe places where tinpot dictators sieze power from the elected government, or where there is one party rule with rubber stamp "elections" etc etc - but the vast majority of the world has democratically elected governments) >UN or any other intergovernmental agency. We have proposed >de-nationalization, not multi-lateralization. Pipe dream. Please do tell me what you have been smoking so far to churn out these "papers", I do wish to avoid it. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Wed Nov 21 22:27:00 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:27:00 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <4744F704.4090000@mdpi.net> Dear Meryem Rolling back the thread to answer few question and to try clarify some issue about the *NET4D* proposal http://www.net4d.org/ How it became that the thread /DNSsec and allternative DNS system /became /Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality/ - after your post ? /Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system/ Why renaming the thread ? The linkage with DNSsec is quite important since it increases the importance and power of the overseer of a root DNS system. why remove it ? Net Neutrality is an interesting concept that could be applied to the network of DNS servers that indeed should be "neutral" in regards to the class of the network of which are carrying the resolving system. It was I could sense from your post, but is it what you had in mind ? Thanks for the clarification. Yet I would like to underline, against all expected FUD, that the NET4D is not all yet another set of "boutique" TLDs. that have flourished illegally within the IN class, bringing confusion and fragmentation. Best regards Francis > Karl, > > I'm in full agreement with your views on alternate (I do prefer the > concept of existing alternatives, rather than competition, generally > speaking and specially in this context) root systems, except on one > point, dealing with how to ensure consistency: > > Le 15 nov. 07 à 01:24, Karl Auerbach a écrit : > >> [...] >> But the looser definition of "consistency" that I advocate, new TLDs >> could arise - I call them "boutique" TLDs - that strive for sunlight >> and growth. They would, at first be found only in a few root systems >> - perhaps because they offer something interesting, perhaps they paid >> their way in, whatever - that's the normal task of "building a brand" >> that goes with any new product that seeks space on store shelves. >> >> Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain >> tiny boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root >> system that offers them, and some will grow to become new members of >> the "every root must have" club. >> >> This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any central >> ICANN-like authority. > > There is no such "natural" growth, taking into account the fact that > not all TLDs, and specially "boutique" TLDs can afford "building a > brand", which is very costly, or even are intererested in building > such brand. > There are alternatives to a "laissez-faire", marked-oriented approach. > Since this list is - sometimes - discussing global governance issues, > why not elaborating and discussing a way to guarantee that any - > "boutique" or not - TLD should be found in any root system, *provided* > that they obey some simple rules to ensure overall consistency (like, > e.g., a TLD string should be unique: a unique .com, a unique .org, > etc., but also a unique .karl if anyone finds any interest in such a > TLD. And any other needed rule to ensure that everything works fine, > technically -- and to ensure only this objective). It's typically a* > network neutrality issue.* > Who would check that these rules are obeyed? Well, isn't this exactly > the role of a global internet governance institution? Yes, I know, > this requires a lot of elaboration and discussion, not that simple, > but a huge step forward would be accomplished if only we could agree > on the principle that such a discussion should be started. > >> Now some will say that "what if I get email from >> somebody at someplace.boutique-tld, how am I to answer it?" >> >> The answer is that "you don't". > [...] >> >> That's life > > Not, that's not life. That's free market instead of global public > policy in view of the general interest. > And that's certainly not network neutrality. > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: Net4DS.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10893 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From KovenRonald at aol.com Thu Nov 22 03:33:19 2007 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:33:19 EST Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: In a message dated 22/11/07 2:12:41, suresh at hserus.net writes: > the vast majority of the world has democratically elected governments > The statement above is inaccurate. A small minority of countries in Africa, the Arab world and the former Soviet Union can be said by normal criteria to have democratically elected governments. There are some 90 clearly non-democratic governments represented in the UN. The implication of that for I'net governance is the obvious one that transferring responsibility for cyberspace to a UN body would mean that it would be controlled in the interests of non-democratic states. Best regards, Rony Koven ************************************** Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 03:41:46 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:11:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000c01c82ce3$85e254a0$91a6fde0$@net> Er, as opposed to how many democratically elected governments? The UN has 192 member states - so that's a majority, a simple majority to be sure but . There are also the mechanics there .. tinpot dictatorships that depend largely for aid on one country or the other will toe the voting line of that country in the UN, or they will vote as blocs etc etc. But how different is that from domain kiters (say) having a voice in ICANN? suresh From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In a message dated 22/11/07 2:12:41, suresh at hserus.net writes: the vast majority of the world has democratically elected governments The statement above is inaccurate. A small minority of countries in Africa, the Arab world and the former Soviet Union can be said by normal criteria to have democratically elected governments. There are some 90 clearly non-democratic governments represented in the UN. The implication of that for I'net governance is the obvious one that transferring responsibility for cyberspace to a UN body would mean that it would be controlled in the interests of non-democratic states. Best regards, Rony Koven ************************************** Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) -------------- 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 Nov 22 04:20:12 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:20:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <20071122010603.GB8834@hserus.net> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> <82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org> <20071122010603.GB8834@hserus.net> Message-ID: Le 22 nov. 07 à 02:06, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki [21/11/07 19:28 +0100]: >> Doesn't this advocate in favor of day to day policy making, as >> well as first levels of control, as close as possible to end >> users? And leave only higher coordination levels to global >> entities? The closer you are, the > > This wont unfortunately work .. there's enough of a gap between global > operational concerns and local concerns .. with 90%++ of local > concerns > being caused by reasons that just can't be laid at ICANN's door. You're perfectly right, but the point is that we aren't talking of the same "local" : you refer to the current framework, with ICANN making global policy (like TLDs approval, etc. : all what ICANN is currently doing) and I refer to a framework where we have many "ICANNs", i.e. making their own policies encompassing the same tasks at local levels (approval of local TLDs, etc.). And to further clarify, "local" doesn't necessarily mean geographically local, but local to one of these many "ICANNs" in terms of policy making: one such local ICANN could perfectly be Worldwide-Friends-of-Suresh-ICANN. I'm following up here to the coordinated decentralization scheme I suggested some days ago: a coordination of many roots and many "ICANNs". (Note that I don't necessarily advocate many roots in the technical sense, but if this is needed to obtain many "ICANNs" as "political roots" making their sovereign policy for a given group of TLDs, then fine). Example with the current TLDs, instead of the current situation with ICANN, let's suppose that we have: - For the ccTLDs: + ICANN-1 for all the ccTLDs (that we can call ITU if one insists:)), or, alternatively + ICANN-1 for all ccTLDs of UN Region 1, ..., ICANN-5 for all ccTLDs of UN Region 5 (or are they 6 regions?) - For the gTLDs: + ICANN-6 (if choosing the second proposal above)) for, say, 20% of the current .org 2LDs (let's call their gTLD .20pcorg) plus, say, 30% of the current .com 2LDs (under .30pccom gTLD) + ... until , say, ICANN-25: any re-grouping of current 2LDs under different gTLDs. I'm not interested in the re-grouping criteria as for now. + ICANN-26 to ICANN-n: one for each current alternative root + ICANN-(n+1) to ICANN-m: one for each future other alternative root Let me repeat here: this is only for the sake of examplifying, and, all these (1 to m) roots under these 1 to m ICANNs management being coordinated. In this situation, local day to day policy making and first levels of control means that any ICANN-x is sovereign (and accountable to its users) for: new TLD approval under its own root, its own UDRP policy within its jurisdiction, etc. (all kind of policy making ICANN is during doing at global level). [...] >> By manageable, I mean that, as a voter, you have enough means of >> finding your way through it, understand what is at stake, what are >> the proposals from the different candidates, and have a reasonable >> chance to make a > > So, how many voters do you think are going to be actually there who > fit > that profile and who arent already icann regulars [...] > or on the fringes of ICANN as observers [...] Much more, all in all, than at the at-large ICANN elections. Because they would vote for elections at *their* ICANN-x board, local to them, be it a geographical or a political locality. But this is only expectations, just like yours. The right answer currently is "who knows?". But let me add that, in such a framework, while elections do still matter, they matter far less, actually, since you can choose to change from ICANN-x to ICANN-y if you disagree with ICANN-x policy and you prefer ICANN-y policy. You can even start your own ICANN-z, provided that you are in position to coalesce with a reasonably large group of like-minded people/organizations. After all, you have such (though limited) choice currently at registrar level, and even (though indirectly) at registy level, simply by moving to another provider. Awareness is an issue of highest importance. But first it's easier to raise awareness at a local level than at the global level, explaining what is at stake with situations that average people understand, because they understand how they affect them, instead of having to read all ICANN and ICANN-related thousands of reports and having to attend or even simply follow ICANN meetings (you explained yourself many times how this is unfeasible). As I see it, awareness and capacity building on Internet governance issues (in narrow: DNS policy; or broad understanding; everything from human rights to consumer to - you name it - issues) is integral part of Internet literacy needs: a sine qua non condition to be a full, self-determined, citizen (not only consumer or user) using the Internet. I share your concerns about biased overviews, etc. But I also know that is hardly avoidable, in the same way as there are different candidates in a political election presenting biased views, and, after all, that's normal: there is no "single truth" here, there are political choices (although with more or less honesty, I agree, but we're humans, after all). The only way to make this easier to avoid is, in addition to capacity building, to have many different views than can be expressed and chosen. > Fully agree here but we are not going to fix this by changing the > voting > process. I agree with this and changing the voting process is not my demand. I already said that, even if improved, an at-large global voting process wont be satisfactory. My point is to have many local elections to local ICANNs, and neither one global election to a global ICANN, nor many local elections to a still global ICANN. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 22 04:49:31 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:49:31 +0100 Subject: Netiquette [was: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system] Message-ID: <8695A59C-9F56-4EB1-8023-C5849988CE5B@ras.eu.org> Francis, I don't understand your question, and even less if it is intended as a demand for "clarification". I'm using the Internet for long enough to know that, when a discussion topic moves to another, it's basic netiquette to change the thread on a mailing list or in a Usenet newsgroup or whatever discussion group. Actually, a true orthodox, who I am not, would have started an entirely new thread, but it's better than nothing:). Note that this time I did.. And I'm adult enough to claim that I'm free to discuss any topic I want, provided that it falls into the general objectives of the list. I note that you're the only one showing this reaction, while this thread started 7 days ago and has generated quite a high number of messages from different participants. What's the point? And, BTW, speaking of showing respect to others in one's behavior, when you reproduce someone else message, please don't change anything in it without permission, or at least without making clear that *you* introduced the change. This is also valid when simply turning in bold some words like you did. Normally, this should be accompanied by the note "emphasize is mine" or whatever is the right formulation in English ("c'est moi qui souligne", in French). Thanks. Meryem Le 22 nov. 07 à 04:27, Dr. Francis MUGUET a écrit : > Dear Meryem > > Rolling back the thread to answer few question and to try clarify > some issue > about the NET4D proposal > > > > http://www.net4d.org/ > > > > How it became that the thread DNSsec and allternative DNS system > became Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - > after your post ? > Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] > DNSsec and allternative DNS system > > Why renaming the thread ? > > The linkage with DNSsec is quite important since it increases the > importance and power > of the overseer of a root DNS system. > why remove it ? > > Net Neutrality is an interesting concept that could be applied to the > network of DNS servers that indeed should be "neutral" > in regards to the class of the network > of which are carrying the resolving system. > It was I could sense from your post, but > is it what you had in mind ? > > Thanks for the clarification. > > Yet I would like to underline, against all expected FUD, > that the NET4D is not all yet another set of "boutique" TLDs. that > have flourished illegally within the IN class, bringing confusion > and fragmentation. > > Best regards > > Francis > > >> Karl, >> >> I'm in full agreement with your views on alternate (I do prefer >> the concept of existing alternatives, rather than competition, >> generally speaking and specially in this context) root systems, >> except on one point, dealing with how to ensure consistency: >> >> Le 15 nov. 07 à 01:24, Karl Auerbach a écrit : >> >>> [...] >>> But the looser definition of "consistency" that I advocate, new >>> TLDs could arise - I call them "boutique" TLDs - that strive for >>> sunlight and growth. They would, at first be found only in a few >>> root systems - perhaps because they offer something interesting, >>> perhaps they paid their way in, whatever - that's the normal task >>> of "building a brand" that goes with any new product that seeks >>> space on store shelves. >>> >>> Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain >>> tiny boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root >>> system that offers them, and some will grow to become new members >>> of the "every root must have" club. >>> >>> This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any >>> central ICANN-like authority. >> >> There is no such "natural" growth, taking into account the fact >> that not all TLDs, and specially "boutique" TLDs can afford >> "building a brand", which is very costly, or even are intererested >> in building such brand. >> There are alternatives to a "laissez-faire", marked-oriented >> approach. Since this list is - sometimes - discussing global >> governance issues, why not elaborating and discussing a way to >> guarantee that any - "boutique" or not - TLD should be found in >> any root system, *provided* that they obey some simple rules to >> ensure overall consistency (like, e.g., a TLD string should be >> unique: a unique .com, a unique .org, etc., but also a >> unique .karl if anyone finds any interest in such a TLD. And any >> other needed rule to ensure that everything works fine, >> technically -- and to ensure only this objective). It's typically >> a network neutrality issue. >> Who would check that these rules are obeyed? Well, isn't this >> exactly the role of a global internet governance institution? Yes, >> I know, this requires a lot of elaboration and discussion, not >> that simple, but a huge step forward would be accomplished if only >> we could agree on the principle that such a discussion should be >> started. >> >>> Now some will say that "what if I get email from >>> somebody at someplace.boutique-tld, how am I to answer it?" >>> >>> The answer is that "you don't". >> [...] >>> >>> That's life >> >> Not, that's not life. That's free market instead of global public >> policy in view of the general interest. >> And that's certainly not network neutrality. >> >> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > -- - > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Nov 22 04:57:15 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:57:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> <82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org> <20071122010603.GB8834@hserus.net> Message-ID: <04311DEA-612A-4903-9653-CFFDEF5B1F17@ras.eu.org> Le 22 nov. 07 à 10:20, Meryem Marzouki a écrit : > But let me add that, in such a framework, while elections do still > matter, they matter far less, actually, since you can choose to > change from ICANN-x to ICANN-y if you disagree with ICANN-x policy > and you prefer ICANN-y policy. You can even start your own ICANN-z, > provided that you are in position to coalesce with a reasonably > large group of like-minded people/organizations. After all, you > have such (though limited) choice currently at registrar level, and > even (though indirectly) at registy level, simply by moving to > another provider. Sorry, I meant moving to another domain name. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Nov 22 09:13:24 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> Hi Milton I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue to skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information about the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users who are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected enough to find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do use the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those users, and return with information on how those users see specific issues. That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since the Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've seen to educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and technical issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that this is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model that is not there in "direct representation" But if there were to be another "global election"... What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many people as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of 1 billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can we do this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate against non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user knows about the vote and the issues? It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth, but right now, any election would not be truly 'global" jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Yehuda: It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost the election in the US and Europe. This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small stakes individual internet users have in domain name issues. To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be starting soon * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at large itself and advocate that position. > -----Original Message----- > From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > To: > Mr. Kieren McCarthy > General Manager of Public Participation > > Ok Kieren lets work together, > > I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, > which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 > Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm > > Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. > (walk me through it) > Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, > Who should we contact directly? > and How should we best approach the subject matter? > (provide us some suggested text) > > Thnx > y > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: > 11/19/2007 12:35 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 12:35 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 19:05 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Nov 22 09:32:01 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:32:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <993205.54072.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <00e301c82c7c$107a0c60$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <993205.54072.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <028c01c82d14$73b50c60$5b1f2520$@com> Hi Danny I miss how this will be much more representative - drawn from the pool of candidates who previously stood for At large election? How are these people representative of individual internet users in Lopinot in Trinidad for example (who didn't hear at all about the election in 2000 and as such were disenfranchised)? And how are they drawn? And yes, I read the full document. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 21:07 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Kieren, You know, you really should make an effort to read the public comments submitted once in a while... I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public comment submitted at this URL: http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html Here's the gist of it: A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat at-large directors on the ICANN board. The solution: Those directors that are not currently elected by ICANN’s Supporting Organizations come to the board by way of ICANN’s “Nominating Committee”, a body populated exclusively by special-interest representatives. This committee must be eliminated and must be replaced by a new committee populated exclusively by public-interest representatives. These representatives will be drawn from the pool of candidates that previously stood for at-large election. These voices of the public will then, through the same set of processes used by the current Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large directors that will take their seats on the ICANN board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor the principle of balanced representation). By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of the Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?". Prior Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived at a consensus-based recommendation to have the at-large seated on one third of the Board). Unfortunately, we have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is superior to that of the commmunity and who feel quite comfortable rejecting consensus-based determinations. Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded as the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead of as a functionary that is charged with pushing the prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that instead are screaming for accountability via true multistakeholder representation. Time will tell. best wishes, and again thanks for your perspective. --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > I understand where you're coming from Danny. But you > asked me what the best > method was and that's the answer. > > What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that > participation within > those structures won't work. I don't agree. I think > it will work. Moreover > what I am saying is that *unless* people participate > in those structures, > there won't be change along the lines you suggested. > > If you have other suggestions that could practically > work please throw them > in. > > The problem with your suggestion of writing letters > to the chairman is that > the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix this?" > and we end up in the > exact same place that we are now. > > Now if you could present a clear case as to why such > a change would be in > ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of > suggested routes for > getting there, then I think you'd find he would > start looking at it > seriously. If that whole case was to come from > within the ICANN structure, > it would add further weight. > > But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and > offering no solution is > not going to achieve much. > > Just my two cents. > > I should also say that if people do participate in > ICANN's processes they > not only benefit from engagement with others but > also gain the advantages > that come with participation, one of which is that I > would consider it my > duty to make sure that that participation was given > the appropriate > consideration. > > > > > Kieren > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1142 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 17:44 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 09:43:02 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:13:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <028c01c82d14$73b50c60$5b1f2520$@com> References: <00e301c82c7c$107a0c60$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <993205.54072.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <028c01c82d14$73b50c60$5b1f2520$@com> Message-ID: <008301c82d15$fdd7ca80$f9875f80$@net> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > I miss how this will be much more representative - drawn from the pool > of candidates who previously stood for At large election? How are these > people representative of individual internet users in Lopinot in Trinidad for > example (who didn't hear at all about the election in 2000 and as such > were disenfranchised)? And how are they drawn? And how do you expect these disenfranchised stakeholders to participate meaningfully? The points Meryem Marzouki raised kind of help, but an entrenched body with substantial investment in it is strongly entrenched and change resistant in terms of changing election procedures. However, there is a consensus driven process in place - only, of course, the " usual suspects" turning up at every icann meeting trump those folks who haven't heard of icann and aren't likely to. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Nov 22 10:36:51 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:36:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <02b101c82d1d$82d24920$8876db60$@com> Hi Dan Sounds good. I would support a bylaw change of that nature... Right now the only group that has that sort of relationship with the Board is the GAC - issues they raise are required to be addressed (in the ByLaws) One concern is the sheer number of comments (ICANN staff is way smaller than the US Govt!)- and also how to determine substantive comments - for example, all comments could be deemed "non-substantive" and ignored if one were really determined to ignore comments contrary to a particular point of view or course of action... The timing is also important - we've already raised the fact with ICANN that 20 or 30 days is nowhere near enough for some to be able to comment (esp when the translations come out 10 days or more later) - if I want the ALS that I am a part of to comment, I have to bring it up to the group, we have some online discussions, we have a public meeting to discuss the issue, we create a sub-group to draft up a document, we take that document back to the full membership, and then we send it to ICANN. Difficult to do that in 20 days, especially since so many documents are so poorly written and jargon-ridden - we often have to spend some time creating a readable summary to offer to the members and the public before we have the discussion meeting. On the other hand, we also do comments on ISO and other groups and we have quite a while to work on them, so we do have substantive and considered comments. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 23:56 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-17oct07. pdf Kieren, stop your bluster. This is not about you. I read this document when you posted it before, and it contains utterly nothing in terms of formal requirements for incorporating comments from the public into policy *decisions*. I refer to the section "ICANN CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES" on pp. 18-19. The principles listed involve lots of ways that people can *look in* on ICANN deliberations (though the transaction costs of such monitoring, not to mention active participation, are high, and still work against broad accountability in practice). At the end is where it determines that there will be a "public participation web site" and what is to be done with that input. My issue here is not whether the public has a place to voice its opinions (let us assume for the moment that it is working fine in all respects), the point is whether those public opinions will be *taken into account* by those *actually deciding policy* at ICANN. So, in particular, on p.19, there is the following bullet point, with regard to public comments: * Request explicit discussion of that summary and analysis by the relevant body while discussing the topic under consideration This only requires that explicit *mention* be made in summary of public comments, but does nothing to require the "relevant body" at ICANN to *address and respond meaningfully to the substance* of those comments in an explicit manner, so as to create a comprehensive rational justification for policy that becomes part of ICANN's public and legal record. The relevant body can say "thank you very much, now let's move on" and is not formally required to address the substance of the comments. But, when such policy is finally delivered to the Board, does the Board have the authority to address the detailed substance of those public comments? It remains unclear as a procedural matter, so far as I know. Everyone seems to be passing the buck to someone else. ----- As a comparison, let me refer you to a statement on Regulations.gov, the US federal counterpart to your public participation web site: "As part of the rulemaking process, the Department or Agency is required to consider the public comments received on the proposed regulation. When the Department or Agency publishes the text of the final regulation in the Federal Register, it generally incorporates a response to the significant issues raised by those who submitted comments and discusses any changes made to the regulation as a result." http://www.regulations.gov -- see FAQ item "What is a Rulemaking?" The point here is that the rulemaking bodies of US federal agencies are generally required to consider public comments substantively (not merely mention or summarize them or hear or listen to them), and respond explicitly to those comments, including a coherent rationale for resulting agency rules in light of the substance of those comments. It suggests that public comments can have an impact on changing the substance of the rules before they are finalized. In short, if a member of the public submits a substantive comment to the agency (during a public comment period) suggesting a change in some proposed rule, the agency must explain how and why the rule that is finally promulgated has a rational justification in light of the issues raised in that comment. It may not ignore the substance of the comment, and the rational basis for the rule is subject to explicit legal review -- it becomes part of the legal record and is actionable in court. If the agency blows by the comment in a way that suggests that it did not take the issue into account in a genuinely substantive manner, that rule may well be vulnerable to legal challenge and reversal by the court system. This kind of tangible impact and legal enforceability of public comments on policy-making is what seems to be missing from ICANN's bylaws -- it certainly is not contained in the document you referenced here. It makes ICANN's public transparency ineffectual in real political terms, because it does not require ICANN's policy-making bodies to incorporate the substance of public comments systematically and explicitly into its policy-making decisions. This is where the gears might actually get engaged between the engine (of public comments to ICANN) and the drive-train (of ICANN policy-making). ----- One of the logistical challenges at ICANN at present is that public comments are open only at the end of long drawn-out policy-making processes where policy makers have already hardened their positions, there is little time left to consider changes once the comment period closes, and thus substantive issues are least likely to be addressed in a substantive manner by a volunteer policy-making body under deadline. One possible strategy to address this problem is to open public input much earlier in the process, so that members of the public can offer input at a time when it might have more potential to make an impact on the policy-makers at ICANN. And, to preclude the sorts of deadlines after the end of public comment periods that undermine the feasibility of addressing public comments substantively. This could address the time crunch issue. Another thing that could help is to formally require policy decisions at ICANN to include explicit responses to all substantive issues raised by the public, and to require coherent and rational justification for the resulting policy in light of those issues -- and to determine some way of legally enforcing claims against the policy if it appears the justification was not fully legitimate, with the entity that has enforcement authority being meaningfully separated from the power structure that creates the policy in the first place (this is called an "independent judiciary" in policy circles, and it is a fundamental prerequisite for genuinely democratic forms of governance, in the nature of "checks and balances"). These sorts of things should be added to ICANN's bylaws so that they have formal weight in the institutional structure overall. ----- See, Kieren, I'm not blaming you personally. So far as I know you are doing your job just fine, at least well enough given your relatively short time on the job. I also don't blame the specific policy-makers, since they are volunteering their time often under difficult time pressure and contentious conditions of deliberation. (Except for those who are paid to do this work by their regular employers that make these duties part of their official private job descriptions.) The problem seems to be that you are tossing all of your hard work into a black hole where it has no meaningful chance for actual impact on policy-making inside ICANN. And policy-makers are being placed in a double-bind trying to simultaneously come up with a "consensus" process under deadline, and to address public comments at the last moment. The problem is not with the individuals involved, it is with the structure of the process, and responsibility rests with those who structure that process. If this dysfunction is intentional, then it is nefarious (on the part of those who structure ICANN's administrative procedures). If it is unintentional, then it points to room (and call) for *significant* improvement in the structure of these administrative procedures. I wish you wouldn't take this so personally. I didn't accuse you of writing the bylaws, or failing to elicit public comments, etc. My problems with ICANN's administrative procedures are not in your court, because I assume you have no individual authority to change them. I address these issues to those who *do* have the authority to decide how things run at ICANN. Of course, if you are put in the position of being a spokesperson for those with that authority (like a presidential press secretary), then you are in a really tough position, and I don't envy you because to do your job means you have to push back at even admitting problems in this area, thus obstructing even the consideration of potential solutions. 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1142 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 17:44 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Nov 22 10:38:51 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:38:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <008301c82d15$fdd7ca80$f9875f80$@net> References: <00e301c82c7c$107a0c60$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <993205.54072.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <028c01c82d14$73b50c60$5b1f2520$@com> <008301c82d15$fdd7ca80$f9875f80$@net> Message-ID: <02b201c82d1d$c9f24b20$5dd6e160$@com> That's exactly the question I'm asking of the person who proposed this (Danny)... How do all the Internet users get to be represented in this solution... Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:43 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jacqueline A. Morris'; 'Danny Younger'; 'Kieren McCarthy' Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > I miss how this will be much more representative - drawn from the pool > of candidates who previously stood for At large election? How are these > people representative of individual internet users in Lopinot in Trinidad for > example (who didn't hear at all about the election in 2000 and as such > were disenfranchised)? And how are they drawn? And how do you expect these disenfranchised stakeholders to participate meaningfully? The points Meryem Marzouki raised kind of help, but an entrenched body with substantial investment in it is strongly entrenched and change resistant in terms of changing election procedures. However, there is a consensus driven process in place - only, of course, the " usual suspects" turning up at every icann meeting trump those folks who haven't heard of icann and aren't likely to. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 22 11:04:28 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:04:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Randomly selected Nomination Committee In-Reply-To: <200711201527.lAKFRLTP008150@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200711221603.lAMG3a7g020674@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Please below the result of the random selection process for the 5 CS Nom Com members. The programme will be run again tomorrow morning in order to confirm this result. See below for the details, which was described on-line at http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag &id=10462&start1=5 The first 5 are: 12. Ezendu Ariwa (London Metropolitan University) 4. François Ullman (Ingénieurs du Monde) 18. Louis Pouzin (Eurolinc) 20. Ginger Paque (UNA Venezuale, Diplo Foundation) 9. Delphine Nana (ACSIS) If some of the five randomly selected members are not available or do not get back to me, the following volunteers will be contacted (with numbers in the following order: 16, 10, 22, 13 and 15). The road map is simple: I’ll contact the 5 nom com members who will now confirm their involvement by 24 hours, and they would start by establishing working methods and guidelines / criteria, and then start discussion on their recommendation to the GAID Secretariat when the list of nominated candidates is over (i.e. 25 November 2007). I’ll act as not voting facilitator among the 5 Nom Com members. Ph PS: The initial arrangement was that one can be both among the volunteers and among the nominations. If randomly selected, he/she is highly encourage to opt for the NomCom rather than for the nomination --------------------------- Pre-announced Seeds drawn on Wednesday 21 Nov 2007 after final list was published. http://www.lotto.ie/ 15 17 22 25 38 39 http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/home/home.do 06 08 24 25 32 47 http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_numbers.asp 03 11 13 20 40 Run of the program [rather:~/tools/rfc3797-process] avri% ./random-order Type size of pool: warning: this program uses gets(), which is unsafe. (or 'exit' to exit) 23 Type number of items to be selected: (or 'exit' to exit) 10 Approximately 20.2 bits of entropy needed. Type #1 randomness or 'end' followed by new line. Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up to 16 x.y format reals. 15 17 22 25 38 39 15 17 22 25 38 39 Type #2 randomness or 'end' followed by new line. Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up to 16 x.y format reals. 06 8 24 25 32 47 6 8 24 25 32 47 Type #3 randomness or 'end' followed by new line. Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up to 16 x.y format reals. 03 11 13 20 40 3 11 13 20 40 Type #4 randomness or 'end' followed by new line. Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up to 16 x.y format reals. end Key is: 15.17.22.25.38.39./6.8.24.25.32.47./3.11.13.20.40./ index hex value of MD5 div selected 1 6FE0CE0AE3262ABCFCC2F6D93E04B7C0 23 -> 12 <- 2 85903E33C8B4085F3A0A175256F8C6FB 22 -> 4 <- 3 F66F372759A47A1AB1CF57FD18AACAC2 21 -> 18 <- 4 0BF7B41B26268ECB9555D376854E3DF0 20 -> 20 <- 5 D6522F4A4E126F750900DDD8252E1A42 19 -> 9 <- 6 CACED59569100E982E7B2561F13713E0 18 -> 16 <- 7 B8D6012E55EDB4859A195111434DF6D7 17 -> 10 <- 8 2BB554AD464ABC898847E43349AE258E 16 -> 22 <- 9 B35D2430B335BE52113C82478E8AD872 15 -> 13 <- 10 177AADD7EE1D56532C0489B1243628CF 14 -> 15 <- _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mardi, 20. novembre 2007 16:28 À : 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Deadline to volunteer in Nom Com is todaymidnight - more volunteers needed. Importance : Haute Thanks Lisa, Yes there is on line a list of volunteers to serve in the NomCom and of self nominations for the CS membership into the GAID Strategy Council we received so far. The description of the whole process as previously circulated on this list is available on: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=news &id=10462. As you know, the GAID Secretariat announced that 3 to 4 CS seats in the Strategy Council will be renewed (corresponding to approximately one third of the 10 CS members of the Strategy Council, composed of a total of 40 members). - Volunteers to serve in the NomCom: We only have 13 volunteers so far and as you know we would need 25 to make the selection completely random. The deadline for volunteering is TODAY at 0.00. The random selection process will indeed take place tomorrow. If we don’t reach this number of 25, we would have to consider cancelling the whole self nomination process and would not be in a position to submit a recommendation for the new CS members of the Strategy Council to the GAID Secretariat. - Nominated candidates for the GAID Strategy Council: I only received so far 4 nominations. We also need much more to make this process meaningful. Deadline for nominations of candidates is 25 November. Nominations could be self-candidatures of nominations by others. To nominate through this process, send to wsis at ngocongo.org the following information: Name: CS Affiliation(s): Country: Gender: Age: Biographical Statement: Vision of their specific contribution to the GA Strategy Council: In parallel to that, one CS seat of the GAID steering committee is also going to be open to rotation. The Steering Committee is composed of 10 members, including 2 from civil society. As also previously announced, I am also trying to mobilize the CS outgoing members of the Strategy Council and the HL Advisors to make a recommendation to the GAID Secretariat on the CS seat of the GAID Steering Committee to be renewed. I would come back to you later about that. Best, Philippe _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr. Envoyi : vendredi, 16. novembre 2007 21:27 @ : Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Update on the CS self-nomination process for GAID Strategy Council - need more volunteers and more candidates Philippe, I volunteer to be a member of the noncom. Please will you share the list of those who’ve already volunteered as well as the names of those put forward for nomination to the strategy council? Best, Lisa McLaughlin Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D. Mass Communication & Women’s Studies Williams Hall Miami University, Ohio 45056 USA tele: +1 513 5293547 fax: +1 513 5291835 On 11/16/07 11:09 AM, "CONGO - IS" 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! _______________________________________ -------------- 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 Thu Nov 22 12:40:26 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:40:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <993205.54072.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <00e301c82c7c$107a0c60$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <993205.54072.qm@web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005001c82d2e$c5125e40$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Ad hominem attack. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:07 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Kieren, You know, you really should make an effort to read the public comments submitted once in a while... I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public comment submitted at this URL: http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html Here's the gist of it: A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat at-large directors on the ICANN board. The solution: Those directors that are not currently elected by ICANN's Supporting Organizations come to the board by way of ICANN's "Nominating Committee", a body populated exclusively by special-interest representatives. This committee must be eliminated and must be replaced by a new committee populated exclusively by public-interest representatives. These representatives will be drawn from the pool of candidates that previously stood for at-large election. These voices of the public will then, through the same set of processes used by the current Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large directors that will take their seats on the ICANN board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor the principle of balanced representation). By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of the Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?". Prior Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived at a consensus-based recommendation to have the at-large seated on one third of the Board). Unfortunately, we have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is superior to that of the commmunity and who feel quite comfortable rejecting consensus-based determinations. Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded as the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead of as a functionary that is charged with pushing the prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that instead are screaming for accountability via true multistakeholder representation. Time will tell. best wishes, and again thanks for your perspective. --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > I understand where you're coming from Danny. But you > asked me what the best > method was and that's the answer. > > What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that > participation within > those structures won't work. I don't agree. I think > it will work. Moreover > what I am saying is that *unless* people participate > in those structures, > there won't be change along the lines you suggested. > > If you have other suggestions that could practically > work please throw them > in. > > The problem with your suggestion of writing letters > to the chairman is that > the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix this?" > and we end up in the > exact same place that we are now. > > Now if you could present a clear case as to why such > a change would be in > ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of > suggested routes for > getting there, then I think you'd find he would > start looking at it > seriously. If that whole case was to come from > within the ICANN structure, > it would add further weight. > > But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and > offering no solution is > not going to achieve much. > > Just my two cents. > > I should also say that if people do participate in > ICANN's processes they > not only benefit from engagement with others but > also gain the advantages > that come with participation, one of which is that I > would consider it my > duty to make sure that that participation was given > the appropriate > consideration. > > > > > Kieren > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 12:45:09 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:45:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <005001c82d2e$c5125e40$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <132951.65249.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kieren, If you regard this as an ad hominen attack, then perhaps a brief vacation to settle your nerves might be in order. regards, Danny --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > Ad hominem attack. > > > > Kieren > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:07 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Kieren, > > You know, you really should make an effort to read > the > public comments submitted once in a while... > > I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public > comment submitted at this URL: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html > > Here's the gist of it: > > A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat > at-large directors on the ICANN board. > > The solution: > > Those directors that are not currently elected by > ICANN's Supporting Organizations come to the board > by > way of ICANN's "Nominating Committee", a body > populated exclusively by special-interest > representatives. > > This committee must be eliminated and must be > replaced > by a new committee populated exclusively by > public-interest representatives. These > representatives will be drawn from the pool of > candidates that previously stood for at-large > election. These voices of the public will then, > through the same set of processes used by the > current > Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large > directors that will take their seats on the ICANN > board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor > the principle of balanced representation). > > By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of > the > Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?". Prior > Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to > study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived > at > a consensus-based recommendation to have the > at-large > seated on one third of the Board). Unfortunately, > we > have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is > superior > to that of the commmunity and who feel quite > comfortable rejecting consensus-based > determinations. > > Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded > as > the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead > of > as a functionary that is charged with pushing the > prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that > instead are screaming for accountability via true > multistakeholder representation. Time will tell. > > best wishes, > and again thanks for your perspective. > > > --- Kieren McCarthy > wrote: > > > I understand where you're coming from Danny. But > you > > asked me what the best > > method was and that's the answer. > > > > What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that > > participation within > > those structures won't work. I don't agree. I > think > > it will work. Moreover > > what I am saying is that *unless* people > participate > > in those structures, > > there won't be change along the lines you > suggested. > > > > If you have other suggestions that could > practically > > work please throw them > > in. > > > > The problem with your suggestion of writing > letters > > to the chairman is that > > the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix > this?" > > and we end up in the > > exact same place that we are now. > > > > Now if you could present a clear case as to why > such > > a change would be in > > ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of > > suggested routes for > > getting there, then I think you'd find he would > > start looking at it > > seriously. If that whole case was to come from > > within the ICANN structure, > > it would add further weight. > > > > But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and > > offering no solution is > > not going to achieve much. > > > > Just my two cents. > > > > I should also say that if people do participate in > > ICANN's processes they > > not only benefit from engagement with others but > > also gain the advantages > > that come with participation, one of which is that > I > > would consider it my > > duty to make sure that that participation was > given > > the appropriate > > consideration. > > > > > > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ________ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 13:07:49 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:07:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <132951.65249.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <005001c82d2e$c5125e40$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <132951.65249.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005b01c82d32$984ac1f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Just to be clear. If you review this list's history, every time discussions appear to be going somewhere useful, someone throws out a personal insult and almost instantly it descends into name-calling and nonsense. Perhaps everyone except me thinks this is a terrific way to interact. I think it's what makes me stop reading comments for another week. So, if there is a personal insult lobbed at me, even if it comes amid a bunch of other useful comments - which this email from Danny did, and which Milton's email yesterday did - then I won't respond. If people would prefer that I not recognise that a personal attack has been thrown into discussions as if it was somehow relevant or useful, then I won't respond with "ad hominem attack" in future but will simply not respond. My intention in responding at all is to point out that the message contained useful comments or ideas but that I won't be responding to them - at least not while irrelevant abuse is tagged on. I don't think that's too unreasonable. You are of course all free to continue to be rude to one another, and about me, as much as you like. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Kieren, If you regard this as an ad hominen attack, then perhaps a brief vacation to settle your nerves might be in order. regards, Danny --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > Ad hominem attack. > > > > Kieren > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:07 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Kieren, > > You know, you really should make an effort to read > the > public comments submitted once in a while... > > I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public > comment submitted at this URL: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html > > Here's the gist of it: > > A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat > at-large directors on the ICANN board. > > The solution: > > Those directors that are not currently elected by > ICANN's Supporting Organizations come to the board > by > way of ICANN's "Nominating Committee", a body > populated exclusively by special-interest > representatives. > > This committee must be eliminated and must be > replaced > by a new committee populated exclusively by > public-interest representatives. These > representatives will be drawn from the pool of > candidates that previously stood for at-large > election. These voices of the public will then, > through the same set of processes used by the > current > Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large > directors that will take their seats on the ICANN > board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor > the principle of balanced representation). > > By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of > the > Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?". Prior > Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to > study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived > at > a consensus-based recommendation to have the > at-large > seated on one third of the Board). Unfortunately, > we > have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is > superior > to that of the commmunity and who feel quite > comfortable rejecting consensus-based > determinations. > > Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded > as > the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead > of > as a functionary that is charged with pushing the > prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that > instead are screaming for accountability via true > multistakeholder representation. Time will tell. > > best wishes, > and again thanks for your perspective. > > > --- Kieren McCarthy > wrote: > > > I understand where you're coming from Danny. But > you > > asked me what the best > > method was and that's the answer. > > > > What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that > > participation within > > those structures won't work. I don't agree. I > think > > it will work. Moreover > > what I am saying is that *unless* people > participate > > in those structures, > > there won't be change along the lines you > suggested. > > > > If you have other suggestions that could > practically > > work please throw them > > in. > > > > The problem with your suggestion of writing > letters > > to the chairman is that > > the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix > this?" > > and we end up in the > > exact same place that we are now. > > > > Now if you could present a clear case as to why > such > > a change would be in > > ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of > > suggested routes for > > getting there, then I think you'd find he would > > start looking at it > > seriously. If that whole case was to come from > > within the ICANN structure, > > it would add further weight. > > > > But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and > > offering no solution is > > not going to achieve much. > > > > Just my two cents. > > > > I should also say that if people do participate in > > ICANN's processes they > > not only benefit from engagement with others but > > also gain the advantages > > that come with participation, one of which is that > I > > would consider it my > > duty to make sure that that participation was > given > > the appropriate > > consideration. > > > > > > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ________ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Nov 22 14:37:26 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:37:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> Message-ID: <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each region would elect one rep. Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part of the North American region, not of Latin America and the Caribbean, and so on -- I am sure most Mexicans who knew about this were pissed off knowing they would certainly always be represented by a "gringo", even if this "gringo" were -- and was -- our nice compa Karl Auerbach), but also the electoral system would allow for the perpetuation of certain countries' reps in power. There were no rotation provisions, no parameters to balance a 190M people country like Brazil with a 1M people country like Trinidad and Tobago. Fine, all are Internet users (after we take a huge dosis of naïveté medicine), but in the regional division, the Brazilian rep, in the absence of balancing and rotation provisions, would always win in its region. Mexico or Canada would never win in their region, and so on. BTW, in protest, at the time I voted for the Uruguayan candidate. Is it too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal user representation. Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. We enter into a territory of tremendous complexity when we want to establish representation of the "user community" -- this is too big, too diversified, and at the end too UNrepresentative precisely because of its generic, diverse, multisectoral, multicultural, multi-etc nature. And, most importantly, traversed by all interest groups (the user as a rep is actually a rep of his/her interest group etc etc). So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? --c.a. Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Hi Milton > I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue to > skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who > have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information about > the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users who > are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected enough to > find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. > > There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do use > the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not > spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a > consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those users, > and return with information on how those users see specific issues. > > That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since the > Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've seen to > educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and technical > issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that this > is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model > that is not there in "direct representation" > > But if there were to be another "global election"... > > What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many people > as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of 1 > billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can we do > this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate against > non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How > should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user knows > about the vote and the issues? > > It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth, but > right now, any election would not be truly 'global" > > jacqueline > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:19 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Yehuda: > It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of > accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost the > election in the US and Europe. > > This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which > requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining > organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small stakes > individual internet users have in domain name issues. > > To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: > * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be > starting soon > * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding > * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at large > itself and advocate that position. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >> >> To: >> Mr. Kieren McCarthy >> General Manager of Public Participation >> >> Ok Kieren lets work together, >> >> I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, >> which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 >> Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm >> >> Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. >> (walk me through it) >> Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, >> Who should we contact directly? >> and How should we best approach the subject matter? >> (provide us some suggested text) >> >> Thnx >> y >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: >> 11/19/2007 12:35 PM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 > 12:35 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 > 19:05 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 > 16:28 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 22 16:12:48 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:12:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <005b01c82d32$984ac1f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <005001c82d2e$c5125e40$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <132951.65249.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <005b01c82d32$984ac1f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <4745F0D0.7000905@wzb.eu> Hi Kieren, I fully support your resistance against the rude tone on this list. There is no reason why one should get used to it. I've been wondering for years if this mixture of arrogance and personal attacks on this list is the reason why the active participation is limited to such a low number of people most of which are male. jeanette Kieren McCarthy wrote: > Just to be clear. > > If you review this list's history, every time discussions appear to be going > somewhere useful, someone throws out a personal insult and almost instantly > it descends into name-calling and nonsense. > > Perhaps everyone except me thinks this is a terrific way to interact. I > think it's what makes me stop reading comments for another week. > > So, if there is a personal insult lobbed at me, even if it comes amid a > bunch of other useful comments - which this email from Danny did, and which > Milton's email yesterday did - then I won't respond. > > If people would prefer that I not recognise that a personal attack has been > thrown into discussions as if it was somehow relevant or useful, then I > won't respond with "ad hominem attack" in future but will simply not > respond. > > My intention in responding at all is to point out that the message contained > useful comments or ideas but that I won't be responding to them - at least > not while irrelevant abuse is tagged on. > > I don't think that's too unreasonable. > > You are of course all free to continue to be rude to one another, and about > me, as much as you like. > > > > Kieren > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:45 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Kieren, > > If you regard this as an ad hominen attack, then > perhaps a brief vacation to settle your nerves might > be in order. > > regards, > Danny > > > > --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >> Ad hominem attack. >> >> >> >> Kieren >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:07 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >> >> Kieren, >> >> You know, you really should make an effort to read >> the >> public comments submitted once in a while... >> >> I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public >> comment submitted at this URL: >> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html >> Here's the gist of it: >> >> A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat >> at-large directors on the ICANN board. >> >> The solution: >> >> Those directors that are not currently elected by >> ICANN's Supporting Organizations come to the board >> by >> way of ICANN's "Nominating Committee", a body >> populated exclusively by special-interest >> representatives. >> >> This committee must be eliminated and must be >> replaced >> by a new committee populated exclusively by >> public-interest representatives. These >> representatives will be drawn from the pool of >> candidates that previously stood for at-large >> election. These voices of the public will then, >> through the same set of processes used by the >> current >> Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large >> directors that will take their seats on the ICANN >> board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor >> the principle of balanced representation). >> >> By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of >> the >> Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?". Prior >> Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to >> study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived >> at >> a consensus-based recommendation to have the >> at-large >> seated on one third of the Board). Unfortunately, >> we >> have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is >> superior >> to that of the commmunity and who feel quite >> comfortable rejecting consensus-based >> determinations. >> >> Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded >> as >> the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead >> of >> as a functionary that is charged with pushing the >> prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that >> instead are screaming for accountability via true >> multistakeholder representation. Time will tell. >> >> best wishes, >> and again thanks for your perspective. >> >> >> --- Kieren McCarthy >> wrote: >> >>> I understand where you're coming from Danny. But >> you >>> asked me what the best >>> method was and that's the answer. >>> >>> What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that >>> participation within >>> those structures won't work. I don't agree. I >> think >>> it will work. Moreover >>> what I am saying is that *unless* people >> participate >>> in those structures, >>> there won't be change along the lines you >> suggested. >>> If you have other suggestions that could >> practically >>> work please throw them >>> in. >>> >>> The problem with your suggestion of writing >> letters >>> to the chairman is that >>> the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix >> this?" >>> and we end up in the >>> exact same place that we are now. >>> >>> Now if you could present a clear case as to why >> such >>> a change would be in >>> ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of >>> suggested routes for >>> getting there, then I think you'd find he would >>> start looking at it >>> seriously. If that whole case was to come from >>> within the ICANN structure, >>> it would add further weight. >>> >>> But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and >>> offering no solution is >>> not going to achieve much. >>> >>> Just my two cents. >>> >>> I should also say that if people do participate in >>> ICANN's processes they >>> not only benefit from engagement with others but >>> also gain the advantages >>> that come with participation, one of which is that >> I >>> would consider it my >>> duty to make sure that that participation was >> given >>> the appropriate >>> consideration. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kieren >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________________________ >> ________ >> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. >> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the >> list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ________ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 22 16:36:06 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:36:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4745F646.4090801@wzb.eu> The year 2000 elections were full of flaws. Many of those flaws had to with the fact that none of the organizers had any experience with designing elections, let alone elections on a global scale. If elections had been accepted as a legitimate way of choosing board members, this could have been a learning exercise. There were certainly enough people interested in helping making it work. Those interested may have a look at the recommendations of the At Large Study Committee: http://atlargestudy.org/ or the work of NAIS of which I was a member: http://www.naisproject.org/ National parliamentary elections are the wrong benchmark for ICANN, so is the criteria of global representativeness. Most studies on border-crossing, transnational forms of democracy point out that participation outside of the nation state follows sectoral logics. This means, only a minority of people takes enough of an interest in participating in a process such as ICANN. The lack of representativeness is not only a problem for the individual users but also for governments and the private sector. None of them can claim representativeness in the traditional, national sense. The bi question is how legitimacy can be achieved despite this lack of _numerical_ representativeness. This is a problem that concerns all of us, governments, corporations, NGOS, not only those who are in favor of elections. My point is that elections should not be dismissed on the grounds that they don't achieve the same representativeness as national elections. We are all operating outside of national forms of democracy. We are all forced to come up with inventive solutions that accommodate the volatile constituencies we are faced with. What I dislike most about the current ALAC structure is that it doesn't allow for individual participation. The feature that more or less characterized the first model of ALAC got eliminated. The opportunity for direct, individual participation is one element I find crucial in both national and transnational contexts. jeanette Carlos Afonso wrote: > Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial > flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet > were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the > interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography > professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each > region would elect one rep. > > Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part > of the North American region, not of Latin America and the Caribbean, > and so on -- I am sure most Mexicans who knew about this were pissed off > knowing they would certainly always be represented by a "gringo", even > if this "gringo" were -- and was -- our nice compa Karl Auerbach), but > also the electoral system would allow for the perpetuation of certain > countries' reps in power. > > There were no rotation provisions, no parameters to balance a 190M > people country like Brazil with a 1M people country like Trinidad and > Tobago. Fine, all are Internet users (after we take a huge dosis of > naïveté medicine), but in the regional division, the Brazilian rep, in > the absence of balancing and rotation provisions, would always win in > its region. Mexico or Canada would never win in their region, and so on. > BTW, in protest, at the time I voted for the Uruguayan candidate. Is it > too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will > be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the > interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. > > And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in > the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them > around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, > ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal > user representation. > > Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral > process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give > us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. > > We enter into a territory of tremendous complexity when we want to > establish representation of the "user community" -- this is too big, too > diversified, and at the end too UNrepresentative precisely because of > its generic, diverse, multisectoral, multicultural, multi-etc nature. > And, most importantly, traversed by all interest groups (the user as a > rep is actually a rep of his/her interest group etc etc). > > So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy > and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) > we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think > of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? > > --c.a. > > Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >> Hi Milton >> I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will >> continue to >> skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who >> have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information about >> the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users >> who >> are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected >> enough to >> find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. >> There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do use >> the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not >> spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a >> consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those >> users, >> and return with information on how those users see specific issues. >> That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since the >> Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've >> seen to >> educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and >> technical >> issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that >> this >> is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model >> that is not there in "direct representation" >> >> But if there were to be another "global election"... >> >> What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many >> people >> as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of 1 >> billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can >> we do >> this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate >> against >> non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How >> should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user knows >> about the vote and the issues? >> It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth, >> but >> right now, any election would not be truly 'global" >> >> jacqueline >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, >> November 20, 2007 10:19 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >> >> Yehuda: >> It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of >> accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate >> lost the >> election in the US and Europe. >> >> This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which >> requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining >> organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small >> stakes >> individual internet users have in domain name issues. >> >> To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: * provide >> input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be >> starting soon * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding >> * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at >> large >> itself and advocate that position. >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >>> >>> To: >>> Mr. Kieren McCarthy >>> General Manager of Public Participation >>> >>> Ok Kieren lets work together, >>> >>> I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, >>> which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 >>> Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm >>> >>> Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. >>> (walk me through it) >>> Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, >>> Who should we contact directly? >>> and How should we best approach the subject matter? >>> (provide us some suggested text) >>> >>> Thnx >>> y >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: >>> 11/19/2007 12:35 PM >>> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: >> 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 >> 12:35 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 >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: >> 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 >> 19:05 >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: >> 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 >> 16:28 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 22 16:43:43 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:43:43 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4745F80F.2030202@cavebear.com> Carlos Afonso wrote: > Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial > flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet > were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the > interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography > professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each > region would elect one rep. > > Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part > of the North American region Actually not. The "North Americal" region was Canada, Bermuda, St Pierre, Miquelon, Greenland, and the US. Mexico was carved off into "Latin America". (Perhaps Mexico's old states of from Alta California and Texas ought to have been merged with Latin America as well? ;-) > There were no rotation provisions The terms of the elected board members were shorter (2 years) than the terms of other directors (mainly 3 years) and the boardsquatters (indefinite). > Is it > too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will > be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the > interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. Speaking as one who tried to "represent" 330,000,000 people, I had to abandon idea that I was merely a channel for those people. I tried to synthesize what all of those people would want me to do and I tried to maintain a lot of contact so that I could hear and discuss matters with people, but at the end of the day, it was really my own decision. It's not an easy thing to do. > And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in > the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them > around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, > ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal > user representation. Given that ICANN tried to chop my legs off - metaphorically speaking - from the moment I was elected there really was no opportunity for us to smoothly fit. Don't forget that I ended up having to bring a legal action against ICANN (which I flat out won) because ICANN engaged in unlawful activity to inhibit directors from doing their duties. ICANN was formed on the promise that more than half of the directors would be elected by the public. > Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral > process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give > us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. "coordinated" - what an odd word to apply to that situation. ICANN created some of the most amazingly bad systems to support that election - systems that collapsed under a transaction rate measured in terms of a few transactions per *minute*. And some ICANN affiliates (some still being paid by ICANN) engaged in actions that could easily be construed as "fifth column". Yet despite all of that, the elections worked. Had ICANN not immediately reacted to shred the election process it could have been on the next round, two years later, much more efficient. > So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy > and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) > we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think > of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? The choices are: A) no representation (the present scheme) B) Faux representation (ALAC - a system that dilutes the representation through so many layers that it doesn't really exist) C) Single level representation (what we did in year 2000) with periodic elections (and thus a chance to replace representatives who don't do the desired job.) D) Direct elections on each matter (a system that I think we all agree is not very viable.) Choice "C" worked. --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 Thu Nov 22 19:36:24 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:36:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <004801c82d68$e1d76ea0$a5864be0$@com> Hi CA Yes - the concept of balancing by size also is a very important one. The Caribbean at 14 million or so will never be able to outvote Brasil alone, far less the rest of LA. So what's the incentive for participation in an election of this nature? What do we think about a system of proportional representation to an electoral college (like Danny's new NomCom) - but a big one so that even the smallest country (Like Barbados with 300k people) can have maybe 1 member and thus a voice - and then have that college vote for the 5 or 9 people that will sit on the Board? That seems as if it would solve the problem of size, as well as the problem of not having representation at all - if in a place, we have a few people voting in the first election, we still have a voice in the college with our minimum 1 position, and as internet penetration increases, and users get more interested and more educated, we have more weight as more people vote. But then, none of these people will be truly "representative" of all the millions and millions - so "direct representation" by voting in any way will never be fully "representative". So - is this even something that we should be focusing on or should we focus on getting people more educated and more active and participating, thus getting closer to an informed global user constituency and away from the little cliques of the cognoscenti (us) who currently "represent"? This informed constituency can then leverage its size into power to demand changes. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 15:37 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris Cc: 'Milton L Mueller'; yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each region would elect one rep. Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part of the North American region, not of Latin America and the Caribbean, and so on -- I am sure most Mexicans who knew about this were pissed off knowing they would certainly always be represented by a "gringo", even if this "gringo" were -- and was -- our nice compa Karl Auerbach), but also the electoral system would allow for the perpetuation of certain countries' reps in power. There were no rotation provisions, no parameters to balance a 190M people country like Brazil with a 1M people country like Trinidad and Tobago. Fine, all are Internet users (after we take a huge dosis of naïveté medicine), but in the regional division, the Brazilian rep, in the absence of balancing and rotation provisions, would always win in its region. Mexico or Canada would never win in their region, and so on. BTW, in protest, at the time I voted for the Uruguayan candidate. Is it too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal user representation. Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. We enter into a territory of tremendous complexity when we want to establish representation of the "user community" -- this is too big, too diversified, and at the end too UNrepresentative precisely because of its generic, diverse, multisectoral, multicultural, multi-etc nature. And, most importantly, traversed by all interest groups (the user as a rep is actually a rep of his/her interest group etc etc). So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? --c.a. Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Hi Milton > I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue to > skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who > have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information about > the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users who > are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected enough to > find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. > > There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do use > the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not > spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a > consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those users, > and return with information on how those users see specific issues. > > That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since the > Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've seen to > educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and technical > issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that this > is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model > that is not there in "direct representation" > > But if there were to be another "global election"... > > What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many people > as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of 1 > billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can we do > this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate against > non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How > should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user knows > about the vote and the issues? > > It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth, but > right now, any election would not be truly 'global" > > jacqueline > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:19 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Yehuda: > It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of > accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost the > election in the US and Europe. > > This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which > requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining > organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small stakes > individual internet users have in domain name issues. > > To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: > * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be > starting soon > * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding > * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at large > itself and advocate that position. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >> >> To: >> Mr. Kieren McCarthy >> General Manager of Public Participation >> >> Ok Kieren lets work together, >> >> I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, >> which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 >> Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm >> >> Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. >> (walk me through it) >> Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, >> Who should we contact directly? >> and How should we best approach the subject matter? >> (provide us some suggested text) >> >> Thnx >> y >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: >> 11/19/2007 12:35 PM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 > 12:35 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 > 19:05 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 > 16:28 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 22 19:48:18 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:48:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: 028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com Message-ID: I wanted to post the Statistics for the 2000 At-Large Election. Jacqueline, had some interesting comment, that numbers from the yr-2000 could be used as a start base. Mind you that in 2000 the Internet was in the peak of its .Com Boom and that penetration too todays edges was not nearly as prolific. - The links below are the 2000 At-Large Election Statistics: Database Totals: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/summary1.shtml Member Registrations by Date: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/regbydate.shtml Member Activations by Date: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/actbydate.shtml Activation Delay: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/actdelay.shtml Optional Data by Region (from ICANN): http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/icannstats.shtml Country distribution as of July 31, 2000 (from ICANN): http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/pubstats.shtml Registrations by Day, per Country: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/registrations_by_date.txt Returned pin letters from last year's At-Large election, by country, as of August 19, 2001 (note: this is not a final count): http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/returned_letters.shtml -- 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Nov 22 19:59:08 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:59:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: I wanted to post the Statistics for the 2000 At-Large Election. Jacqueline, had some interesting comments, that numbers from the yr-2000 could be used as a start base. Mind you that in 2000 the Internet was in the peak of its .Com Boom and that penetration too todays edges was not nearly as prolific. The 'Database Totals' are intresting to see, that 34035 votes were eventually used. The 'Optional Data by Region (from ICANN)' is a demographic by Region. The 'Country distribution as of July 31, 2000 (from ICANN)' gives you a better Global Demographic. F.Y.I - 2000 At-Large Election Statistics: Database Totals: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/summary1.shtml Member Registrations by Date: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/regbydate.shtml Member Activations by Date: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/actbydate.shtml ; Activation Delay: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/actdelay.shtml Optional Data by Region (from ICANN): http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/icannstats.shtml Country distribution as of July 31, 2000 (from ICANN): http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/pubstats.shtml Registrations by Day, per Country: http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/registrations_by_date.txt Returned pin letters from last year's At-Large election, by country, as of August 19, 2001 (note: this is not a final count): http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/returned_letters.shtml -- 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Thu Nov 22 20:05:33 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <004801c82d68$e1d76ea0$a5864be0$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> <004801c82d68$e1d76ea0$a5864be0$@com> Message-ID: Hi, (do note cc: list cleaned) rehash, rehash... it is good to see that rehashing 2000 is taking you all through the same steps, and to quite the same conclusions that led us in how to organize and perform the 2000 ICANN elections for Directors. One difference, we actually had a commitment to do them, and did, so we didn't have the luxury of rehashing forever. Now several of you in good faith have laid out the true conceptual problem of a global election like the one made for the ICANN Board in 2000. Assuming for a moment that someone in this list is going to look beyond their ICANN obsession some decade later in life, the following may be a useful transmission of experience. Elections are premised on the idea of dividing the electorate into votes for alternatives. The underlying, unspoken assumption is that there *is* a well-defined electorate. It has been proven by Tyrians and Trojans here that there is none for the global Internet - either you can't assure you get everybody to vote, or you can't find the way to gerrymander them into smaller precincts (the USian term is "constituency", as many know) that suit your taste, or you don't like the districts you get because of their size, geographical location, lack of tie to a geographical location, etc. In the At-Large election without a well-defined electorate is that each candidate essentially not only brings in his/her own vote, he brings his own piece of electorate to register and then vote. Knowing who has registered you can basically know who will win. If spurious or unexpected motives are pushed, you may get equally unexpected electorates (for example, in one country, and in one cultural/language sphere, national pride was moved, including media such as Der Spiegel, with the phrase "it's time for [one of ours] to sit on the global government of the Internet." Skewed, untrustworthy, subject to corporate or national capture, un-transparent... you can get good results, or an engineer who decides to squander his technical-knowledgeability capital to try to outlawyer the lawyers, whatever. In my country, Mexico, we know well how this works. A ruling, powerful party buses in hundreds of peasants to each polling station and wins the day. The party that doesn't have that power loses. This is in a nutshell where we stood in 2000 and where the honest, laboring minds among this group will get when you finish rehashing the question. We in the ICANN Board were faced with the fact that we did have a commitment to get the voice of the general Internet user globally into the policy development of ICANN. What we finally found useful is to build the ALAC structure, based on organization with bona fide existence and representation, and built a web of trust so that we always can know with whom we are talking. The concept is imperfect but less so than the global election. It has more corporativism than some would like (mostly in individualistic cultures) but actually feeds in a strong voice from the users. The record shows this inequivocally. Eventually users' voices, organization, and representation will evolve, and one of the legally-mandated review cycles of ICANN will give rise to a better structure. But the important point for this list is to know what are the difficulties and some solutions, some experiences to be interpreted and translated to other fields, once someone really decides to see beyond, outwards, into the future. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:36:24 -0400 > From: Jacqueline A. Morris > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > Jacqueline A. Morris > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Carlos Afonso' > Cc: 'Milton L Mueller' , yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Hi CA > Yes - the concept of balancing by size also is a very important one. The Caribbean at 14 million or so will never be able to outvote Brasil alone, far less the rest of LA. So what's the incentive for participation in an election of this nature? > What do we think about a system of proportional representation to an electoral college (like Danny's new NomCom) - but a big one so that even the smallest country (Like Barbados with 300k people) can have maybe 1 member and thus a voice - and then have that college vote for the 5 or 9 people that will sit on the Board? > That seems as if it would solve the problem of size, as well as the problem of not having representation at all - if in a place, we have a few people voting in the first election, we still have a voice in the college with our minimum 1 position, and as internet penetration increases, and users get more interested and more educated, we have more weight as more people vote. > > But then, none of these people will be truly "representative" of all the millions and millions - so "direct representation" by voting in any way will never be fully "representative". > > So - is this even something that we should be focusing on or should we focus on getting people more educated and more active and participating, thus getting closer to an informed global user constituency and away from the little cliques of the cognoscenti (us) who currently "represent"? This informed constituency can then leverage its size into power to demand changes. > > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 15:37 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris > Cc: 'Milton L Mueller'; yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial > flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet > were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the > interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography > professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each > region would elect one rep. > > Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part > of the North American region, not of Latin America and the Caribbean, > and so on -- I am sure most Mexicans who knew about this were pissed off > knowing they would certainly always be represented by a "gringo", even > if this "gringo" were -- and was -- our nice compa Karl Auerbach), but > also the electoral system would allow for the perpetuation of certain > countries' reps in power. > > There were no rotation provisions, no parameters to balance a 190M > people country like Brazil with a 1M people country like Trinidad and > Tobago. Fine, all are Internet users (after we take a huge dosis of > naïveté medicine), but in the regional division, the Brazilian rep, in > the absence of balancing and rotation provisions, would always win in > its region. Mexico or Canada would never win in their region, and so on. > BTW, in protest, at the time I voted for the Uruguayan candidate. Is it > too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will > be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the > interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. > > And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in > the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them > around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, > ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal > user representation. > > Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral > process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give > us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. > > We enter into a territory of tremendous complexity when we want to > establish representation of the "user community" -- this is too big, too > diversified, and at the end too UNrepresentative precisely because of > its generic, diverse, multisectoral, multicultural, multi-etc nature. > And, most importantly, traversed by all interest groups (the user as a > rep is actually a rep of his/her interest group etc etc). > > So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy > and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) > we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think > of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? > > --c.a. > > Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >> Hi Milton >> I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue to >> skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who >> have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information about >> the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users who >> are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected enough to >> find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. >> >> There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do use >> the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not >> spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a >> consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those users, >> and return with information on how those users see specific issues. >> >> That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since the >> Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've seen to >> educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and technical >> issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that this >> is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model >> that is not there in "direct representation" >> >> But if there were to be another "global election"... >> >> What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many people >> as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of 1 >> billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can we do >> this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate against >> non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How >> should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user knows >> about the vote and the issues? >> >> It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth, but >> right now, any election would not be truly 'global" >> >> jacqueline >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:19 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >> >> Yehuda: >> It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of >> accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost the >> election in the US and Europe. >> >> This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which >> requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining >> organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small stakes >> individual internet users have in domain name issues. >> >> To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: >> * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be >> starting soon >> * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding >> * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at large >> itself and advocate that position. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >>> >>> To: >>> Mr. Kieren McCarthy >>> General Manager of Public Participation >>> >>> Ok Kieren lets work together, >>> >>> I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, >>> which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of 2000 >>> Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm >>> >>> Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. >>> (walk me through it) >>> Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, >>> Who should we contact directly? >>> and How should we best approach the subject matter? >>> (provide us some suggested text) >>> >>> Thnx >>> y >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: >>> 11/19/2007 12:35 PM >>> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 >> 12:35 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 >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 >> 19:05 >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 >> 16:28 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 16:28 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 22 22:53:32 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:53:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: Well I must confess that I never intended this string to run this far, and since it has evolved into debate about 'Elections', We ought to differ to the experts within the field. The UN's 'Electoral Assistance Division' home page http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ead/index.shtml begins with the: Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 21(3) - When we look at this another way by examining the number of 'requests for electoral assistance', or that is requests for 'Impartial election observervation/oversight'. It illustrates the 'importance of The Vote' at all strata of political debate. I think its important to build tools and focus on Localized-Community elections, with regard to 'some areas at issue' (not all) of Internet Governance. (the IGF should begin their focus at this level) >From the Localized level, the 'areas at issue' may require a higher level of consensus taking, expl.: a ccTld issue would be elected at the National Level, where a gTld would require election at a Global Level. The type of issue would also dictate what level the 'area at issue' would be placed. expl.: a Human Rights issue regarding the Internet might be placed at the Global level, or a Systems Protocol issue might be placed at a Local or National level. There will be a variety of situations which would need proper distribution (placed at the appropriate level). The matter of 'how to distill the issues and place them in the proper level' is central to what 'Internet Governance' is to me, for this part. In summary, with reagrds to Icann, I feel there are definitely areas (@-issue) which require Public Election, at some level or another. ( but not *all* areas) The 'means' of how these issues are deciphered and distributed for Vote are a-central-key to Internet Governance. It is important to have "Public Oversite" which 'binds' Icann to the Community at all Levels. That's just my opinion, I maybe wrong. y -- Referances: Overview Information: Statistics http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ead/overview.html#Statistics United Nations Development Programme for Electoral Systems and Processes http://www.undp.org/governance/sl-elections.htm Declaration of Principles for International Election Obsevation and Code of Conduct for International Election Observers http://www.accessdemocracy.org/library/1923_declaration_102705.pdf The Carter Center: Election Reports http://www.cartercenter.org/news/publications/election_reports.html Focus on women and elections in post-conflict countries? http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/publication/Chapter1.htm & http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/index.html#pub -- Support Ref. for Alejandro Pisanty comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election%2C_2006#Post-election_con troversy -- 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 veni at veni.com Fri Nov 23 06:21:42 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:21:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <4745F0D0.7000905@wzb.eu> References: <005001c82d2e$c5125e40$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <132951.65249.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <005b01c82d32$984ac1f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4745F0D0.7000905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711230321q17e9ec8du70be7ae31cb025cb@mail.gmail.com> Jeanette and Kieren, Fully support you. One point, though, is that being rude is not a particularly male, or "macho" feature. It is a common bug. My observation is that people who have some problems are trying to change the direction of the discussion with personal attacks, knowing that A) the normal reaction is to either respond or stay quiet B) this will divert the real discussion I also have noticed that attacks are usually on the email, not face2face; in fact same people when face2face would behave normally, and the attacks are usually at ICANN staff, who are either not on this list, or are having too much work to bother responding. Finally, as we say in Bulgaria, when you fight with a pig, both get dirty, but the pig also enjoys it. I don't of course mean that anyone here is a pig, but think that can explain why most of the people who are attacked prefer not to engage in these mails. Veni On 11/22/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Kieren, > > I fully support your resistance against the rude tone on this list. > There is no reason why one should get used to it. I've been wondering > for years if this mixture of arrogance and personal attacks on this list > is the reason why the active participation is limited to such a low > number of people most of which are male. > jeanette > > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > Just to be clear. > > > > If you review this list's history, every time discussions appear to be > going > > somewhere useful, someone throws out a personal insult and almost > instantly > > it descends into name-calling and nonsense. > > > > Perhaps everyone except me thinks this is a terrific way to interact. I > > think it's what makes me stop reading comments for another week. > > > > So, if there is a personal insult lobbed at me, even if it comes amid a > > bunch of other useful comments - which this email from Danny did, and > which > > Milton's email yesterday did - then I won't respond. > > > > If people would prefer that I not recognise that a personal attack has > been > > thrown into discussions as if it was somehow relevant or useful, then I > > won't respond with "ad hominem attack" in future but will simply not > > respond. > > > > My intention in responding at all is to point out that the message > contained > > useful comments or ideas but that I won't be responding to them - at least > > not while irrelevant abuse is tagged on. > > > > I don't think that's too unreasonable. > > > > You are of course all free to continue to be rude to one another, and > about > > me, as much as you like. > > > > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:45 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > > > Kieren, > > > > If you regard this as an ad hominen attack, then > > perhaps a brief vacation to settle your nerves might > > be in order. > > > > regards, > > Danny > > > > > > > > --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > > >> Ad hominem attack. > >> > >> > >> > >> Kieren > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:07 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > >> > >> Kieren, > >> > >> You know, you really should make an effort to read > >> the > >> public comments submitted once in a while... > >> > >> I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public > >> comment submitted at this URL: > >> > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html > >> Here's the gist of it: > >> > >> A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat > >> at-large directors on the ICANN board. > >> > >> The solution: > >> > >> Those directors that are not currently elected by > >> ICANN's Supporting Organizations come to the board > >> by > >> way of ICANN's "Nominating Committee", a body > >> populated exclusively by special-interest > >> representatives. > >> > >> This committee must be eliminated and must be > >> replaced > >> by a new committee populated exclusively by > >> public-interest representatives. These > >> representatives will be drawn from the pool of > >> candidates that previously stood for at-large > >> election. These voices of the public will then, > >> through the same set of processes used by the > >> current > >> Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large > >> directors that will take their seats on the ICANN > >> board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor > >> the principle of balanced representation). > >> > >> By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of > >> the > >> Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?". Prior > >> Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to > >> study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived > >> at > >> a consensus-based recommendation to have the > >> at-large > >> seated on one third of the Board). Unfortunately, > >> we > >> have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is > >> superior > >> to that of the commmunity and who feel quite > >> comfortable rejecting consensus-based > >> determinations. > >> > >> Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded > >> as > >> the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead > >> of > >> as a functionary that is charged with pushing the > >> prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that > >> instead are screaming for accountability via true > >> multistakeholder representation. Time will tell. > >> > >> best wishes, > >> and again thanks for your perspective. > >> > >> > >> --- Kieren McCarthy > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I understand where you're coming from Danny. But > >> you > >>> asked me what the best > >>> method was and that's the answer. > >>> > >>> What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that > >>> participation within > >>> those structures won't work. I don't agree. I > >> think > >>> it will work. Moreover > >>> what I am saying is that *unless* people > >> participate > >>> in those structures, > >>> there won't be change along the lines you > >> suggested. > >>> If you have other suggestions that could > >> practically > >>> work please throw them > >>> in. > >>> > >>> The problem with your suggestion of writing > >> letters > >>> to the chairman is that > >>> the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix > >> this?" > >>> and we end up in the > >>> exact same place that we are now. > >>> > >>> Now if you could present a clear case as to why > >> such > >>> a change would be in > >>> ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of > >>> suggested routes for > >>> getting there, then I think you'd find he would > >>> start looking at it > >>> seriously. If that whole case was to come from > >>> within the ICANN structure, > >>> it would add further weight. > >>> > >>> But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and > >>> offering no solution is > >>> not going to achieve much. > >>> > >>> Just my two cents. > >>> > >>> I should also say that if people do participate in > >>> ICANN's processes they > >>> not only benefit from engagement with others but > >>> also gain the advantages > >>> that come with participation, one of which is that > >> I > >>> would consider it my > >>> duty to make sure that that participation was > >> given > >>> the appropriate > >>> consideration. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kieren > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > >> ________ > >> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > >> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the > >> list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > ________ > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 23 06:28:09 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:28:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Veni, I most definitely can't agree with you on a couple of points here. There are people on this list who feel inimidated because of the language used in discussions. I have been contacted by at least one regarding this. And as a sociologist, I also disagree with you regarding that the type of behaviour is not oriented to us males of the species. I'd argue that there is plenty of research to argue it is. So yes, some people love the aggressive nature of the debates, but there are plenty of others who don't, and there are some at least who don't participate because they feel intimidated. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Veni Markovski To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Friday, 23 November, 2007 10:21:42 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Jeanette and Kieren, Fully support you. One point, though, is that being rude is not a particularly male, or "macho" feature. It is a common bug. My observation is that people who have some problems are trying to change the direction of the discussion with personal attacks, knowing that A) the normal reaction is to either respond or stay quiet B) this will divert the real discussion I also have noticed that attacks are usually on the email, not face2face; in fact same people when face2face would behave normally, and the attacks are usually at ICANN staff, who are either not on this list, or are having too much work to bother responding. Finally, as we say in Bulgaria, when you fight with a pig, both get dirty, but the pig also enjoys it. I don't of course mean that anyone here is a pig, but think that can explain why most of the people who are attacked prefer not to engage in these mails. Veni On 11/22/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Kieren, > > I fully support your resistance against the rude tone on this list. > There is no reason why one should get used to it. I've been wondering > for years if this mixture of arrogance and personal attacks on this list > is the reason why the active participation is limited to such a low > number of people most of which are male. > jeanette > > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > Just to be clear. > > > > If you review this list's history, every time discussions appear to be > going > > somewhere useful, someone throws out a personal insult and almost > instantly > > it descends into name-calling and nonsense. > > > > Perhaps everyone except me thinks this is a terrific way to interact. I > > think it's what makes me stop reading comments for another week. > > > > So, if there is a personal insult lobbed at me, even if it comes amid a > > bunch of other useful comments - which this email from Danny did, and > which > > Milton's email yesterday did - then I won't respond. > > > > If people would prefer that I not recognise that a personal attack has > been > > thrown into discussions as if it was somehow relevant or useful, then I > > won't respond with "ad hominem attack" in future but will simply not > > respond. > > > > My intention in responding at all is to point out that the message > contained > > useful comments or ideas but that I won't be responding to them - at least > > not while irrelevant abuse is tagged on. > > > > I don't think that's too unreasonable. > > > > You are of course all free to continue to be rude to one another, and > about > > me, as much as you like. > > > > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:45 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > > > Kieren, > > > > If you regard this as an ad hominen attack, then > > perhaps a brief vacation to settle your nerves might > > be in order. > > > > regards, > > Danny > > > > > > > > --- Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > > >> Ad hominem attack. > >> > >> > >> > >> Kieren > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:07 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > >> > >> Kieren, > >> > >> You know, you really should make an effort to read > >> the > >> public comments submitted once in a while... > >> > >> I earlier proposed a "solution" within the public > >> comment submitted at this URL: > >> > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/naralo-comments/msg00006.html > >> Here's the gist of it: > >> > >> A readily-implemented, low-cost solution to seat > >> at-large directors on the ICANN board. > >> > >> The solution: > >> > >> Those directors that are not currently elected by > >> ICANN's Supporting Organizations come to the board > >> by > >> way of ICANN's "Nominating Committee", a body > >> populated exclusively by special-interest > >> representatives. > >> > >> This committee must be eliminated and must be > >> replaced > >> by a new committee populated exclusively by > >> public-interest representatives. These > >> representatives will be drawn from the pool of > >> candidates that previously stood for at-large > >> election. These voices of the public will then, > >> through the same set of processes used by the > >> current > >> Nominating Committee, select the slate of at-large > >> directors that will take their seats on the ICANN > >> board (and ICANN will thereby finally come to honor > >> the principle of balanced representation). > >> > >> By the way, I see nothing wrong with the notion of > >> the > >> Chairman asking "So how do we fix this?". Prior > >> Boards chose to put together blue-ribbon panels to > >> study an issue (like Carl Bildt's ALSC that arrived > >> at > >> a consensus-based recommendation to have the > >> at-large > >> seated on one third of the Board). Unfortunately, > >> we > >> have been blessed with boards whose wisdom is > >> superior > >> to that of the commmunity and who feel quite > >> comfortable rejecting consensus-based > >> determinations. > >> > >> Who knows... perhaps one day you might be heralded > >> as > >> the ICANN Manager of Public Representation instead > >> of > >> as a functionary that is charged with pushing the > >> prospect of feeble "participation" onto those that > >> instead are screaming for accountability via true > >> multistakeholder representation. Time will tell. > >> > >> best wishes, > >> and again thanks for your perspective. > >> > >> > >> --- Kieren McCarthy > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I understand where you're coming from Danny. But > >> you > >>> asked me what the best > >>> method was and that's the answer. > >>> > >>> What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that > >>> participation within > >>> those structures won't work. I don't agree. I > >> think > >>> it will work. Moreover > >>> what I am saying is that *unless* people > >> participate > >>> in those structures, > >>> there won't be change along the lines you > >> suggested. > >>> If you have other suggestions that could > >> practically > >>> work please throw them > >>> in. > >>> > >>> The problem with your suggestion of writing > >> letters > >>> to the chairman is that > >>> the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix > >> this?" > >>> and we end up in the > >>> exact same place that we are now. > >>> > >>> Now if you could present a clear case as to why > >> such > >>> a change would be in > >>> ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of > >>> suggested routes for > >>> getting there, then I think you'd find he would > >>> start looking at it > >>> seriously. If that whole case was to come from > >>> within the ICANN structure, > >>> it would add further weight. > >>> > >>> But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and > >>> offering no solution is > >>> not going to achieve much. > >>> > >>> Just my two cents. > >>> > >>> I should also say that if people do participate in > >>> ICANN's processes they > >>> not only benefit from engagement with others but > >>> also gain the advantages > >>> that come with participation, one of which is that > >> I > >>> would consider it my > >>> duty to make sure that that participation was > >> given > >>> the appropriate > >>> consideration. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kieren > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > >> ________ > >> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > >> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the > >> list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > ________ > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Nov 23 06:37:56 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:37:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <4745F80F.2030202@cavebear.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> <4745F80F.2030202@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711230337x7182d33eta1b4b89ee614f3d5@mail.gmail.com> As chairman of the Membership Implementation Task Force for Eastern Europe, I have to disagree with Karl's conclusions. Nobody elected could claim they represent the 330 M or the 250 M, or the 2 B people. Andy was a German choice, as Karl was the US one (and US at this time was less than 300 M altogether). Certainly the East Europeans were unhappy with the outcome, but also certainly, if there are elections again, they most probably will have the same result. One could go via the board list and see if people from countried like Bulgaria, Kenya, Senegal, Chilie, etc. would ever make it to that level. We are constantly reminded that Karl was having problems with that early ICANN, and he spent lots of time fighting to get access to documents. But many forget that ICANN today is different from ICANN yesterday. We can't live in the past forever. Today's ICANN has a Newzealender as chair and an Australian as CEO. Today it is more internationalized than yesterday, etc, etc. Karl may argue that today board has access to information because of his case, but I think that ICANN is much more open because of the fact it is a different, a better organization. And with more involvement of the community (including mandates for the people from this community) it will become even better. Veni On 11/22/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial > > flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet > > were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the > > interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography > > professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each > > region would elect one rep. > > > > Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part > > of the North American region > > Actually not. The "North Americal" region was Canada, Bermuda, St > Pierre, Miquelon, Greenland, and the US. > > Mexico was carved off into "Latin America". (Perhaps Mexico's old > states of from Alta California and Texas ought to have been merged with > Latin America as well? ;-) > > > There were no rotation provisions > > The terms of the elected board members were shorter (2 years) than the > terms of other directors (mainly 3 years) and the boardsquatters > (indefinite). > > > Is it > > too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will > > be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the > > interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. > > Speaking as one who tried to "represent" 330,000,000 people, I had to > abandon idea that I was merely a channel for those people. I tried to > synthesize what all of those people would want me to do and I tried to > maintain a lot of contact so that I could hear and discuss matters with > people, but at the end of the day, it was really my own decision. It's > not an easy thing to do. > > > And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in > > the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them > > around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, > > ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal > > user representation. > > Given that ICANN tried to chop my legs off - metaphorically speaking - > from the moment I was elected there really was no opportunity for us to > smoothly fit. Don't forget that I ended up having to bring a legal > action against ICANN (which I flat out won) because ICANN engaged in > unlawful activity to inhibit directors from doing their duties. > > ICANN was formed on the promise that more than half of the directors > would be elected by the public. > > > Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral > > process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give > > us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. > > "coordinated" - what an odd word to apply to that situation. ICANN > created some of the most amazingly bad systems to support that election > - systems that collapsed under a transaction rate measured in terms of a > few transactions per *minute*. And some ICANN affiliates (some still > being paid by ICANN) engaged in actions that could easily be construed > as "fifth column". > > Yet despite all of that, the elections worked. > > Had ICANN not immediately reacted to shred the election process it could > have been on the next round, two years later, much more efficient. > > > So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy > > and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) > > we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think > > of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? > > The choices are: > > A) no representation (the present scheme) > > B) Faux representation (ALAC - a system that dilutes the representation > through so many layers that it doesn't really exist) > > C) Single level representation (what we did in year 2000) with periodic > elections (and thus a chance to replace representatives who don't do the > desired job.) > > D) Direct elections on each matter (a system that I think we all agree > is not very viable.) > > Choice "C" worked. > > --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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 23 06:49:20 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:49:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711230321q17e9ec8du70be7ae31cb025cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <005001c82d2e$c5125e40$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <132951.65249.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <005b01c82d32$984ac1f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4745F0D0.7000905@wzb.eu> <2aa69fe40711230321q17e9ec8du70be7ae31cb025cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071123114920.GF21277@hserus.net> Veni Markovski [23/11/07 06:21 -0500]: >Finally, as we say in Bulgaria, when you fight with a pig, both get >dirty, but the pig also enjoys it. I don't of course mean that anyone >here is a pig, but think that can explain why most of the people who >are attacked prefer not to engage in these mails. talk about consensus in wise old sayings .. that proverb about the pig was a favorite of my late grandmother's. Well, if that means wondering why Syracuse gives people like Mueller tenure just for him to launch ad hominem attacks pretending to be public policy position papers .. very well then. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Nov 23 06:55:11 2007 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:55:11 EST Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: Dear All -- An English-language version of Veni's nice Bulgarian pig saying is: "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas." Bests, Rony Koven ************************************** Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) -------------- 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 Fri Nov 23 07:20:54 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:20:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <20071123114920.GF21277@hserus.net> References: <005001c82d2e$c5125e40$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <132951.65249.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <005b01c82d32$984ac1f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4745F0D0.7000905@wzb.eu> <2aa69fe40711230321q17e9ec8du70be7ae31cb025cb@mail.gmail.com> <20071123114920.GF21277@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4746C5A6.2090508@wzb.eu> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Veni Markovski [23/11/07 06:21 -0500]: >> Finally, as we say in Bulgaria, when you fight with a pig, both get >> dirty, but the pig also enjoys it. I don't of course mean that anyone >> here is a pig, but think that can explain why most of the people who >> are attacked prefer not to engage in these mails. > > talk about consensus in wise old sayings .. that proverb about the pig was > a favorite of my late grandmother's. > > Well, if that means wondering why Syracuse gives people like Mueller tenure > just for him to launch ad hominem attacks pretending to be public policy > position papers .. very well then. And how do your ad hominem attacks differ from any other on this list?? jeanette > > srs > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 23 07:38:21 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:38:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <4746C5A6.2090508@wzb.eu> References: <005001c82d2e$c5125e40$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <132951.65249.qm@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <005b01c82d32$984ac1f0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4745F0D0.7000905@wzb.eu> <2aa69fe40711230321q17e9ec8du70be7ae31cb025cb@mail.gmail.com> <20071123114920.GF21277@hserus.net> <4746C5A6.2090508@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20071123123821.GB24519@hserus.net> Jeanette Hofmann [23/11/07 12:20 +0000]: > > And how do your ad hominem attacks differ from any other on this list?? > jeanette > You dont see me attacking Kieren do you? Veni talked about mud wrestling with pigs - sticking with the proverb theme, there's always "fighting fire with fire". If Milton does ad hominem, and presumes that other people will still remain collegial .. well, I try to work around that kind of approach. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 23 07:41:51 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:41:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> So, if you all agree, let's stop the discussion about attacks (we all know there are people here who attack others on personal ground), and let's focus on the substance. Let us see also if others can contribute positively, the same way they contribute negatively? veni On Nov 23, 2007 6:28 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > Veni, > > I most definitely can't agree with you on a couple of points here. There > are people on this list who feel inimidated because of the language used in > discussions. I have been contacted by at least one regarding this. And as a > sociologist, I also disagree with you regarding that the type of behaviour > is not oriented to us males of the species. I'd argue that there is plenty > of research to argue it is. > > So yes, some people love the aggressive nature of the debates, but there > are plenty of others who don't, and there are some at least who don't > participate because they feel intimidated. > > Cheers > David > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 23 08:09:49 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:09:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> (veni@veni.com) References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > So, if you all agree, let's stop the discussion about attacks (we all know > there are people here who attack others on personal ground), and let's focus > on the substance. Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this problem should be addressed. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Nov 23 11:20:22 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:20:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <004801c82d68$e1d76ea0$a5864be0$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> <004801c82d68$e1d76ea0$a5864be0$@com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Jacqueline: Just a question: why do you think of yourself primarily as a member of a "country" and not in other terms, i.e. as a particular type of Internet user, with specific economic interests, or as part of a group, which may be transnational, sharing certain beliefs about how the internet should be governed? Why do you view "Brazilians" as "the other" and therefore as someone who will necessarily vote as a bloc "against" the Caribbean? It seems to me that the kind of "balancing" you propose legitimates and perpetuates the very national divisions that the Internet should be overcoming. I am all for limits on pure majoritarianism, which is why democratic governance mechanisms need to be tempered by "constitutional" mechanisms that protect individual rights. But I see no reason to privilege national identities or divisions in any global governance mechanism. If you do want to base things on nationality, then stick with the joys of inter-governmental institutions like the ITU, WIPO or WTO, you will get plenty of it there ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > Caribbean at 14 million or so will never be able to outvote Brasil alone, > far less the rest of LA. So what's the incentive for participation in an > election of this nature? > What do we think about a system of proportional representation to an > electoral college (like Danny's new NomCom) - but a big one so that even > the smallest country (Like Barbados with 300k people) can have maybe 1 > member and thus a voice - and then have that college vote for the 5 or 9 > people that will sit on the Board? > That seems as if it would solve the problem of size, as well as the > problem of not having representation at all - if in a place, we have a few > people voting in the first election, we still have a voice in the college > with our minimum 1 position, and as internet penetration increases, and > users get more interested and more educated, we have more weight as more > people vote. > > But then, none of these people will be truly "representative" of all the > millions and millions - so "direct representation" by voting in any way > will never be fully "representative". > > So - is this even something that we should be focusing on or should we > focus on getting people more educated and more active and participating, > thus getting closer to an informed global user constituency and away from > the little cliques of the cognoscenti (us) who currently "represent"? This > informed constituency can then leverage its size into power to demand > changes. > > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 15:37 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris > Cc: 'Milton L Mueller'; yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial > flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet > were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the > interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography > professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each > region would elect one rep. > > Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part > of the North American region, not of Latin America and the Caribbean, > and so on -- I am sure most Mexicans who knew about this were pissed off > knowing they would certainly always be represented by a "gringo", even > if this "gringo" were -- and was -- our nice compa Karl Auerbach), but > also the electoral system would allow for the perpetuation of certain > countries' reps in power. > > There were no rotation provisions, no parameters to balance a 190M > people country like Brazil with a 1M people country like Trinidad and > Tobago. Fine, all are Internet users (after we take a huge dosis of > naïveté medicine), but in the regional division, the Brazilian rep, in > the absence of balancing and rotation provisions, would always win in > its region. Mexico or Canada would never win in their region, and so on. > BTW, in protest, at the time I voted for the Uruguayan candidate. Is it > too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will > be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the > interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. > > And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in > the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them > around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, > ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal > user representation. > > Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral > process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give > us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. > > We enter into a territory of tremendous complexity when we want to > establish representation of the "user community" -- this is too big, too > diversified, and at the end too UNrepresentative precisely because of > its generic, diverse, multisectoral, multicultural, multi-etc nature. > And, most importantly, traversed by all interest groups (the user as a > rep is actually a rep of his/her interest group etc etc). > > So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy > and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) > we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think > of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? > > --c.a. > > Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > > Hi Milton > > I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue > to > > skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who > > have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information > about > > the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users > who > > are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected > enough to > > find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. > > > > There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do > use > > the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not > > spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a > > consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those > users, > > and return with information on how those users see specific issues. > > > > That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since > the > > Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've > seen to > > educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and > technical > > issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that > this > > is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model > > that is not there in "direct representation" > > > > But if there were to be another "global election"... > > > > What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many > people > > as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of > 1 > > billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can we > do > > this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate > against > > non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How > > should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user > knows > > about the vote and the issues? > > > > It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth, > but > > right now, any election would not be truly 'global" > > > > jacqueline > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:19 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > > > Yehuda: > > It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of > > accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost > the > > election in the US and Europe. > > > > This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which > > requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining > > organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small > stakes > > individual internet users have in domain name issues. > > > > To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: > > * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be > > starting soon > > * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding > > * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at > large > > itself and advocate that position. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > >> > >> To: > >> Mr. Kieren McCarthy > >> General Manager of Public Participation > >> > >> Ok Kieren lets work together, > >> > >> I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, > >> which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of > 2000 > >> Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm > >> > >> Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. > >> (walk me through it) > >> Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, > >> Who should we contact directly? > >> and How should we best approach the subject matter? > >> (provide us some suggested text) > >> > >> Thnx > >> y > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: > >> 11/19/2007 12:35 PM > >> > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: > 11/19/2007 > > 12:35 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 > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: > 11/19/2007 > > 19:05 > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: > 11/21/2007 > > 16:28 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: > 11/21/2007 16:28 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: > 11/21/2007 16:28 > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: > 11/23/2007 9:19 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 9:19 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Nov 23 11:39:03 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:39:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Jacky: > -----Original Message----- > I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue to > skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who > have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information about > the vote etc. Well, all I can say is that the reason most American business people are terrified of such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I am afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet world" of tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in relative terms, erode their current power. > The ALS model works to get information to and from users who > are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected enough > to find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. Jackie, the ALS model does nothing but attract a very tiny number of people who like going to international meetings at the taxpayers' (ICANN registrars) expense. I do not know where you get this romanticized notion of the At Large structure. If your concern is participation and empowerment of the less advantaged the ALS system compares very badly to a vote. The calculus is brutally simple. To express and actuate your policy preferences via a voting system you have to a) know something about the issues and people; b) know when and how to vote and c) allocate a small amount of time to vote. There are some barriers there, especially in a), but that's life, there is no way around it. Now compare: To actuate and express your policy preference via ALS and ALAC, you have to a) know something about the issues and people; b) devote a large amount of time to local organizing and politicking; c) travel to ICANN meetings (you know as well as I do that people who do not attend have no influence and no other way to express their views; or d) spend a lot of time tracking what your remote ALS "representative" does at ICANN meetings and holding him/her accountable to express your views. Which is easier? Which is more representative? > What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many > people as possible in the net? What can you suggest to make a putatively global ALS system catch more than 100 - 200 people in its net, which is a generous estimate of how many people are involved in ALS's now? Even in the flawed elections held many years ago, in 2000, the number of participants exceeded the number of ALS participants by an order of magnitude in the 100s or 1000s. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 9:19 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Nov 23 11:56:54 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:56:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with > the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their > viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group > dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the > substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this > problem should be addressed. i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness in their tactical role in internet discussion. while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate. a. ps, was this rude? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Fri Nov 23 12:00:02 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:00:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711230900y36145ebds9c1285d78f569157@mail.gmail.com> Agree with Avri. We can't educate people who are insulting other people. It should have been done in the first 7 years. veni On Nov 23, 2007 11:56 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with > > the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their > > viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group > > dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the > > substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this > > problem should be addressed. > > > > i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. > > we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness > in their tactical role in internet discussion. > > while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if > i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to > support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be > considered > a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate. > > a. > > ps, was this rude? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Nov 23 12:12:07 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:12:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: At 11:56 AM -0500 11/23/07, Avri Doria wrote: >i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. > >we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness >in their tactical role in internet discussion. > >while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if >i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to >support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered >a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate. > >a. > > ps, was this rude? Depends on the culture from which the judgment is made, doesn't it? And if a group - who use the 'Net to discuss - doesn't develop, and sanction to ensure, its own standards for acceptable, non-rude behavior (for instance, when discussing the topic of net governance), the discussion will have a hard time getting much of anywhere. And yes, it has a lot to do with a person's formative ('first seven') years. Which is one reason, of several, why there is 'membership' in groups. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Nov 23 12:04:34 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:04:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> Milton Who's going to tell users about the vote? Who's going to sit with them in meetings and consultations and try to explain the issues? Millions of non-USians won't even hear about the vote. The concept of using groups that want to go out to interact with users, that volunteer to educate and inform, is far more likely to create an informed user base than a vote that most users won't even hear about. Unless the vote has such a HUGE budget that they can ensure that everyone affected will hear about it, AND will have enough education and information to make a reasonable choice... in which case, they might as well fund the NGOs that are doing this already, some of which have already become ALSes. Newspaper ads won't reach everyone, radio is better, TV, flyers and posters, community meetings... all those will be necessary in every community in every country in order to start to think that the vote is global. You focus so much on attending ICANN meetings! The ALS of which I am a member - we talk to people about the things that affect them. We talk to them in general terms - ICANN is mentioned a lot, of course, but it's more about the issues that ICANN deals with - not about the processes of the institution- they don't really care about that. So we work on a local and regional and international level, and people tell us that we are very useful. Radio appearances, school workshops, etc. And a vast majority of the members of the organization have NEVER been to an ICANN meeting, (3 people have physically been to any sort of ICANN meeting ever) and they don’t really care about the trip. They were doing this long before they became an ALS and will continue anyway. Joining At Large was more about regional and international networking with other groups that are trying to do the same thing that we are, and to access information and to participate in international decision making. And a vote won't do any of this education, training, discussion, consciousness-raising or have any impact on our local and regional issues. So with regard to a global vote for ICANN Board members - if it's really that important to you - go ahead and spend time agitating for it, but I know that I and the people I work with at home have a lot of things to do that are not at all linked to a global vote in which our concerns will be a minority and won't impact our primary issues either. So - to me, this is a purely intellectual discussion that has nothing at all to do with the practicalities of the end user in my experience, and I've given it more than enough time... Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 12:39 To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Jacky: > -----Original Message----- > I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue to > skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who > have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information about > the vote etc. Well, all I can say is that the reason most American business people are terrified of such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I am afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet world" of tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in relative terms, erode their current power. > The ALS model works to get information to and from users who > are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected enough > to find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. Jackie, the ALS model does nothing but attract a very tiny number of people who like going to international meetings at the taxpayers' (ICANN registrars) expense. I do not know where you get this romanticized notion of the At Large structure. If your concern is participation and empowerment of the less advantaged the ALS system compares very badly to a vote. The calculus is brutally simple. To express and actuate your policy preferences via a voting system you have to a) know something about the issues and people; b) know when and how to vote and c) allocate a small amount of time to vote. There are some barriers there, especially in a), but that's life, there is no way around it. Now compare: To actuate and express your policy preference via ALS and ALAC, you have to a) know something about the issues and people; b) devote a large amount of time to local organizing and politicking; c) travel to ICANN meetings (you know as well as I do that people who do not attend have no influence and no other way to express their views; or d) spend a lot of time tracking what your remote ALS "representative" does at ICANN meetings and holding him/her accountable to express your views. Which is easier? Which is more representative? > What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many > people as possible in the net? What can you suggest to make a putatively global ALS system catch more than 100 - 200 people in its net, which is a generous estimate of how many people are involved in ALS's now? Even in the flawed elections held many years ago, in 2000, the number of participants exceeded the number of ALS participants by an order of magnitude in the 100s or 1000s. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 9:19 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 09:19 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 09:19 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Nov 23 12:10:00 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:10:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> <004801c82d68$e1d76ea0$a5864be0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <00b101c82df3$af754460$0e5fcd20$@com> Dear Milton I think of myself in many ways, not purely as anything. If you pay attention to the LAC mailing lists, I am identifying strongly there as a Portuguese descendent and cultural Latina. In some other places, I identify strongly with my African heritage, and in other fora as a member of the female sex. I can continue to define myself in many other ways, but the examples already given should be quite sufficient to indicate that the base premise of your response is false. And considering that I'm part Portuguese and have a lot of family in Brazil - it would be very strange for me to consider Brazil as "other" - it would be like considering myself "other" to myself! Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 12:20 To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Jacqueline: Just a question: why do you think of yourself primarily as a member of a "country" and not in other terms, i.e. as a particular type of Internet user, with specific economic interests, or as part of a group, which may be transnational, sharing certain beliefs about how the internet should be governed? Why do you view "Brazilians" as "the other" and therefore as someone who will necessarily vote as a bloc "against" the Caribbean? It seems to me that the kind of "balancing" you propose legitimates and perpetuates the very national divisions that the Internet should be overcoming. I am all for limits on pure majoritarianism, which is why democratic governance mechanisms need to be tempered by "constitutional" mechanisms that protect individual rights. But I see no reason to privilege national identities or divisions in any global governance mechanism. If you do want to base things on nationality, then stick with the joys of inter-governmental institutions like the ITU, WIPO or WTO, you will get plenty of it there ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > Caribbean at 14 million or so will never be able to outvote Brasil alone, > far less the rest of LA. So what's the incentive for participation in an > election of this nature? > What do we think about a system of proportional representation to an > electoral college (like Danny's new NomCom) - but a big one so that even > the smallest country (Like Barbados with 300k people) can have maybe 1 > member and thus a voice - and then have that college vote for the 5 or 9 > people that will sit on the Board? > That seems as if it would solve the problem of size, as well as the > problem of not having representation at all - if in a place, we have a few > people voting in the first election, we still have a voice in the college > with our minimum 1 position, and as internet penetration increases, and > users get more interested and more educated, we have more weight as more > people vote. > > But then, none of these people will be truly "representative" of all the > millions and millions - so "direct representation" by voting in any way > will never be fully "representative". > > So - is this even something that we should be focusing on or should we > focus on getting people more educated and more active and participating, > thus getting closer to an informed global user constituency and away from > the little cliques of the cognoscenti (us) who currently "represent"? This > informed constituency can then leverage its size into power to demand > changes. > > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 15:37 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris > Cc: 'Milton L Mueller'; yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial > flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet > were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the > interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography > professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each > region would elect one rep. > > Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part > of the North American region, not of Latin America and the Caribbean, > and so on -- I am sure most Mexicans who knew about this were pissed off > knowing they would certainly always be represented by a "gringo", even > if this "gringo" were -- and was -- our nice compa Karl Auerbach), but > also the electoral system would allow for the perpetuation of certain > countries' reps in power. > > There were no rotation provisions, no parameters to balance a 190M > people country like Brazil with a 1M people country like Trinidad and > Tobago. Fine, all are Internet users (after we take a huge dosis of > naïveté medicine), but in the regional division, the Brazilian rep, in > the absence of balancing and rotation provisions, would always win in > its region. Mexico or Canada would never win in their region, and so on. > BTW, in protest, at the time I voted for the Uruguayan candidate. Is it > too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will > be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the > interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. > > And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in > the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them > around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, > ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal > user representation. > > Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral > process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give > us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. > > We enter into a territory of tremendous complexity when we want to > establish representation of the "user community" -- this is too big, too > diversified, and at the end too UNrepresentative precisely because of > its generic, diverse, multisectoral, multicultural, multi-etc nature. > And, most importantly, traversed by all interest groups (the user as a > rep is actually a rep of his/her interest group etc etc). > > So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy > and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) > we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think > of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? > > --c.a. > > Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > > Hi Milton > > I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue > to > > skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who > > have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information > about > > the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users > who > > are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected > enough to > > find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. > > > > There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do > use > > the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not > > spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a > > consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those > users, > > and return with information on how those users see specific issues. > > > > That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since > the > > Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've > seen to > > educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and > technical > > issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that > this > > is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model > > that is not there in "direct representation" > > > > But if there were to be another "global election"... > > > > What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many > people > > as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of > 1 > > billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can we > do > > this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate > against > > non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How > > should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user > knows > > about the vote and the issues? > > > > It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth, > but > > right now, any election would not be truly 'global" > > > > jacqueline > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:19 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com > > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > > > Yehuda: > > It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of > > accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost > the > > election in the US and Europe. > > > > This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which > > requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining > > organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small > stakes > > individual internet users have in domain name issues. > > > > To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: > > * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be > > starting soon > > * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding > > * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at > large > > itself and advocate that position. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > >> > >> To: > >> Mr. Kieren McCarthy > >> General Manager of Public Participation > >> > >> Ok Kieren lets work together, > >> > >> I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, > >> which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of > 2000 > >> Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm > >> > >> Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. > >> (walk me through it) > >> Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, > >> Who should we contact directly? > >> and How should we best approach the subject matter? > >> (provide us some suggested text) > >> > >> Thnx > >> y > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: > >> 11/19/2007 12:35 PM > >> > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: > 11/19/2007 > > 12:35 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 > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: > 11/19/2007 > > 19:05 > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: > 11/21/2007 > > 16:28 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: > 11/21/2007 16:28 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: > 11/21/2007 16:28 > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: > 11/23/2007 9:19 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 9:19 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 09:19 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 09:19 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 23 12:23:59 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:23:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Jacqueline, On Nov 23, 2007 12:04 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > that I and the people I work with at home have a lot of things to do that > are not at all linked to a global vote in which our concerns will be a > minority and won't impact our primary issues either. There's another good proverb on that issue, "he whose belly is full, believes not him who is fasting." For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet connection, about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just because they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate them about "the other world". I say "some of the Americans", because obviously not all of them are like that (thanks, God!), but it is interesting that those are quite vocal, while the others stay quiet. 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 23 12:37:41 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:37:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: (message from Avri Doria on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:56:54 -0500) References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20071123173741.F02822202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with > > the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their > > viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group > > dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the > > substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this > > problem should be addressed. > > > i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. > > we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness > in their tactical role in internet discussion. > > while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise > and if i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would > try to support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready > to be considered a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate. Hmm... while I agree that such an "academic exercise" would he helpful by illuminating the inherent subjectiveness of the notion of rudeness, and perhaps also with regard to evaluating in a somewhat objective manner any proposals for reducing the incentives for rudeness, it wouldn't eliminate the need to look for solutions for the problem. Hence I don't see any reason to delay making rudeness and its dual problem (accusations of rudeness) one of the substantive topics of internet governance discussions. > ps, was this rude? IMO no - I perceive your reply as a reasonable expression of a reasonable viewpoint in response to my posting. Of course it's quite ok that your viewpoint differs significantly from mine - in fact getting replies from people whose perspective is different from mine is for me the main benefit from participating in discussions... Gruss, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch Präsident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Die SIUG engagiert sich für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und dafür, dass auch in Zukunft das Internet auf offenen Standards basiert. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Nov 23 12:33:22 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:33:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00c001c82df6$f38d7d40$daa877c0$@com> Exactly And this discussion doesn’t get our internet access pricing changed from 256k down/56k up for US$100/month to something more affordable and useful. But conversations with people in other parts of the world who have been or currently are dealing with the same issue are very useful – we get best practices, we get information to use in the discussions at home and regionally. That’s valuable to me, not spending time arguing about who is on the Board of one of the many IGOs that deal with various Internet issues and how they get there. BTW - I prefer Avri’s term – Usians for citizens of the USA - as a native of Central America, I am an American, but I still need a visa to set foot in the USA. J Jacqueline From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 13:24 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Hi, Jacqueline, On Nov 23, 2007 12:04 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: that I and the people I work with at home have a lot of things to do that are not at all linked to a global vote in which our concerns will be a minority and won't impact our primary issues either. There's another good proverb on that issue, "he whose belly is full, believes not him who is fasting." For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet connection, about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just because they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate them about "the other world". I say "some of the Americans", because obviously not all of them are like that (thanks, God!), but it is interesting that those are quite vocal, while the others stay quiet. veni No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 09:19 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 09:19 -------------- 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 Fri Nov 23 12:44:16 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:14:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071123174421.81BEEE05F8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Veni, I wish you had given some counter examples from Bulgaria as well while you were discussing the nature of Americans, it would have been even more enlightening. warm regards, Guru _____ From: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Veni Markovski Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Hi, Jacqueline, On Nov 23, 2007 12:04 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: that I and the people I work with at home have a lot of things to do that are not at all linked to a global vote in which our concerns will be a minority and won't impact our primary issues either. There's another good proverb on that issue, "he whose belly is full, believes not him who is fasting." For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet connection, about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just because they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate them about "the other world". I say "some of the Americans", because obviously not all of them are like that (thanks, God!), but it is interesting that those are quite vocal, while the others stay quiet. 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 Fri Nov 23 12:52:41 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:52:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <00c001c82df6$f38d7d40$daa877c0$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <00c001c82df6$f38d7d40$daa877c0$@com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711230952w6823dc1cpcf5f3dbc8afdae8e@mail.gmail.com> USAtizens also sounds good;) As for the visa - that's something which, I hope, some of the US citizens experienced when entering Brazil - I guess their fingerprints were collected; same with my multiple-entry US visa. It is interesting that for some the fact that the US is the only major country, where less people have traveled to in 2006, compared to previous year, is not a good example how far away they are from the real problems. Just an example, which Larry Lessig gave 2 years ago in Bulgaria; he visited my country first time in 1980 or so. At the border they asked him to take everything out of his pockets, and asked him where is he going, and why. Today in the USA they take everything out of your pockets way before you land in the country, and even your shoes off. Then they take your fingerprints (and if you say "no", they will simply send you back), and then they may let you in the country. But at the same time, with one of the good working international tools, as is the Internet, some have ideas how to "fix it". And they just don't hear the other people, who try to humbly tell them there are more important issues in the world of the Internet than ICANN. Not only that; they even can tell you what you should be doing, and would not listen to you at all. And if you dare to defend your position, you will be blamed for all sins that exist, and may be for some new ones. The country (US) needs a change, and perhaps we, who are not US-citizens, have to try to help, as long as what happens there influences many other countries. Educate people on this list, educate politicians, and make sure they listen. Without being rude, of course, no need of rude language like some of the non-US politicians use when refer to the US. Nobody wants to be insulted and I guess we don't want to insult, too. It would be good to see this, and think about it: http://blog.veni.com/?p=377 and http://blog.veni.com/?p=375 enjoy! On Nov 23, 2007 12:33 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Exactly > > And this discussion doesn't get our internet access pricing changed from > 256k down/56k up for US$100/month to something more affordable and useful. > But conversations with people in other parts of the world who have been or > currently are dealing with the same issue are very useful – we get best > practices, we get information to use in the discussions at home and > regionally. That's valuable to me, not spending time arguing about who is > on the Board of one of the many IGOs that deal with various Internet issues > and how they get there. > > BTW - I prefer Avri's term – Usians for citizens of the USA - as a > native of Central America, I am an American, but I still need a visa to set > foot in the USA. J > > Jacqueline > > > > *From:* Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] > *Sent:* Friday, November 23, 2007 13:24 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > > > Hi, Jacqueline, > > On Nov 23, 2007 12:04 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris > wrote: > > that I and the people I work with at home have a lot of things to do that > are not at all linked to a global vote in which our concerns will be a > minority and won't impact our primary issues either. > > > > There's another good proverb on that issue, "he whose belly is full, > believes not him who is fasting." > For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to > something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other > Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet connection, > about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. > But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just > because they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate > them about "the other world". > > I say "some of the Americans", because obviously not all of them are like > that (thanks, God!), but it is interesting that those are quite vocal, while > the others stay quiet. > > veni > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: > 11/23/2007 09:19 > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: > 11/23/2007 09:19 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Fri Nov 23 13:06:02 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:06:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <00c001c82df6$f38d7d40$daa877c0$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <00c001c82df6$f38d7d40$daa877c0$@com> Message-ID: <77E3299B-097B-4E0F-A0E1-743EDB8C2AA2@psg.com> On 23 nov 2007, at 12.33, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > BTW - I prefer Avri’s term – Usians for citizens of the USA as you know i have found that one difficult to pronounce in regular conversations and tend more to USAns, pronounced - (you-sans) or was that (ewe sans)? On 23 nov 2007, at 12.52, Veni Markovski wrote: > USAtizens also sounds good;) that is a mouthful. ( pronounced you-sat-izens?) 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Nov 23 13:03:48 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:03:48 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473DD379.1070603@rits.org.br> References: <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> <00da01c8286b$1a310110$4e930330$@net> <473DD379.1070603@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20071123180348.GB15158@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:29:29PM -0300, Carlos Afonso wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > In the same way, there might be new approaches to generating > personal/institutional identifiers so that a message will reach the > intended destination without anyone having to worry about > purchasing/having a domain name. They will have to worry about purchasing/having a handle, a keyword, a Wikipedia entry, etc. It will change very little wether you call it a domain name or a Google Adword. There will always be work for Internet governance professionnals :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Nov 23 13:02:10 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:02:10 +0100 Subject: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system In-Reply-To: <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <473B91CB.4090306@cavebear.com> <1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org> <20071115101840.GB7663@macbook.catpipe.net> <473C8616.30107@cavebear.com> <20071115211734.GA10033@macbook.catpipe.net> <473CC571.5060100@cavebear.com> <473CE699.9060108@cavebear.com> <473DCD29.2040508@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20071123180210.GA15158@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:02:33PM -0300, Carlos Afonso wrote a message of 148 lines which said: > I asked Vint and Bob (Kahn), yesterday at the IGF Emerging Issues > panel, about the current names-and-numbers paradigm and whether > there will be a paradigm shift (along the lines described by Thomas > Kuhn) -- a scenario in which a "semantic Web" will dominate finding > of any information space (the largest significant glimpse of it > being Google search) and eventually totally replacing the URL > approach (at least at the user level) to locate information and > services. Thus, domain to number resolution will we pushed so far in > the background that it will become irrelevant regarding the current > business model on top of which the Icann system sits. There have been many speculations (and even serious proposals) about new ways to find something on the Internet. See, for instance, "A Proposal to Separate Internet Handles from Names" by Michael J. O'Donnell (http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/Citizen/Network_Identifiers/) Another proposal is the keyword systems, as in IETF's RFC 2345. Today, at least in France, most Internet users do not use or understand the DNS, they even type the domain name in Google's search box (see, in French, http://thomas-fourdin.net/blog/index.php?post/2007/06/05/Qui-tient-la-barre-dadresse or http://www.bortzmeyer.org/identificateur-vs-moteur-de-recherche.html). In english, see a funny discussion in Wikipedia (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-July/027186.html) about Syracuse (nothing to do with Milton). But it does not mean we should accept it: things can change, people can be educated, etc. One way to explain is to emphasize what you may loose with other proposals (for instance, with O'Donnell's "handles", it seems there is no way to have a stable, reliable *and* meaningful identifier, either they are stable and reliable *or* they are meaningful). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 23 13:17:37 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:17:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. I think you're spreading too far afield with this approach, Avri. I would define rudeness in the context that I was complaining about as: "The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone's else's honestly held viewpoint." I think it is fine to refer to individuals' comments and suggestions, and it is also fine to disagree with them - in fact, that is exactly what works best with these sorts of discussions. As an example of what I think is fair comment, I will refer to a comment inserted by Milton this morning as a perfect example of the sort of rudeness that this list could well do without. In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton responded: "Well, all I can say is that the reason most American business people are terrified of such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I am afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet world" of tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in relative terms, erode their current power. " The "more accurately than you, I am afraid" was deliberately provocative, added nothing to the discussion, came with no evidence or reasoned analysis, and both mocked Jacqueline and dismissed her honestly held viewpoint. It has no place in reasonable discussions. Which is a shame because Milton then went on to raise some interesting ideas about ALSes which I personally would be happy to discuss but which I won't respond to because of the unpleasantness earlier in the email. Kieren _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:57 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote: Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this problem should be addressed. i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness in their tactical role in internet discussion. while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate. a. ps, was this rude? -------------- 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 Fri Nov 23 13:40:04 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:10:04 +0530 Subject: ICANN Reform (was ... RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)) ... coming back one circle :-) In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711230900y36145ebds9c1285d78f569157@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> I thought Avri was making a more profound point in her mail when she spoke of 'we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness in their tactical role in internet discussion.' How sometimes instead of responding to the substantive points in a posting, the person on the receiving end is eager to cry 'ad hominem' ... and when issues relating to deficiencies and limitations in the ICANN structures are raised, it gets deflected as a personal attack on those believing in ICANN and current ig structures. I have not still found responses to basic questions on current ig structures/ICANN on: a. is it worth giving feedback when one is not sure if the feedback will be taken seriously and there is an accountability mechanism to ensure that such feedback is taken to its logical conclusion (when also there is evidence that it has sometimes not been given due attention). B. Will 'political' issues be swept under the carpet of 'technical matters left to technical experts' - if ICANN is not a global public policy body how did it decide (either way or any way) on .xxx Can we accept that ICANN (or any other institution in its place) would need to do global public policy and hence would need to function under rules of such global policy making/global governance (which I agree are in the making) c. how does the current structure of ICANN (its relationship with DOC) give scope for it to be a legitimate global governance and policy institution. Why should other countries, institutions (CS and others) accept as legitimate the current unilateral control. Also the dominance of a small group (big business interests, small number of Governments / institutions - CS and others) and the exclusion (intended or otherwise) of other groups and constitutencies within ICANN / ig makes it even more unlikely candidate for fair or just governance. It is not surprising that IDNs or IPv4 or new GTLDs issues though critical are dealt with at an 'easy' pace ... Those who are the biggest losers from this non-development are least represented (relatively) in the current structures. 'Stability' (vested interests) scores over 'development' priorities though both are given same lip service. Most defence of the current relationship with DOC is based on the threat that 'do you want UN kind of a structure, the current structure is much better'. There are several issues with such logic - is this an 'either or' situation or are we looking at new innovations in global governance structures that can be better than both 'Inter Govt' structures or single power centres. Is the claim of 'bottom up' etc really valid (as the recent debates on Reinstate the vote reveal) and how can 'bottom up' really coexist with being 'industry led'; to me this seems an oxymoron (the vision reiterated recently by the new ICANN chair). And is the even the vision of the 'next billion' really 'bottom up' ... Or more 'bottom of the top'? As I have said before the current ICANN/ig structure is 'de-facto' (by defintion, it exists and it works), it is certainly not 'de-jure' in the sense of being legitimate or just. Of course ICANN reform can also proceed through obtaining feedback and effecting changes. (Every critic of the current dispensation need not be considered an ICANN hater or someone who wants to replace ICANN with Inter Govt structures). While this current structure may have made sense in the initial days of the internet (more academic and technical community users), now that its role and use has signifcantly grown to touch almost all aspects of human life across the entire world - communication, commerce, entertainment, development, relationships, information exchange, its current governance is out of touch with this reality. Way far out of touch. d. The nature of accountability mechanisms for a governance / public policy ('gatekeepers' / 'rule makers') institution would need to be far more clearer and stricter than for other institutions (Suresh, certainly ICANN needs more probity than IGP!). How is mandate determined, renewed, how are issues of ignoring constituencies dealt with etc - some of Dan's mails have elaborated on this aspect. Maybe we need more complex structures than oversight by people who those who can 'afford the time and money' - that straightaway biases the nature of participation and accountability e. Given this fundamental deficiencies in legitimacy, it is not correct, imo, for some people to insist that ICANN reform can ONLY be done at the structures and processes of ICANN and CANNOT be done elsewhere, to me this is doubtful; fundamental reform of this nature needs to be supra-institution. IGF (remember CIRs!) can be one such process for initiating ICANN reform (we hope -; ). And hence 'posting on these lists' need not be considered a poor substitute to participating in ICANN feedback processes, after all, nobody is stopping Kieren from abstracting the views on this list into the formal feedback processses within ICANN. (And if ICANN feedback processes do not allow for such abstraction, maybe Kieren has some internal work on this front). The open and free discussions on this list has a value in itself. Of course neither is it wrong for anyone to participate in ICANN reform processes (I hope to participate in the Feb Delhi ICANN meeting and learn, understand and contribute!) While I must record my understanding and even appreciation of the efforts of Kieren, Veni and many others in ICANN reform through democratic feedback processes, some of these issues are possibly beyond their remit of influence and hence these questions are not intended to be a reflection on their work or their intentions at all. In any case, I would request those who can respond to some of these issues, not to treat these comments as any personal attack (I can only respect and appreciate the sincere efforts of those who believe in the current structures) and see if they can allay some of these concerns. And those articulated by Meryem, Dan, Danny, Karl, Milton et al ... I am fully with Bertrand in his call for engagement ... Regards, Guru _____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities www.ITforChange.net ________________________________ From: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Veni Markovski Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:30 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Agree with Avri. We can't educate people who are insulting other people. It should have been done in the first 7 years. veni On Nov 23, 2007 11:56 AM, Avri Doria < avri at psg.com > wrote: On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote: Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this problem should be addressed. i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness in their tactical role in internet discussion. while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate. a. ps, was this rude? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 23 14:22:03 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:22:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711230337x7182d33eta1b4b89ee614f3d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> <4745F80F.2030202@cavebear.com> <2aa69fe40711230337x7182d33eta1b4b89ee614f3d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4747285B.5010107@cavebear.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > Nobody elected could claim they represent the 330 M or the 250 M, or > the 2 B people. Andy was a German choice, as Karl was the US one (and > US at this time was less than 300 M altogether). Oh? If those of us who were elected by the community of internet users were not representative, then that can only mean that those who have come to ICANN though its non-elective methods are far less representative. I was elected in an open election that included voters from several countries. Yes, the US was the largest. However, voters in in Canada - or even Bermuda or Greenland - could have changed the outcome. I was, in fact, the properly elected representative of 330,000,000 people. Andy was the properly elected representative of the European area. We were as legitimate in our representational role as any of the five who came to the board via the election. And we were a whole lot more representative than any other directors, past of present, who received their seats by processes more akin to oligarchic selection than democratic election. Moreover, because we came to office via a path in which internet users could actually make a choice, the legitimacy of our representative role was much more valid than ICANN's ALAC system of committees upon committees upon committees - a system that most closely resembles the "democratic" system used in the old USSR. And we did not lose our seats due to any choice of the electorate. Our seats were simply erased. > Certainly the East Europeans were unhappy with the outcome, but also > certainly, if there are elections again, they most probably will have > the same result. One could go via the board list and see if people > from countried like Bulgaria, Kenya, Senegal, Chilie, etc. would ever > make it to that level. I have a hard time giving much credit to the assertion that "people will vote their nationality". People are not sheep and they will find communities of interest that cross national boundaries. The logical result of the path you are describing is simply to create bodies of internet governance in which the sole and exclusive members are national governments. > We are constantly reminded that Karl was having problems with that > early ICANN, and he spent lots of time fighting to get access to > documents. But many forget that ICANN today is different from ICANN > yesterday. Not really. ICANN still is incredibly secretive, the board asks no questions and is largely a marionette whose strings are pulled by "staff", by Verisign, and by intellectual property interests. And ICANN is indeed much worse in that no longer has *any* directors elected by the community of internet users. In other words, all the discussion about proportional representation based on community size and degrees of representation - all of that is irrelevant to ICANN because it simply and clearly has ejected the community of internet users, forced them into subordinate status, and lets them watch internet governance while others, more privileged industrial groups, get to gorge themselves at ICANN's increasingly rich table. And the private tax that ICANN imposes onto the internet - a tax that is now more than $500,000,000(US) every year (as measured by excessive registry fees) - is much larger today than it was in 2003 when I left the board. And you assert that this makes ICANN more democratic, more open, transparent, and accountable? How? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 23 14:55:44 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:55:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> Message-ID: <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Who's going to tell users about the vote? Who's going to sit with them in > meetings and consultations and try to explain the issues? Those same questions can be raised about any electoral process - and indeed about any externally imposed system such as ICANN's ALAC. During the year 2000 elections several people around the world used the power of the world wide web to create very useful information centers - much richer than anything ICANN has ever done. Within a few weeks the election interested enough people that nearly 200,000 people made the effort to try to sign up to vote. That was done entirely outside of ICANN and even despite ICANN. As was demonstrated in year 2000 - if people are given a real voice in systems of government they will respond, channels of communication will form (that's what the internet itself is all about). But it requires that people have a real role, not some facade, not some toy. It is no wonder that ICANN's ALAC is a terrific dud - it offers nothing but a toy, it offers nothing that can be construed as a system through which internet users can hold the decision makers accountable. ICANN's ALAC is a theatre play - users merely observe. Elections are life - users participate. In the few months of the year 2000 election we saw the creation and deployment of a far more vibrant system with far more faces and idea than has ever come out of the four+ years of ICANN's ALAC. In year 2000 here in the US we held face-to-face debates on the west coast (Stanford University) and east coast (Harvard University) and had rather substantial open discussions, electronic and otherwise. The costs were not high, none of us had to expend vast treasure, and the electorate had large opportunities to become informed and to interact with the candidates. Several of us wrote our views - my platform is still visible: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm (and, sadly many of the issues of year 2000 remain issues today.) I joined with two other candiates, Larry Lessig and Barbara Simons, to form a kind of mini-slate (why that is a good thing in single-transferable voting is a bit arcane, but it does create a potential advantage.) What I am getting at here is that elections are not systems in which the outcome is handed to candidates on a silver platter. Rather those who organize and campaign tend to do better than those who do no. The system that ICANN created to replace elections is a paternalism, not unlike the systems imposed by King Leopold of Belgium on that country's African colonies, in which a privileged group condescended to create play pen systems of governance that satisfied the need for those in control to feel that were taking care of those who were less capable and denying to those people the ability to make their own choices. Do we really want internet governance to be based on the paternalistic, even imperialistic, models of the 19th century? Or do we want to recognize that each human being is entitled to have a fair and equal voice in his or her life and those systems of government that affect that life? --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 Fri Nov 23 16:58:19 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:58:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > Those same questions can be raised about any electoral process - > and indeed about any externally imposed system such as ICANN's ALAC. Trying to draw a number of threads together... I wish people would look at the ALAC, RALO, ALS system dispassionately for a second. The issue at heart is how to find a mechanism that not only informs ordinary Internet users about the work that ICANN does, but also, in return, produces candidates for important posts with ICANN itself to act as representatives for that community. A few of the problems surrounding this issue have come up on the list: how to inform that many people; that ICANN is only a small part of the wider system of providing and sharing information across the world; the enormous and insoluble problem of representation when applied to the global Internet. It strikes me that if you ignore the torrid history and clash of egos over the years, that the ALAC/RALO/ALS system is a pretty logical structure, designed to be scalable and to ensure regional representation. But many of the comments on this list take as a presumption that this is not a logical structure. I think everyone may be missing the bigger picture. For example, with this election argument: no one is pondering where the candidates - or, rather, the best candidates - come from. There are such things are natural leaders; natural co-ordinators; natural communicators. The advantage of having a structure tree is that it allows the best candidates to bubble up. You see it every day: someone joins a group and within a few weeks you see that they are making useful inputs. At some point, if they're good enough, people put them forward to a representative role. If they shine, they are asked to give presentations to wider groups. If they have the unique set of skills that stretches beyond that, they proceed further up. And each step along the way, they gain more credibility and more backing from more people which helps both the individual's understanding and allows people to trust their judgment, so decisions can be made at the top which people are content with. Without such a structure, an ALAC election would simply be pulling people out of a pool of those that applied. No one would know who they are or what they are capable of and would have to rely instead entirely on a CV - and as anyone who has ever had to hire someone will know, a CV tells only a third of the story. So in that sense, the ALAC structure that already exists could end up being enormously beneficial to ordinary Net users. I also think - as I have said many times in the past - that the ALAC/RALO/ALS structure does a very powerful thing - it enables someone to stand up and say "I represent five million people". I know that Karl feels he represented 330 million people, but whichever way you cut it, he was elected by whatever proportion of the 3,449 North American votes cast ended up in his favour and he directly represented only the 10,632 North Americans that were certified as voters. I know there is endless argument to be had over who did what to whom and why and how it wasn't fair and how it could have been done like this and how there could and should have been many more voters, and so on and so forth, but the reality was that this was not a good model of representation. With the ALS system you have an information feedback system in place (well, one that needs to be put in place), and you have an ability for someone to stand up and say "I represent all the people underneath me in the RALO/ALS chain". I think that's a powerful and useful position to be in. So, then there are the problems. The biggest real-world problem that people seem to have with the ALAC/RALO/ALS system is that it is too difficult or too complex to join or create an At Large Structure. If this is the case, then this is a topic we should be tackling immediately. How is it difficult? Why is it complex? Do we need to create a simple set of guidelines? Do we need a simple technical infrastructure? Where does the system need improving, and where is it working? As ICANN's general manager of public participation, I would be very concerned if people who want to become an ALS are finding it too difficult or complex to do so. So what are the issues? What is the best way to get the system working quickly and efficiently? Do we need online forms? Do we need to provide technical assistance? Do we need to create simple registration information? Do we need to ask the RALO Secretariats to review their approach? What is it that needs to be done? I don't see anything inherently wrong the ALAC/RALO/ALS system, in fact I think it's a pretty logical approach. But if there are issues with making it work, well then we should all be working together to sort them out. One of the other great advantages to this system as well is that it actually provides a structure through which to have conversations. This list, as interesting and intriguing as it can be, will never replace a more linear and structured approach to building consensus. If the intended end result is real representation from the Internet community in ICANN's processes, all the time spent arguing outside the existing system is time wasted to my mind. I'm hoping people will take this post in the spirit it is intended and not feel the need to lecture, point or yell. 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 ca at rits.org.br Fri Nov 23 18:04:15 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:04:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <00b101c82df3$af754460$0e5fcd20$@com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <4745DA76.7050704@rits.org.br> <004801c82d68$e1d76ea0$a5864be0$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b101c82df3$af754460$0e5fcd20$@com> Message-ID: <47475C6F.7080802@rits.org.br> Dá-lhe, Jacqueline! :) bs --c.a. Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Dear Milton > I think of myself in many ways, not purely as anything. > If you pay attention to the LAC mailing lists, I am identifying strongly > there as a Portuguese descendent and cultural Latina. In some other places, > I identify strongly with my African heritage, and in other fora as a member > of the female sex. I can continue to define myself in many other ways, but > the examples already given should be quite sufficient to indicate that the > base premise of your response is false. > And considering that I'm part Portuguese and have a lot of family in Brazil > - it would be very strange for me to consider Brazil as "other" - it would > be like considering myself "other" to myself! > Jacqueline > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 12:20 > To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Jacqueline: > Just a question: why do you think of yourself primarily as a member of a > "country" and not in other terms, i.e. as a particular type of Internet > user, with specific economic interests, or as part of a group, which may be > transnational, sharing certain beliefs about how the internet should be > governed? > > Why do you view "Brazilians" as "the other" and therefore as someone who > will necessarily vote as a bloc "against" the Caribbean? It seems to me that > the kind of "balancing" you propose legitimates and perpetuates the very > national divisions that the Internet should be overcoming. > > I am all for limits on pure majoritarianism, which is why democratic > governance mechanisms need to be tempered by "constitutional" mechanisms > that protect individual rights. But I see no reason to privilege national > identities or divisions in any global governance mechanism. If you do want > to base things on nationality, then stick with the joys of > inter-governmental institutions like the ITU, WIPO or WTO, you will get > plenty of it there ;-) > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > > >> Caribbean at 14 million or so will never be able to outvote Brasil alone, >> far less the rest of LA. So what's the incentive for participation in an >> election of this nature? >> What do we think about a system of proportional representation to an >> electoral college (like Danny's new NomCom) - but a big one so that even >> the smallest country (Like Barbados with 300k people) can have maybe 1 >> member and thus a voice - and then have that college vote for the 5 or 9 >> people that will sit on the Board? >> That seems as if it would solve the problem of size, as well as the >> problem of not having representation at all - if in a place, we have a few >> people voting in the first election, we still have a voice in the college >> with our minimum 1 position, and as internet penetration increases, and >> users get more interested and more educated, we have more weight as more >> people vote. >> >> But then, none of these people will be truly "representative" of all the >> millions and millions - so "direct representation" by voting in any way >> will never be fully "representative". >> >> So - is this even something that we should be focusing on or should we >> focus on getting people more educated and more active and participating, >> thus getting closer to an informed global user constituency and away from >> the little cliques of the cognoscenti (us) who currently "represent"? This >> informed constituency can then leverage its size into power to demand >> changes. >> >> Jacqueline >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 15:37 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris >> Cc: 'Milton L Mueller'; yehudakatz at mailinator.com >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >> >> Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial >> flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet >> were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the >> interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography >> professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each >> region would elect one rep. >> >> Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part >> of the North American region, not of Latin America and the Caribbean, >> and so on -- I am sure most Mexicans who knew about this were pissed off >> knowing they would certainly always be represented by a "gringo", even >> if this "gringo" were -- and was -- our nice compa Karl Auerbach), but >> also the electoral system would allow for the perpetuation of certain >> countries' reps in power. >> >> There were no rotation provisions, no parameters to balance a 190M >> people country like Brazil with a 1M people country like Trinidad and >> Tobago. Fine, all are Internet users (after we take a huge dosis of >> naïveté medicine), but in the regional division, the Brazilian rep, in >> the absence of balancing and rotation provisions, would always win in >> its region. Mexico or Canada would never win in their region, and so on. >> BTW, in protest, at the time I voted for the Uruguayan candidate. Is it >> too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will >> be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the >> interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately. >> >> And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in >> the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them >> around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time, >> ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal >> user representation. >> >> Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral >> process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give >> us a good critical (I hope!) view of it. >> >> We enter into a territory of tremendous complexity when we want to >> establish representation of the "user community" -- this is too big, too >> diversified, and at the end too UNrepresentative precisely because of >> its generic, diverse, multisectoral, multicultural, multi-etc nature. >> And, most importantly, traversed by all interest groups (the user as a >> rep is actually a rep of his/her interest group etc etc). >> >> So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy >> and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?) >> we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think >> of instead of repeating the disaster of the past? >> >> --c.a. >> >> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >>> Hi Milton >>> I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue >> to >>> skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who >>> have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information >> about >>> the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users >> who >>> are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected >> enough to >>> find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc. >>> >>> There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do >> use >>> the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not >>> spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a >>> consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those >> users, >>> and return with information on how those users see specific issues. >>> >>> That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since >> the >>> Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've >> seen to >>> educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and >> technical >>> issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that >> this >>> is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model >>> that is not there in "direct representation" >>> >>> But if there were to be another "global election"... >>> >>> What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many >> people >>> as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of >> 1 >>> billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can we >> do >>> this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate >> against >>> non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How >>> should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user >> knows >>> about the vote and the issues? >>> >>> It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth, >> but >>> right now, any election would not be truly 'global" >>> >>> jacqueline >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:19 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >>> >>> Yehuda: >>> It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of >>> accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost >> the >>> election in the US and Europe. >>> >>> This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which >>> requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining >>> organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small >> stakes >>> individual internet users have in domain name issues. >>> >>> To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is: >>> * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be >>> starting soon >>> * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding >>> * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at >> large >>> itself and advocate that position. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >>>> >>>> To: >>>> Mr. Kieren McCarthy >>>> General Manager of Public Participation >>>> >>>> Ok Kieren lets work together, >>>> >>>> I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated, >>>> which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of >> 2000 >>>> Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm >>>> >>>> Please layout the path for us to accomplish this. >>>> (walk me through it) >>>> Which Icann list(s) need posting to?, >>>> Who should we contact directly? >>>> and How should we best approach the subject matter? >>>> (provide us some suggested text) >>>> >>>> Thnx >>>> y >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: >>>> 11/19/2007 12:35 PM >>>> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: >> 11/19/2007 >>> 12:35 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 >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: >> 11/19/2007 >>> 19:05 >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: >> 11/21/2007 >>> 16:28 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: >> 11/21/2007 16:28 >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: >> 11/21/2007 16:28 >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: >> 11/23/2007 9:19 AM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 > 9:19 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 > 09:19 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007 > 09:19 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 23 22:39:47 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:39:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <20071123174421.81BEEE05F8@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <20071123174421.81BEEE05F8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711231939v1ef7f75cj64d52299379160f4@mail.gmail.com> I've been doing that since 1982, in Bulgarian media, and since 1990 on line. Check my blog for more. The question here is not about Bulgaria, as no Bulgarian is coming to this list with the feeling that they know better what is good for the Internet in the whole world. The only thing we claim is well described in the presentation read by the Bulgarian Ambassador to Brazil at the Rio IGF. Check the website for more. Veni On 11/23/07, Guru at ITfC wrote: > Hi Veni, > > I wish you had given some counter examples from Bulgaria as well while you > were discussing the nature of Americans, it would have been even more > enlightening. > > warm regards, > Guru > _____ > > From: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Veni Markovski > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:54 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris > Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > > Hi, Jacqueline, > > > On Nov 23, 2007 12:04 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris > wrote: > > > that I and the people I work with at home have a lot of things to do that > are not at all linked to a global vote in which our concerns will be a > minority and won't impact our primary issues either. > > > > There's another good proverb on that issue, "he whose belly is full, > believes not him who is fasting." > For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to > something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other > Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet connection, > about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. > But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just because > they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate them about > "the other world". > > I say "some of the Americans", because obviously not all of them are like > that (thanks, God!), but it is interesting that those are quite vocal, while > the others stay quiet. > > 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 dan at musicunbound.com Fri Nov 23 22:52:01 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:52:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I hope everyone in the US had a Happy Thanksgiving holiday -- I certainly did: I didn't go online for a moment. And what a state this list is in as I return... One comment, certainly not intended to be ad hominem: At 12:23 PM -0500 11/23/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to >something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other >Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet >connection, about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. >But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just >because they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate >them about "the other world". I would wonder how "freedom of access" and "freedom of expression" (both of which I personally feel quite passionate about protecting), are not fundamentally issues of power. IMHO these rights are not merely "related to power" but are in fact *direct manifestations of power* -- if you have political power, then you have these freedoms, and if you do not have political power, generally you do not these freedoms in meaningful terms (though those in power may try to convince you that you do have them -- that makes it easier to control you, if you don't believe you have anything to fight for). Certainly my experience is dominated by the US environment, and in this politically highly divided country these freedoms are among the most important power issues we are fighting about. All of our freedoms are in direct danger, because in this country we are facing a systematic erosion of the rule of law in favor of the rule of humans. A lot of people outside the US criticize the US (actually, the US government) because of its supremely arrogant attitudes toward the rest of the world. What they may not realize is that *very many* people inside the US (I would include myself) criticize the current US administration for precisely those reasons, and that those imperial behaviors are aimed domestically as well as overseas. What the current US administration has done is systematically erode the checks and balances in our own Constitution in rather dangerous ways, with the strategic help of corporate mass media (and increasingly the telcos and cable companies are getting into it), and we are genuinely alarmed and trying our level best to fight back against what we see as steps to take our own country away from democratic standards of governance and toward a more authoritarian model that involves strong control over information. (In short, Orwell's dystopia can be arrived at either through over-centralization of public government or by wild deregulation of the private sector. In both extreme cases, the public and private sectors ultimately merge in a monopoly of elite power over and against the general public. Personally I view the "socialism versus free market" debate as a patently false dichotomy. I can go into further detail elsewhere if you like, but for the purposes of this particular discussion, I merely wish to set the conceptual context, which is that the US is currently facing the most serious threat to civil liberties in several generations.) So, in my personal case, it is not about "taking [anything] for granted" anywhere else in the world, but rather about seeing a frightening potential on the horizon at home that may not yet have propagated to all other areas of the world, but which needs to be opposed here and now and also at the international level regardless of whether it has arrived fully formed in all other regions. So, please understand that in the US the "privatization" trend in the sense of "outsourcing public governance" has some *very* nefarious overtones, and US domestic civil society has grown a hair-trigger sensitivity to such dynamics when they seem to be designed to undermine accountability of public governance to the general public in favor of giving power to wealthy private sector entities, and to growing closer bonds between private (economic) and public (political) power. (In the public policy world this is expressed by the jargon term "industry capture" [of government] and is often driven by "iron triangles" between industry lobbyists, agency regulators, and legislators.) So, this is the political context within which some of us see dynamics of Internet governance (the very word "governance" is about the institutional structures determining who has political *power* to control others), and it fits into this larger context in a fairly direct and disturbing manner. This is the "governance" list, after all, and the "G" in IGC and IGF and IGP is all about political power. So, with due respect, I present this description as a way to inform "the other world" as to what is going on inside the US, how it fits in with what you might see of explicit US foreign relations (which are tangibly frightening to many "USians"), the role towards which US civil society has gravitated in the last 7 years, how trends surrounding control of access and expression on the Internet fit into a disturbing pattern of strategic power shifts, and why we might see commonalities between the general problems of power battles in the US and the specific case of Internet governance, especially in cases where IG has a foot in the US legal and political jurisdiction. In short, the US is living through a recap of the "gilded age" of the previous century, once again moving systematically toward plutocracy, and creating a new generation of "robber barons" who strive to control the general public at home and have imperial designs abroad. US civil society (and many in academia) are aligned against this dangerous trend both domestically and with regard to international affairs. And, the information infrastructure is front and center in these power battles, because in the Information Age (or the "Information Society" if you prefer), control over information is perhaps the most important currency of political power itself. If we are throwing around traditional mottos, the one I prefer for our age is "knowledge is power" and the confluence of money and information-control is the "nuclear-powered" version of political power in the emerging information society, and the Internet (the most "disruptive" technology of our lifetimes, so far, even more than nuclear technology) is at the core of *all* of this. I would suggest that this is the framework within which you would best understand our positions and recommendations. There is no separation between freedom of access and freedom of expression and "power to the people" -- in my framework they are all part of the same thing, and the Internet is inextricably woven throughout the entire cloth. Bottom line: The Internet is *all* about power of information (and control over information), and that is becoming the most important form of power in our world as time progresses. 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 veni at veni.com Sat Nov 24 01:33:11 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:33:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> Dan, In my message I was talking about "some of the Americans". Nobody would seriously name a whole nation as taking things for granted. As for the access to information - trust me, even when the people in power were trying to control it, there were ways to achieve it. The point about freedom of speech is fundamental - but only in certain societies. In others it is more important to actually have affordable access. Of the many issues around the Internet, the DNS and esp. the IP addresses are not on the priority list of anyone except people with some commercial interest, scientific researchers, professionals. The end user does not care about them. That actually is the big pain of some people here - that regardless of what they say, and how loud, the users still don't care about ICANN, but about how much they pay for what kind of service. Just an example - when people leave the huge quotes after every mail, how many think that this may take more time for the dial-up user in, say, Kambodja? Guess what - only a few od us have actually paid their Internet access by the bytes, not by the bit. At the beginning of the Internet it was 3.5 cents for 1 Kb (1024 bytes) in Bulgaria. And when we know the majority of the people (and users) have this as a problem, but the native-English speakers try to put their thoughts in our minds that THIS is not a problem, what do you expect? After all, no wonder some end up with personal attacks - they just don't understand us, and probably at some point think that we are idiots, incompetent, etc. just because we don't share their views about the domain names. Veni - Original message - -- if you have political power, then you have these freedoms, and if you do not have political power, generally you do not these freedoms in meaningful terms On 11/23/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > I hope everyone in the US had a Happy Thanksgiving holiday -- I certainly > did: I didn't go online for a moment. And what a state this list is in as > I return... > > One comment, certainly not intended to be ad hominem: > > > At 12:23 PM -0500 11/23/07, Veni Markovski wrote: > > >For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to > >something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other > >Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet > >connection, about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. > >But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just > >because they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate > >them about "the other world". > > > I would wonder how "freedom of access" and "freedom of expression" (both of > which I personally feel quite passionate about protecting), are not > fundamentally issues of power. IMHO these rights are not merely "related > to power" but are in fact *direct manifestations of power* -- if you have > political power, then you have these freedoms, and if you do not have > political power, generally you do not these freedoms in meaningful terms > (though those in power may try to convince you that you do have them -- > that makes it easier to control you, if you don't believe you have anything > to fight for). > > Certainly my experience is dominated by the US environment, and in this > politically highly divided country these freedoms are among the most > important power issues we are fighting about. All of our freedoms are in > direct danger, because in this country we are facing a systematic erosion > of the rule of law in favor of the rule of humans. > > A lot of people outside the US criticize the US (actually, the US > government) because of its supremely arrogant attitudes toward the rest of > the world. What they may not realize is that *very many* people inside the > US (I would include myself) criticize the current US administration for > precisely those reasons, and that those imperial behaviors are aimed > domestically as well as overseas. What the current US administration has > done is systematically erode the checks and balances in our own > Constitution in rather dangerous ways, with the strategic help of corporate > mass media (and increasingly the telcos and cable companies are getting > into it), and we are genuinely alarmed and trying our level best to fight > back against what we see as steps to take our own country away from > democratic standards of governance and toward a more authoritarian model > that involves strong control over information. > > (In short, Orwell's dystopia can be arrived at either through > over-centralization of public government or by wild deregulation of the > private sector. In both extreme cases, the public and private sectors > ultimately merge in a monopoly of elite power over and against the general > public. Personally I view the "socialism versus free market" debate as a > patently false dichotomy. I can go into further detail elsewhere if you > like, but for the purposes of this particular discussion, I merely wish to > set the conceptual context, which is that the US is currently facing the > most serious threat to civil liberties in several generations.) > > So, in my personal case, it is not about "taking [anything] for granted" > anywhere else in the world, but rather about seeing a frightening potential > on the horizon at home that may not yet have propagated to all other areas > of the world, but which needs to be opposed here and now and also at the > international level regardless of whether it has arrived fully formed in > all other regions. > > So, please understand that in the US the "privatization" trend in the sense > of "outsourcing public governance" has some *very* nefarious overtones, and > US domestic civil society has grown a hair-trigger sensitivity to such > dynamics when they seem to be designed to undermine accountability of > public governance to the general public in favor of giving power to wealthy > private sector entities, and to growing closer bonds between private > (economic) and public (political) power. (In the public policy world this > is expressed by the jargon term "industry capture" [of government] and is > often driven by "iron triangles" between industry lobbyists, agency > regulators, and legislators.) > > So, this is the political context within which some of us see dynamics of > Internet governance (the very word "governance" is about the institutional > structures determining who has political *power* to control others), and it > fits into this larger context in a fairly direct and disturbing manner. > This is the "governance" list, after all, and the "G" in IGC and IGF and > IGP is all about political power. > > So, with due respect, I present this description as a way to inform "the > other world" as to what is going on inside the US, how it fits in with what > you might see of explicit US foreign relations (which are tangibly > frightening to many "USians"), the role towards which US civil society has > gravitated in the last 7 years, how trends surrounding control of access > and expression on the Internet fit into a disturbing pattern of strategic > power shifts, and why we might see commonalities between the general > problems of power battles in the US and the specific case of Internet > governance, especially in cases where IG has a foot in the US legal and > political jurisdiction. > > In short, the US is living through a recap of the "gilded age" of the > previous century, once again moving systematically toward plutocracy, and > creating a new generation of "robber barons" who strive to control the > general public at home and have imperial designs abroad. US civil society > (and many in academia) are aligned against this dangerous trend both > domestically and with regard to international affairs. And, the > information infrastructure is front and center in these power battles, > because in the Information Age (or the "Information Society" if you > prefer), control over information is perhaps the most important currency of > political power itself. > > If we are throwing around traditional mottos, the one I prefer for our age > is "knowledge is power" and the confluence of money and information-control > is the "nuclear-powered" version of political power in the emerging > information society, and the Internet (the most "disruptive" technology of > our lifetimes, so far, even more than nuclear technology) is at the core of > *all* of this. > > I would suggest that this is the framework within which you would best > understand our positions and recommendations. There is no separation > between freedom of access and freedom of expression and "power to the > people" -- in my framework they are all part of the same thing, and the > Internet is inextricably woven throughout the entire cloth. > > Bottom line: The Internet is *all* about power of information (and control > over information), and that is becoming the most important form of power in > our world as time progresses. > > Dan > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Nov 24 01:47:00 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:47:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711232247m420f820as217ba34f6bebd298@mail.gmail.com> Karl, You make some minor errors in the conclusions. How many of these 200,000 were from only two countries, and why? How many were in Europe and why? Why do you say that this was done outside and despite ICANN? (And, please, let us not talk about the US; let us assume yours was an exceptional election process). And last, but not least, you assume the US experience can be used for other countries. You may have seen in the blog entried I published who was using these words, "this is the way we do it, an so should you". In a way I read your word as a continuation of Winston Chirchill's words, that democracy is a bad system, but there isn't a better one created. The US is a worse system, but the best democracy created? Driving national features into international discussion, esp. features that have so many bugs, is dangerous. People don't like when they are being told something with a tone of a superiority, and the natural reaction is defence. You talk about channels of communications; please let us know what were these channels in Europe, or Asia? Best, Veni - Original message - that nearly 200,000 people made the effort to try to sign up to vote. That was done entirely outside of ICANN and even despite ICANN. As was demonstrated in year 2000 - if people are given a real voice in systems of government they will respond, channels of communication will form (that's what the internet itself is all about). But it On 11/23/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > > > Who's going to tell users about the vote? Who's going to sit with them in > > meetings and consultations and try to explain the issues? > > Those same questions can be raised about any electoral process - and > indeed about any externally imposed system such as ICANN's ALAC. > > During the year 2000 elections several people around the world used the > power of the world wide web to create very useful information centers - > much richer than anything ICANN has ever done. > > Within a few weeks the election interested enough people that nearly > 200,000 people made the effort to try to sign up to vote. That was done > entirely outside of ICANN and even despite ICANN. > > As was demonstrated in year 2000 - if people are given a real voice in > systems of government they will respond, channels of communication will > form (that's what the internet itself is all about). > > But it requires that people have a real role, not some facade, not some toy. > > It is no wonder that ICANN's ALAC is a terrific dud - it offers nothing > but a toy, it offers nothing that can be construed as a system through > which internet users can hold the decision makers accountable. > > ICANN's ALAC is a theatre play - users merely observe. Elections are > life - users participate. > > In the few months of the year 2000 election we saw the creation and > deployment of a far more vibrant system with far more faces and idea > than has ever come out of the four+ years of ICANN's ALAC. > > In year 2000 here in the US we held face-to-face debates on the west > coast (Stanford University) and east coast (Harvard University) and had > rather substantial open discussions, electronic and otherwise. The > costs were not high, none of us had to expend vast treasure, and the > electorate had large opportunities to become informed and to interact > with the candidates. > > Several of us wrote our views - my platform is still visible: > http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm (and, sadly > many of the issues of year 2000 remain issues today.) > > I joined with two other candiates, Larry Lessig and Barbara Simons, to > form a kind of mini-slate (why that is a good thing in > single-transferable voting is a bit arcane, but it does create a > potential advantage.) > > What I am getting at here is that elections are not systems in which the > outcome is handed to candidates on a silver platter. Rather those who > organize and campaign tend to do better than those who do no. > > The system that ICANN created to replace elections is a paternalism, not > unlike the systems imposed by King Leopold of Belgium on that country's > African colonies, in which a privileged group condescended to create > play pen systems of governance that satisfied the need for those in > control to feel that were taking care of those who were less capable and > denying to those people the ability to make their own choices. > > Do we really want internet governance to be based on the paternalistic, > even imperialistic, models of the 19th century? > > Or do we want to recognize that each human being is entitled to have a > fair and equal voice in his or her life and those systems of government > that affect that life? > > --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 vb at bertola.eu Sat Nov 24 03:25:05 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:25:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <4747DFE1.8010306@bertola.eu> Kieren McCarthy ha scritto: > It strikes me that if you ignore the torrid history and clash of egos over > the years, that the ALAC/RALO/ALS system is a pretty logical structure, > designed to be scalable and to ensure regional representation. > > But many of the comments on this list take as a presumption that this is not > a logical structure. > > I think everyone may be missing the bigger picture. > > For example, with this election argument: no one is pondering where the > candidates - or, rather, the best candidates - come from. I think that you got the key points of why we designed the structure like that, five years ago; I'm happy to see that, once one gets deeper into the complexities of the mechanism, the need for a "glocal" and multilayered system becomes self-evident. However, there are a couple of things that, IMHO, do not work well and, in hindsight, may need to be readdressed. The first is that the system tends to bubble up good politicians, but not good workers. Of course I am grossly simplifying, but during these years not many of the ALAC members were interested in rolling up their sleeves and producing policy input to ICANN, or being practical enough to focus on current end-user problems. Most of them were more interested in discussing high level political issues such as WSIS, relationships with the USG, or even more often the internalities of the At Large itself, i.e. procedural issues. Not all ALAC members see the ALAC as a service to the community at large - many see it as a way to promote personal opinions and their pet issues, and in a few cases people seemed only focused on self-promotion. The third is that the system is not representative yet, and in this I think that Karl has a point. Sure we'll not get millions of citizens directly interested in ICANN, and sure the disinformed and nationalistic (when not plainly random) votes of the 2000 elections were very far from actual democracy (more similar to practical democracy, the one that elects Bush and Berlusconi). However, the ALAC "bubbling up" system mostly failed in bringing up the issues that registrants really care about. There is a lack of end user participation at the bottom level; the ALSes were mostly meant to be "entry points" that could take care of identifying and gathering the users, and providing information to them in local languages; however, there has always been the idea that some form of general, individual-based election would eventually take place, or at least that a smart and committed individual, by entering the system at an ALS, could very quickly get to the top level, without being blocked by layers of bureaucracy and established leaderships. The ALSes and their leadership have too much power in the present system, and they tend to capture the scene. However, these are points that can be addressed, and I expect that (assuming that I continue participating in ICANN) there will be a chance to discuss them thoroughly. -- 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 Sat Nov 24 04:08:47 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:08:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> (kierenmccarthy@gmail.com) References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <20071124090847.3D9712202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. > > I would define rudeness in the context that I was complaining about as: > > > > "The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an > individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without > evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone's else's > honestly held viewpoint." Sounds like a quite good enough definition to me. Now that the problem has been defined, can we proceed to discussing what can be done about it? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 24 05:18:06 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:18:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list I was rather silent so far on this interesting debate but as a "veteran" I wanted to listen to the many voices around. It is always good to go back to history and to learn from the mistakes and to understand how contradictions - rooted in conflicting interests - have driven development. I was involved in the MAC when we discussed this with Charles Nession, Jonathan Zittrain (he was the Executive Secretary of the MAC) and others in 1999 in Singapore, Cambridge and Berlin (which paved the way for the elections), I was involved as member of the MITF, and I workd together with Carl Bildt in the ALSG in 2001. In the first meeting in Stockhlom (2001) Carl Bildt, as former democratically elected prime minister of a democratic country, was rather sceptical about elections (too low voters turnour to be really democratic). But in the course of the debate he changed his mind, saw this as an innovation and became a supporter of elections, however just for domain name holders, which can be easier indentified than e-mail address holders. The final ALSG report, which recommended this scheme - was critisied because such an election would have excluded a lot of students from universities who normally do not have an own domain name. The argument was that this is like in the middle ages where just land oweners have right to vote. The report was presented in Montevideo where they have a lot of experiences with Latifundistas. However the report recommended elections. This was on September, 8, 2001. And as we know, September 11, 2001 changed ICANN from a playground on Cyberdemocracy into a project of Cybersecurity. Believe it or not, we live (unfortunately) now in a different world. We can not go back to history. If history comes back one to one, than this is always a farce or a comedy. We have to move foreward. I fully support Gurus call for "creativity" and "innovation". We all agree that the stupid superstructure of ALS/RALO/ALAC was established to keep the individual users on a distance from policy development and decision making to minimze undefined "risks". And as long as the ALAC construction was as weak as it was (and is) this has worked well for the inventors of the system. Is there a chance for an innovative new approach? Why not. 1. the proposed "World Internet User Summit" in June 2008 in Paris - as part of the ICANN meeting - is an unique opportunity. There is a need to start now with the preparations, to establish a drafting committee for an "Internet Users Declaration" and to do outreach beyond accredited ALS. Such a declaration can be based on all the nice documents of the 1990s, the elcetion experiences of 2000 plus the Civil Society Declaration from WSIS I. It will also go beyond the planned user event during the OECD Ministerial Meeting in Seoul just on the even of the Paris meeting. OECD includes only a limited number of states. 2. the forthcoming ALAC review process offers broad opportunities to analyze the weakness and risks of the existing structures and to make constructive proposals. Peter Dengath Tresh, ICANNs new CEO, has underlined during the IGF in Rio, that the review process is part of ICANN democratization process. So this is the place where all the critics can be channeled. Looking backwards is sometimes useful. Looking forward is the challenge of the next couple of years. Regards wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Sat Nov 24 05:29:49 2007 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:29:49 EST Subject: [governance] Innovation Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang -- Your balanced historical perspective is a real breath of cooling air on this overheated list. Best regards, Rony Koven ************************************** Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) -------------- 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 Sat Nov 24 05:52:37 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:52:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <20071124090847.3D9712202B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <20071124090847.3D9712202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711240252k6037a50bl9e3477a37f980e9a@mail.gmail.com> Yes, please. What are your suggestions? Best, Veni On 11/24/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > > > i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. > > > > I would define rudeness in the context that I was complaining about as: > > > > > > > > "The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy > an > > individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without > > evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone's else's > > honestly held viewpoint." > > > Sounds like a quite good enough definition to me. > > Now that the problem has been defined, can we proceed to discussing > what can be done about it? > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > Working on establishing a non-corrupt and > truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 24 06:43:12 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:43:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711240252k6037a50bl9e3477a37f980e9a@mail.gmail.com> (veni@veni.com) References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <20071124090847.3D9712202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <2aa69fe40711240252k6037a50bl9e3477a37f980e9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071124114312.926772202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > On 11/24/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Now that the problem has been defined, can we proceed to discussing > > what can be done about it? > > Yes, please. > > What are your suggestions? Here's what I have in mind for OpenISO.org: - The "Guidelines" documents and the "welcome messages" for the email mailing lists implementing the OpenISO.org "Working Groups" will make clear that behavior such as rudeness which is disruptive of fact-oriented discussion is not considered acceptable, and will result in the transgressor "being moderated" (i.e. the mailing list system would hold future postings from them for checking and manual approval by a "moderator" who will check that the postings are -in his or her reasonable judgement- not rude or otherwise disruptive). - In order to prevent such moderation from resulting in a severe loss of transparency and accountability, I plan to set up an additional mailing list which will not be used for substantive discussions, but only for informing anyone who might be interested about "moderation events" (such as someone being added to the list of people whose postings will be help for moderation, or a posting being rejected) and for complaints/discussion/rants/whatever about such modevents. There will be no moderation of the modevents mailing list; participants of that mailing list are expected to know how to use killfiles or equivalent blackholing techniques. The point of this set-up is to ensure that rude people and other trouble-makers are not able to prevent the Working-Group mailing lists from fullfilling their function. The modevents mailing list does not need such protection because it is not a problem with regard to the goals of OpenISO.org if rude people prevent useful discussions from occurring on that list. I would expect that this kind of approach has more general applicability in that it could be adapted to any kind of online discussion. With regard to this mailing list and other fora where this kind of problem is occurring, I think that the main question is this: Is the political will there to implement a system like this? I'd certainly welcome the use of such a set-up on this list and for all other internet-based internet governance discussions, but due to other commitments I won't take the time to fight for that. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Sat Nov 24 07:19:24 2007 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:19:24 EST Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Message-ID: Dear All -- The problem with proposals to "moderate" rudeness is that they are a form of censorship. If there are persons who choose to be rude or offensive, they should be free to do so. Some of the reactions dubbing statements "ad hominem" are overly sensitive. And sometimes rude or offensive comments may in fact be justifiable. Those who make excessive comments are more or less automatically punished by having their views disqualified in the minds of large numbers. Calling for courteous discourse is fine. Choosing to ignore discourteous comments is fine, too. But one person's lack of politesses may be another's justified anger. "Ad hominem" attacks may be unpleasant, but knowing who it is who is saying what is not irrelevant. Jean-Paul Sartre once said that one should judge any statement in the light of "quel salaud l'a fait" -- "what bastard made it." As for defining "rudeness," I think any definition is bound to be open to criticism. It seems to me that it's more like the comment of a US Supreme Court justice who once said, speaking of "pornography," "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I think les salauds should be allowed to be salauds if that's what they want to be. The advantage is that by behaving that way they show themselves up for what they are, instead of hiding behind a screen of false politesse. If that position is liberalism run amok, so be it -- make the most of it. Bests, Rony Koven ************************************** Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) -------------- 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 Sat Nov 24 08:02:40 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:02:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Message-ID: <940616.77357.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I'm happy to agree with your sentiments Rony, but it's still a fact that the bullying tactics sometimes used intimidate some people and do nothing to encourage open debate... so the bullying tactics occasionally used *are* a form of censorship in themselves. David ----- Original Message ---- From: "KovenRonald at aol.com" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Saturday, 24 November, 2007 11:19:24 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Dear All -- The problem with proposals to "moderate" rudeness is that they are a form of censorship. If there are persons who choose to be rude or offensive, they should be free to do so. Some of the reactions dubbing statements "ad hominem" are overly sensitive. And sometimes rude or offensive comments may in fact be justifiable. Those who make excessive comments are more or less automatically punished by having their views disqualified in the minds of large numbers. Calling for courteous discourse is fine. Choosing to ignore discourteous comments is fine, too. But one person's lack of politesses may be another's justified anger. "Ad hominem" attacks may be unpleasant, but knowing who it is who is saying what is not irrelevant. Jean-Paul Sartre once said that one should judge any statement in the light of "quel salaud l'a fait" -- "what bastard made it." As for defining "rudeness," I think any definition is bound to be open to criticism. It seems to me that it's more like the comment of a US Supreme Court justice who once said, speaking of "pornography," "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I think les salauds should be allowed to be salauds if that's what they want to be. The advantage is that by behaving that way they show themselves up for what they are, instead of hiding behind a screen of false politesse. If that position is liberalism run amok, so be it -- make the most of it. Bests, Rony Koven ************************************** Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From cls at rkey.com Sat Nov 24 09:05:24 2007 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:05:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com> Is it better to reinstate the vote, or to push for something better? Many of the old-timers on this list will remember me from the early ICANN period, when I was researching a Ph.D. that focused on DNS politics (Thanks again to those who graciously put up with my pestering). Since then, I’ve thought a lot about how a practical venue for online democracy might work. Earlier this year I decided to apply myself to implementing and refining some of those ideas. I call my project an experiment in collaborative expression of converging and diverging opinion. It’s ultimately about creating a massively scalable mechanism for structured argument and consensus building. What's been achieved so far is largely inspired by the preferential voting system used in ICANN's 2000 election. It showcases an interactive ranked choice ballot and highly granular visualizations of Instant Runoff Vote (IRV) elections, displayed round by round. See an operational example (for the ongoing US Democratic Party presidential primary) at http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=157. Thus far I’ve been promoting the system to political bloggers, to pollsters, and also to various advocates of IRV and online democracy in the US. My long-term take on IRV goes far beyond a preferential ballot system. I’ve put groundwork in place at my site to allow for what I call “panel voting.” It’s a way of filtering and reaggregating results to show the behaviors within slices of the voting population. Panel voting would permit display of collective preferences among pre-designated and self-designated groups of individuals. Those groups could be aggregated by geopolitical/regional origins, credentialed qualifications, professed loyalties, etc. That filtering feature is also intended to provide a way for new coalitions to become “conscious” of themselves, as potential coalition members come to recognize their shared preferences. The most ambitious aspect of the project is providing a way for new ideas to be offered, vetted, refined, and embraced within online communities. My approach, still mostly on paper, would combine an open nomination process with dynamically convened panels whose members would serve as vetting juries. I agree with Kieren about the legitimating virtue of venues in which power (in the form of respected candidates for leadership) can “bubble up” within a structured chain. The challenge is to provide an online mechanism by which candidates for decision – not just people seeking office, but position papers, policy statements, formal agreements, and so on – can be nominated and bubbled up through and across various constellations of panels, seeking final ratification by the group as a whole. Achieving an effective level of large-scale online democracy requires far better leverage of web technology than what’s been demonstrated so far. In my view, mailing lists, blogs, and traditional online fora are generally too linear and too noisy to help sort out the problems of widely diverse and rapidly growing communities. Yet they are also too prone to becoming echo chambers suited best for preaching to the choir. Wikis, though excellent at expressing the results of consensus-oriented processes, are poorly set up for venting the give and take of an underlying debate. The purpose of constitutional politics is to channel conflict and competition. What’s needed for an Internet-based decision-making venue is a widely accessible, democratically open consensus-forging mechanism that can simultaneously open up new channels for fresh and useful input while also allowing friendly refinements that fortify existing contributions. ICANN’s 2000 election struck me as a squandered opportunity. Though so many thousands of people registered and voted, there was no followup attempt to reconnect them and nurture what might have emerged as a viable online community I’m not writing to lament the past, however, but to offer thoughts about how to structure a useful and enduring medium for online democracy... something that would be worthy of such a large community. Does my project sound the like the right direction toward a solution set that would satisfy the ICANN community? Craig Simon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Sat Nov 24 11:02:46 2007 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:02:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Innovation - ALAC Review References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <04a701c82eb3$74a87580$6501a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Wolfgang, Thanks for the excellent post. You put some hope in the proposed ALAC Review Process. Are you aware of its status and the reasons behind the delayed selection process? Will we be getting a review from a qualified and unbiased entity? I'd appreciate it if you (or anyone else here) would shed some light on this. Tom Lowenhaupt Wolfgang > 2. the forthcoming ALAC review process offers broad opportunities to analyze the weakness and risks of the existing structures and to make constructive proposals. Peter Dengath Tresh, ICANNs new CEO, has underlined during the IGF in Rio, that the review process is part of ICANN democratization process. So this is the place where all the critics can be channeled. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" To: ; "Guru at ITfC" ; Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:18 AM Subject: [governance] Innovation > Dear list > > I was rather silent so far on this interesting debate but as a "veteran" I > wanted to listen to the many voices around. > > It is always good to go back to history and to learn from the mistakes and > to understand how contradictions - rooted in conflicting interests - have > driven development. I was involved in the MAC when we discussed this with > Charles Nession, Jonathan Zittrain (he was the Executive Secretary of the > MAC) and others in 1999 in Singapore, Cambridge and Berlin (which paved > the way for the elections), I was involved as member of the MITF, and I > workd together with Carl Bildt in the ALSG in 2001. In the first meeting > in Stockhlom (2001) Carl Bildt, as former democratically elected prime > minister of a democratic country, was rather sceptical about elections > (too low voters turnour to be really democratic). But in the course of the > debate he changed his mind, saw this as an innovation and became a > supporter of elections, however just for domain name holders, which can be > easier indentified than e-mail address holders. > > The final ALSG report, which recommended this scheme - was critisied > because such an election would have excluded a lot of students from > universities who normally do not have an own domain name. The argument was > that this is like in the middle ages where just land oweners have right to > vote. The report was presented in Montevideo where they have a lot of > experiences with Latifundistas. However the report recommended elections. > This was on September, 8, 2001. And as we know, September 11, 2001 changed > ICANN from a playground on Cyberdemocracy into a project of Cybersecurity. > Believe it or not, we live (unfortunately) now in a different world. > > We can not go back to history. If history comes back one to one, than this > is always a farce or a comedy. We have to move foreward. I fully support > Gurus call for "creativity" and "innovation". We all agree that the stupid > superstructure of ALS/RALO/ALAC was established to keep the individual > users on a distance from policy development and decision making to minimze > undefined "risks". And as long as the ALAC construction was as weak as it > was (and is) this has worked well for the inventors of the system. > > Is there a chance for an innovative new approach? Why not. > 1. the proposed "World Internet User Summit" in June 2008 in Paris - as > part of the ICANN meeting - is an unique opportunity. There is a need to > start now with the preparations, to establish a drafting committee for an > "Internet Users Declaration" and to do outreach beyond accredited ALS. > Such a declaration can be based on all the nice documents of the 1990s, > the elcetion experiences of 2000 plus the Civil Society Declaration from > WSIS I. It will also go beyond the planned user event during the OECD > Ministerial Meeting in Seoul just on the even of the Paris meeting. OECD > includes only a limited number of states. > > 2. the forthcoming ALAC review process offers broad opportunities to > analyze the weakness and risks of the existing structures and to make > constructive proposals. Peter Dengath Tresh, ICANNs new CEO, has > underlined during the IGF in Rio, that the review process is part of ICANN > democratization process. So this is the place where all the critics can be > channeled. > > Looking backwards is sometimes useful. Looking forward is the challenge of > the next couple of years. > > Regards > > wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Nov 24 11:05:39 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:05:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: 47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com Message-ID: >ICANN�s 2000 election struck me as a squandered opportunity. Though so many >thousands of people registered and voted, there was no followup attempt to >reconnect them and nurture what might have emerged as a viable online >community >I�m not writing to lament the past, however, but to offer thoughts about how to >structure a useful and enduring medium for online democracy... something that >would be worthy of such a large community. Ditto That, I'd add the Movement of the 2000 election did metamorphosis to create the IcannatLarge.Com & IcannatLarge.Net (which could be considered one unified group, or two left & right Groups). Of which many of today's "Old Timers" found a voice and also a platform, most importantly of which, got them elected into Icann organs. You should give credit - where credits due, their 'voice' didn't happen on Icann mail-list, the support at the time came from list, not unlike this list today, wherein a few of these Voices will go on to be incorporated in to the Icann or IGF structures. - > Does my project sound the like the right direction toward a solution set that would satisfy the ICANN community? I wouldn't say "satisfy", but by all means sounds like another approach, and diversity-is-the-mother-of-invention, so go ahead! put it out there. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Nov 24 11:57:06 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:57:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:19 AM -0500 11/24/07, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: >Dear All -- > >The problem with proposals to "moderate" >rudeness is that they are a form of censorship. > >If there are persons who choose to be rude or >offensive, they should be free to do so. Some of >the reactions dubbing statements "ad hominem" >are overly sensitive. And sometimes rude or >offensive comments may in fact be justifiable. > >Those who make excessive comments are more or >less automatically punished by having their >views disqualified in the minds of large numbers. > >Calling for courteous discourse is fine. >Choosing to ignore discourteous comments is >fine, too. But one person's lack of politesses >may be another's justified anger. > >"Ad hominem" attacks may be unpleasant, but >knowing who it is who is saying what is not >irrelevant. Jean-Paul Sartre once said that one >should judge any statement in the light of "quel >salaud l'a fait" -- "what bastard made it." > >As for defining "rudeness," I think any >definition is bound to be open to criticism. It >seems to me that it's more like the comment of a >US Supreme Court justice who once said, speaking >of "pornography," "I can't define it, but I know >it when I see it." > >I think les salauds should be allowed to be >salauds if that's what they want to be. The >advantage is that by behaving that way they show >themselves up for what they are, instead of >hiding behind a screen of false politesse. > >If that position is liberalism run amok, so be it -- make the most of it. > >Bests, Rony Koven I appreciate my friend Rony Koven's most literate defense of the liberal view - it's a pleasure to read such a well thought-out contribution. In my experience, however, different conclusions ensue from a wider take on the question. And that, of course, is what effective dialog is all about, the opportunity to consider a range of analyses. In this view, human communities, across time - literally eons - and today around the globe, perennially return to a challenge: how to deal with the member who would insist on the primacy of his/her position. That is to say, this is a universal, across cultures and time. The problem is bluntest with the use of force to wreak one's will, toward autocracy and so one person's prevailing over others. The same is only slightly more submerged in economic affairs, when the would-be monopolist tries to drag all the marbles into his/her corner. In the realm of discourse, in what are always necessary deliberations - to join separate individual's contributions into common knowledge and reach some conclusion - the same proclivity, to individual hegemony, emerges from the human character. While not often treated as of the same cloth, I believe we can understand - and hopefully gain some traction for dealing - if we appreciate the common thread underlying. Of course the use of force in discussion takes a form particular to discourse. But we all, and all folks, know it - Rony's quote is to the point here, paraphrasing slightly, 'I know it when I [feel] it.' In particular, some individuals in the discussion, rather than the supposed topic itself, become the target. (And disagreements late at night in a bar commonly spill over into fisticuffs or worse, in the street outside - of course, the physical violence that may follow political legerdemain in the idea space can be oh so much uglier.) What happens, when a discussion turns into attacks (of whatever form)? Wolfgang Kleinwächter has just pointed out the shift from Cyberdemocracy into Cybersecurity, with 9/11. This was in response to an attack, and of course on a global scale. Groups trying to discuss also shift in an entirely similar way, when the would-be hegemonist mounts an attack in the discourse. The scale is micro, not global; but the human response is entirely the same - the defensive crouch. I am so grateful to Kieren, that he took the trouble to spell this out, unmistakably, with an example we can see clearly: >... > I will refer to a comment inserted by Milton >this morning as a perfect example of the sort of >rudeness that this list could well do without. > >In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton responded: > >"Well, all I can say is that the reason most >American business people are terrified of such >voting is that they conclude (more accurately >than you, I am afraid) that such a mechanism >would empower the "new Internet world" of tens >of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in >relative terms, erode their current power. " > > >The "more accurately than you, I am afraid" was >deliberately provocative, added nothing to the >discussion, came with no evidence or reasoned >analysis, and both mocked Jacqueline and >dismissed her honestly held viewpoint. > >It has no place in reasonable discussions. Which >is a shame because Milton then went on to raise >some interesting ideas about ALSes which I >personally would be happy to discuss but which I >won't respond to because of the unpleasantness >earlier in the email. I quote Kieren at length, because he spells out the unfortunate denouement, from hunkering down: otherwise useful discussion is shut off, in a defensive response. No longer is there the sort of discussion we need, particularly sensitive explorations of honestly held differences. Which are the only ways forward, to find new wisdom, even consensus. Instead, further exchange is only on defense, or perhaps counter-attack. Kieren points out how useful talk is stymied. Not very much productive gets done. And worse, just the folks who we might wish to join will have more-than-second thoughts about continuing to engage. Life is about finding (quality) playmates, and folks tend to gravitate to more successful venues. Why spend time where useful talk is smothered under defensive silence and the satisfactions circle around wounded prey? Of course - harking back a moment to the wider perspective - there are a myriad human responses to this fundamental dilemma. History and some perspective make that clear. What I believe is also clear is a basic trade, in the choices made. On the one side is letting it all hang out; on the other side are the sort of community standards made real through sanctions as for instance Norbert spells out. The first enjoys the classical freedoms, but a good bit less gets done (as is the perennial complaint here). The latter does the hard work of forming community with enforced standards, but some attack artists have their wings clipped. And there is always the danger of inbred insularity, as any now-defined regime tracks forward. Which of course is the debate about (classical) liberalism, where this screed started. Here is not the place ... that discussion goes on in detail elsewhere for those concerned ... but suffice it, here: My own view sees classical liberalism in some retreat, if viewed against any scale. The precipitous decline of US stature has not helped the cause. But other forces have long militated for an ideology more nuanced and thus more realistic. Then we really get into the tradeoffs above. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Sat Nov 24 15:50:03 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:50:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >Of the many issues around the Internet, the DNS and esp. the IP >addresses are not on the priority list of anyone except people with >some commercial interest, scientific researchers, professionals. The >end user does not care about them. Often the end user does not *know* about them, and particularly what their *ramifications* would be to the power balance of the control over information, thus has no *opportunity* to care or not care. But I would predict that, to the extent that end users were told what would happen in many of these cases, they would have a very clear preference for policy, as it affects their power to communicate, which means the power to transact business, the power to stay in touch with friends and family, the power to communicate without state surveillance and censorship, the power to broadcast information to the rest of the world. Commercial interests are, of course, increasingly involved with political power, so any area where commercial interests have a political interest is one where the general public should have a political interest, especially when it comes to the information infrastructure. The point is, regardless whether or not *most end users understand* that these (Internet governance) issues are about power, they are *in fact* ineliminably about power, and they will shape political power balances in our societies for generations to come. I would not deny that affordable pricing of Internet access is a prerequisite to being part of the distribution of power that the Internet can enable, but the point we are trying to make is that these other policies are undermining that (positively disruptive) potential. If, by the time access becomes affordable, it is not worth having any more than a state-controlled cable TV network, we have lost the game anyway. Personally, it seems clear to me that these issues should not be traded off between one another. We must address them all simultaneously, because they are *all* prerequisite to protecting the full power-distributing potential of the Internet. And if we mess it up now, we may not ever get a chance to fix it. The "people in control" continue to learn new ways to control the network, and even if they didn't figure it out the first time or two, they play a mean game of catch-up and are not to be dismissed, especially with all of the resources they have at hand (such as mandating architecture, or doing deals with commercial interests and allowing those commercial interests to mandate architecture). No democratic system of governance is self-sustaining on auto-pilot. It requires constant vigilance to protect the fragile mechanisms of accountability. Democracy is not a victory, it is a process. So let's make a deal. I will not dismiss the issues that you (rightly) find so critical, and perhaps you will not dismiss the issues that I (and others) (also rightly) find so critical. The full empowering potential of the Internet will not be achieved without *both* affordable/ubiquitous access *and* common carriage, privacy, etc. To trade off one against the other makes no sense to me. They are both/all critical issues that must be addressed now, because there are threats in all of these areas. Heck, with the US now in the middle of the pack globally in terms of broadband access and falling lower as time progresses, affordable access is a hot topic in the US as well, and it is inseparable from the power dynamics that are going on at the FCC for example. In the end all of these Internet issues are about (political) power, on all sides. Dan At 1:33 AM -0500 11/24/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >Dan, > >In my message I was talking about "some of the Americans". Nobody >would seriously name a whole nation as taking things for granted. >As for the access to information - trust me, even when the people in >power were trying to control it, there were ways to achieve it. The >point about freedom of speech is fundamental - but only in certain >societies. In others it is more important to actually have affordable >access. > >Of the many issues around the Internet, the DNS and esp. the IP >addresses are not on the priority list of anyone except people with >some commercial interest, scientific researchers, professionals. The >end user does not care about them. That actually is the big pain of >some people here - that regardless of what they say, and how loud, the >users still don't care about ICANN, but about how much they pay for >what kind of service. > >Just an example - when people leave the huge quotes after every mail, >how many think that this may take more time for the dial-up user in, >say, Kambodja? Guess what - only a few od us have actually paid their >Internet access by the bytes, not by the bit. At the beginning of the >Internet it was 3.5 cents for 1 Kb (1024 bytes) in Bulgaria. > >And when we know the majority of the people (and users) have this as a >problem, but the native-English speakers try to put their thoughts in >our minds that THIS is not a problem, what do you expect? After all, >no wonder some end up with personal attacks - they just don't >understand us, and probably at some point think that we are idiots, >incompetent, etc. just because we don't share their views about the >domain names. > >Veni > >- Original message - >-- if you have political power, then you have these freedoms, and if >you do not have political power, generally you do not these freedoms >in meaningful terms > >On 11/23/07, Dan Krimm wrote: >> I hope everyone in the US had a Happy Thanksgiving holiday -- I certainly >> did: I didn't go online for a moment. And what a state this list is in as >> I return... >> >> One comment, certainly not intended to be ad hominem: >> >> >> At 12:23 PM -0500 11/23/07, Veni Markovski wrote: >> >> >For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to >> >something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other >> >Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet >> >connection, about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. >> >But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just >> >because they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate >> >them about "the other world". >> >> >> I would wonder how "freedom of access" and "freedom of expression" (both of >> which I personally feel quite passionate about protecting), are not >> fundamentally issues of power. IMHO these rights are not merely "related >> to power" but are in fact *direct manifestations of power* -- if you have >> political power, then you have these freedoms, and if you do not have >> political power, generally you do not these freedoms in meaningful terms >> (though those in power may try to convince you that you do have them -- >> that makes it easier to control you, if you don't believe you have anything >> to fight for). >> >> Certainly my experience is dominated by the US environment, and in this >> politically highly divided country these freedoms are among the most >> important power issues we are fighting about. All of our freedoms are in >> direct danger, because in this country we are facing a systematic erosion >> of the rule of law in favor of the rule of humans. >> >> A lot of people outside the US criticize the US (actually, the US >> government) because of its supremely arrogant attitudes toward the rest of >> the world. What they may not realize is that *very many* people inside the >> US (I would include myself) criticize the current US administration for >> precisely those reasons, and that those imperial behaviors are aimed >> domestically as well as overseas. What the current US administration has >> done is systematically erode the checks and balances in our own >> Constitution in rather dangerous ways, with the strategic help of corporate >> mass media (and increasingly the telcos and cable companies are getting >> into it), and we are genuinely alarmed and trying our level best to fight >> back against what we see as steps to take our own country away from >> democratic standards of governance and toward a more authoritarian model >> that involves strong control over information. >> >> (In short, Orwell's dystopia can be arrived at either through >> over-centralization of public government or by wild deregulation of the >> private sector. In both extreme cases, the public and private sectors >> ultimately merge in a monopoly of elite power over and against the general >> public. Personally I view the "socialism versus free market" debate as a >> patently false dichotomy. I can go into further detail elsewhere if you >> like, but for the purposes of this particular discussion, I merely wish to >> set the conceptual context, which is that the US is currently facing the >> most serious threat to civil liberties in several generations.) >> >> So, in my personal case, it is not about "taking [anything] for granted" >> anywhere else in the world, but rather about seeing a frightening potential >> on the horizon at home that may not yet have propagated to all other areas >> of the world, but which needs to be opposed here and now and also at the >> international level regardless of whether it has arrived fully formed in >> all other regions. >> >> So, please understand that in the US the "privatization" trend in the sense >> of "outsourcing public governance" has some *very* nefarious overtones, and >> US domestic civil society has grown a hair-trigger sensitivity to such >> dynamics when they seem to be designed to undermine accountability of >> public governance to the general public in favor of giving power to wealthy >> private sector entities, and to growing closer bonds between private >> (economic) and public (political) power. (In the public policy world this >> is expressed by the jargon term "industry capture" [of government] and is >> often driven by "iron triangles" between industry lobbyists, agency >> regulators, and legislators.) >> >> So, this is the political context within which some of us see dynamics of >> Internet governance (the very word "governance" is about the institutional >> structures determining who has political *power* to control others), and it >> fits into this larger context in a fairly direct and disturbing manner. >> This is the "governance" list, after all, and the "G" in IGC and IGF and >> IGP is all about political power. >> >> So, with due respect, I present this description as a way to inform "the >> other world" as to what is going on inside the US, how it fits in with what >> you might see of explicit US foreign relations (which are tangibly >> frightening to many "USians"), the role towards which US civil society has >> gravitated in the last 7 years, how trends surrounding control of access >> and expression on the Internet fit into a disturbing pattern of strategic >> power shifts, and why we might see commonalities between the general >> problems of power battles in the US and the specific case of Internet >> governance, especially in cases where IG has a foot in the US legal and >> political jurisdiction. >> >> In short, the US is living through a recap of the "gilded age" of the >> previous century, once again moving systematically toward plutocracy, and >> creating a new generation of "robber barons" who strive to control the >> general public at home and have imperial designs abroad. US civil society >> (and many in academia) are aligned against this dangerous trend both >> domestically and with regard to international affairs. And, the >> information infrastructure is front and center in these power battles, >> because in the Information Age (or the "Information Society" if you >> prefer), control over information is perhaps the most important currency of >> political power itself. >> >> If we are throwing around traditional mottos, the one I prefer for our age >> is "knowledge is power" and the confluence of money and information-control >> is the "nuclear-powered" version of political power in the emerging >> information society, and the Internet (the most "disruptive" technology of >> our lifetimes, so far, even more than nuclear technology) is at the core of >> *all* of this. >> >> I would suggest that this is the framework within which you would best >> understand our positions and recommendations. There is no separation >> between freedom of access and freedom of expression and "power to the >> people" -- in my framework they are all part of the same thing, and the >> Internet is inextricably woven throughout the entire cloth. >> >> Bottom line: The Internet is *all* about power of information (and control >> over information), and that is becoming the most important form of power in >> our world as time progresses. >> >> Dan >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Nov 24 16:06:51 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:06:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C344@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Kieren: I agree that we need to avoid ad hominem attacks. More about that later. But your example below is precisely what people fear when there is talk of “moderation” of the list and an attempt to enforce standards of civility. It can easily transform into the kind of censorship Rony Koven is warning about. What I see in my response to Jacky is a substantive discussion of, and disagreement about, the nature of global democracy and the At Large. There is nothing personal about it. There may be different styles of communication but that’s always going to be an issue in a global forum combining different cultures. Fundamentally, we are having political debates. Some of us believe that the stakes are high. Any attempt to de-politicize these disagreements by calling one side “rude” is not any sort of progress. I have difficulty understanding how my claim that a certain position is “more accurate” than Jacky’s view is provocative or personalized. It simply calls to our attention a real and important logical contradiction between those who (like Jacky) are claiming that global voting for Board members is not in the interest of smaller countries and the developing world, and those who believe that it would significantly shift authority over global governance to them. I think Jacky’s position is not correct. She no doubt thinks it is. I’m willing to hear more about her position. It’s an important debate and it should not be disrupted or pushed aside by overly sensitive claims of “rudeness.” Your claim basically short-circuits that debate. The same goes for an earlier comment you tried to dismiss as “ad hominem.” I made a comparison between the China-imposed electoral system in Hong Kong and ICANN’s so-called “bottom-up” consultative system. I cannot fathom how such a comment was interpreted by you as “ad hominem.” It was about political structures; it was not about you. Unless you mean that you will interpret any political criticism of your employer as a personal insult. “Ad hominem” means that the argument relates “to the man [person]”. My arguments are not about personalities. They are about ideas and principles. From my point of view, both you and Jacky are fun and interesting people. No reason and intention to attack either of you personally. Frankly, I am not the least interested in personalities, practically to a fault. You have seen me agree with you online (something that has of course never been reciprocated) and you will see me disagree when our ideas differ. The same can occur with any other person on the list. That’s all it’s about. This is to be contrasted with, e.g., Suresh, almost all of whose comments about me are motivated entirely by personal animosity and have zero substance (e.g., I am “full of bile”). Which brings us to another point: sure, in the heat of debate I may stray over the line and offend people once in a while. Let me know when I do that. But if you want to be credible when you do, try applying the same standards to Veni and Alejandro and Suresh and all others. _____ From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) > i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. I think you’re spreading too far afield with this approach, Avri. I would define rudeness in the context that I was complaining about as: “The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone’s else’s honestly held viewpoint.” I think it is fine to refer to individuals’ comments and suggestions, and it is also fine to disagree with them – in fact, that is exactly what works best with these sorts of discussions. As an example of what I think is fair comment, I will refer to a comment inserted by Milton this morning as a perfect example of the sort of rudeness that this list could well do without. In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton responded: “Well, all I can say is that the reason most American business people are terrified of such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I am afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet world" of tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in relative terms, erode their current power. ” The “more accurately than you, I am afraid” was deliberately provocative, added nothing to the discussion, came with no evidence or reasoned analysis, and both mocked Jacqueline and dismissed her honestly held viewpoint. It has no place in reasonable discussions. Which is a shame because Milton then went on to raise some interesting ideas about ALSes which I personally would be happy to discuss but which I won’t respond to because of the unpleasantness earlier in the email. Kieren _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:57 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote: Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this problem should be addressed. i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness in their tactical role in internet discussion. while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate. a. ps, was this rude? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM -------------- 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 Sat Nov 24 16:12:01 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:12:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] web: trust on the internet Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071124131123.03451888@peoplewho.org> Richard Clarke, the man who served President Bush as a special adviser for cyber security, has a five-point plan for saving the internet. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/02/richard_clarke_speech_trust_online_santa_clara_university_microsoft/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 20:35:08 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:35:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'Wikipedia on Rant': Does ICT4All permit judgments on 'Speech Acts'? Message-ID: <45ed74050711241735qbe20fd6pb37eefbd5e3eb2f0@mail.gmail.com> Saturday Greetings: At a slant and seemingly close though not entirely the same as the current interesting discussion of "rudeness" online, the energetic exchanges in some ways reminisce on discussion of *automated parsers* for "rant" and other 'speech acts' parsers that would capture and perhaps intervene under some sort of quasi e-penal code, juridcially... There are more than 2 questions involved. But 2 of them are: whether to build, how to build. One augurs that the whether side is an issue core to *ICT2ALL* and challenges us as to democracy (maybe). The second is one of ingenuity and business case. People work on either or both in any text capture system: the principle and the practice. Pendulums swing, swing .... swing, historically. The current description of "rant" in Wikipedia is itself interesting for the sense of social uncertainty, to wit (and forgive the initial shouting title preserved for decorous emphasis via cut-and-paste low tech availment): *--- 'fair use quote' (if one needs this copyright related device in the Internet 'commons': ---* ** Rant From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rant Jump to: navigation , search *See also: Rant (novel) * *This article may require cleanupto meet Wikipedia's quality standards .* Please improve this articleif you can. *(October 2007)* *This article or section needs copy editingfor grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. * You can assist by editing itnow. A how-to guide is available. *This article needs additional citationsfor verification .* Please help improve this articleby adding reliable references . Unsourced material may be challengedand removed. *(October 2007)* A rant is a purely emotion driven speech or piece of writing that has been sparked by something so emotionally or intellectually jarring that one ignores any notion of making a well researched and calm argument. A rant directly attacks an idea, person or institution, often making few tangible claims and broad, possibly personal, attacks upon the target *--- end of fair use snippet ---* Cordial-weekend regards, Cordial weekend-regards, and there's much to disagree with (or not) above. LDMF. -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. N.B.: This post is my personal view, not necessarily representing an organizational one. For I.D. only here: Internal Disability ICT Taskforce. Respectful Interfaces* - Communications Coordination Committee For The United Nations; CCC/UN Board Member and Secretary; Chr., Online Committee.. Vita Summary: . ARPANet, CSNet, Vnet, Internet, other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 09:55:20 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:55:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 18, 2007 7:02 PM, wrote: > I have a vicarious question, > > If Google take the 700mhz spectrum and digitizes it (migrates from analog to > digital) , > - Who really governs the jurisdiction of the spectrum ? – The FCC > > The FCC traditionally regulates 'emission-transmissions', radio is radio, no? (…vs…) where Icann > regulates 'packet-emissions' where packets are subject to design and > distribution. ?? ICANN does no such thing. > > Within this 'gray-area' is there a question of Regulatory Authority, of this > transmission-medium? Not in my book, but I may have missed smt in your question. Your itch has been scratched! -- 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Sun Nov 25 12:51:57 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:51:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Deadline for CS nominations to the GAID Strategy Council - initial deadline this evening In-Reply-To: <200711221603.lAMG3a7g020674@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200711251751.lAPHp3HS026359@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, While I am still waiting for the confirmation of one of the 5 individuals randomly selected to serve in the Nomination Committee (see here ), note that the deadline for self nominations to be considered by the NomCom was 25 November at midnight (this evening). Some flexibility will be maintained until tomorrow. We have so far 12 nominations: the list and the biographical information of the nominated has been posted on-line: http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag &id=10464 Please check whether I did not forget anybody and continue to send you nominations / self-nominations. Best regards, 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 13:52:27 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:52:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C344@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C344@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> I rather hoped that you wouldn't feel the need to try to justify your rudeness Milton. Well, in fact, you haven't tried to justify it, you have attempted to deflect attention from the words you wrote by claiming that anyone that is offended by your comments is being overly sensitive. And then suggested any effort to bring social norms to a discussion is akin to censoring people. Neither are true as you most likely know. But if you wish to raise what I felt was an ad hominem attack, this is what you wrote: "Apparently, your real job is not promoting 'public participation' but promoting 'public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's managers choose'." Going back to my definition of rudeness: "The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone's else's honestly held viewpoint." Your sentence was deliberately provocative - it applied I was following someone else's agenda and as such I wasn't being straight with people. This can have no other effect except to irritate and annoy me. You ascribe negative connotations - that I am someone acting as a conduit for others - with absolutely no evidence or reasoned analysis. If you would care to talk to me or to others, you would recognise that you could not be further from the truth when you imply that I am following prescribed routes by senior executives in ICANN. And finally by implying that I am following someone else's agenda, you are dismissing the honestly held views I express in my posts. This isn't me being overly sensitive - this is you being dismissive and downright rude for no good reason. It contributed nothing at all to the points under discussion and effectively brought an end to what I thought was an interesting discussion. All I - and others on this list - are asking for is some simple professional courtesy. I should say that it really is not my intention to pick on you in particular Milton. I only drew attention to your rude comment to Jacqueline because that was one that had appeared just a few hours earlier and so it seemed particularly timely as an example. There are others on this list that are equally rude and dismissive. And I defy anyone to point to the benefit that has ever been achieved by such rudeness. But I do think we would all benefit if everyone became just a little bit more respectful of others' views and opinions. Also, since people are taken with the argument that claiming something is rude is somehow an attempt to avoid talking about issues - then I actively encourage people to raise issues without being rude, or without unfairly pre-defining the discussion, and see what the response is. If Milton, or Danny, or anyone else, wants to post the exact same posts but without the personal insults and dismissive attitude, then you will find I quite happily respond. I'm not sure it can be any clearer: don't be rude, don't be personal; don't be dismissive and we might start using the significant intellect and experience of people on this list to get somewhere. Kieren _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:07 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Kieren: I agree that we need to avoid ad hominem attacks. More about that later. But your example below is precisely what people fear when there is talk of "moderation" of the list and an attempt to enforce standards of civility. It can easily transform into the kind of censorship Rony Koven is warning about. What I see in my response to Jacky is a substantive discussion of, and disagreement about, the nature of global democracy and the At Large. There is nothing personal about it. There may be different styles of communication but that's always going to be an issue in a global forum combining different cultures. Fundamentally, we are having political debates. Some of us believe that the stakes are high. Any attempt to de-politicize these disagreements by calling one side "rude" is not any sort of progress. I have difficulty understanding how my claim that a certain position is "more accurate" than Jacky's view is provocative or personalized. It simply calls to our attention a real and important logical contradiction between those who (like Jacky) are claiming that global voting for Board members is not in the interest of smaller countries and the developing world, and those who believe that it would significantly shift authority over global governance to them. I think Jacky's position is not correct. She no doubt thinks it is. I'm willing to hear more about her position. It's an important debate and it should not be disrupted or pushed aside by overly sensitive claims of "rudeness." Your claim basically short-circuits that debate. The same goes for an earlier comment you tried to dismiss as "ad hominem." I made a comparison between the China-imposed electoral system in Hong Kong and ICANN's so-called "bottom-up" consultative system. I cannot fathom how such a comment was interpreted by you as "ad hominem." It was about political structures; it was not about you. Unless you mean that you will interpret any political criticism of your employer as a personal insult. "Ad hominem" means that the argument relates "to the man [person]". My arguments are not about personalities. They are about ideas and principles. >From my point of view, both you and Jacky are fun and interesting people. No reason and intention to attack either of you personally. Frankly, I am not the least interested in personalities, practically to a fault. You have seen me agree with you online (something that has of course never been reciprocated) and you will see me disagree when our ideas differ. The same can occur with any other person on the list. That's all it's about. This is to be contrasted with, e.g., Suresh, almost all of whose comments about me are motivated entirely by personal animosity and have zero substance (e.g., I am "full of bile"). Which brings us to another point: sure, in the heat of debate I may stray over the line and offend people once in a while. Let me know when I do that. But if you want to be credible when you do, try applying the same standards to Veni and Alejandro and Suresh and all others. _____ From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) > i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. I think you're spreading too far afield with this approach, Avri. I would define rudeness in the context that I was complaining about as: "The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone's else's honestly held viewpoint." I think it is fine to refer to individuals' comments and suggestions, and it is also fine to disagree with them - in fact, that is exactly what works best with these sorts of discussions. As an example of what I think is fair comment, I will refer to a comment inserted by Milton this morning as a perfect example of the sort of rudeness that this list could well do without. In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton responded: "Well, all I can say is that the reason most American business people are terrified of such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I am afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet world" of tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in relative terms, erode their current power. " The "more accurately than you, I am afraid" was deliberately provocative, added nothing to the discussion, came with no evidence or reasoned analysis, and both mocked Jacqueline and dismissed her honestly held viewpoint. It has no place in reasonable discussions. Which is a shame because Milton then went on to raise some interesting ideas about ALSes which I personally would be happy to discuss but which I won't respond to because of the unpleasantness earlier in the email. Kieren _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:57 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote: Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this problem should be addressed. i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality. we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness in their tactical role in internet discussion. while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate. a. ps, was this rude? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Sun Nov 25 15:11:19 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (=?utf-8?B?SnVkaXRoIE9wcGVuaGVpbWVy?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:11:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com><2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com><20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch><008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356><7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C344@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <528471081-1196021329-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1533413697-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Kieren, at this point I'm confused. Besides the fact that Milton's discussion has been perfectly dispassionate and rational, of course you are following ICANN management's agenda - are you not employed by them? I thought that's your job. There's nothing wrong with that, but its odd to take on the job and then deny you're doing it. Or am I incorrect - is your position at ICANN volunteer position? Judith Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Kieren McCarthy Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:52:27 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) I rather hoped that you wouldn’t feel the need to try to justify your rudeness Milton.   Well, in fact, you haven’t tried to justify it, you have attempted to deflect attention from the words you wrote by claiming that anyone that is offended by your comments is being overly sensitive. And then suggested any effort to bring social norms to a discussion is akin to censoring people.   Neither are true as you most likely know.   But if you wish to raise what I felt was an ad hominem attack, this is what you wrote:     “Apparently, your real job is not promoting ‘public participation’ but promoting ‘public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's managers choose’.”     Going back to my definition of rudeness: “The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone’s else’s honestly held viewpoint.”     Your sentence was deliberately provocative – it applied I was following someone else’s agenda and as such I wasn’t being straight with people. This can have no other effect except to irritate and annoy me.   You ascribe negative connotations – that I am someone acting as a conduit for others – with absolutely no evidence or reasoned analysis. If you would care to talk to me or to others, you would recognise that you could not be further from the truth when you imply that I am following prescribed routes by senior executives in ICANN.   And finally by implying that I am following someone else’s agenda, you are dismissing the honestly held views I express in my posts.       This isn’t me being overly sensitive – this is you being dismissive and downright rude for no good reason. It contributed nothing at all to the points under discussion and effectively brought an end to what I thought was an interesting discussion. All I – and others on this list – are asking for is some simple professional courtesy.     I should say that it really is not my intention to pick on you in particular Milton. I only drew attention to your rude comment to Jacqueline because that was one that had appeared just a few hours earlier and so it seemed particularly timely as an example.   There are others on this list that are equally rude and dismissive. And I defy anyone to point to the benefit that has ever been achieved by such rudeness. But I do think we would all benefit if everyone became just a little bit more respectful of others’ views and opinions.   Also, since people are taken with the argument that claiming something is rude is somehow an attempt to avoid talking about issues – then I actively encourage people to raise issues without being rude, or without unfairly pre-defining the discussion, and see what the response is.   If Milton, or Danny, or anyone else, wants to post the exact same posts but without the personal insults and dismissive attitude, then you will find I quite happily respond.   I’m not sure it can be any clearer: don’t be rude, don’t be personal; don’t be dismissive and we might start using the significant intellect and experience of people on this list to get somewhere.         Kieren     ---------------- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:07 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)   Kieren: I agree that we need to avoid ad hominem attacks. More about that later.   But your example below is precisely what people fear when there is talk of “moderation” of the list and an attempt to enforce standards of civility. It can easily transform into the kind of censorship Rony Koven is warning about. What I see in my response to Jacky is a substantive discussion of, and disagreement about, the nature of global democracy and the At Large. There is nothing personal about it. There may be different styles of communication but that’s always going to be an issue in a global forum combining different cultures. Fundamentally, we are having political debates. Some of us believe that the stakes are high. Any attempt to de-politicize these disagreements by calling one side “rude” is not any sort of progress.   I have difficulty understanding how my claim that a certain position is “more accurate” than Jacky’s view is provocative or personalized. It simply calls to our attention a real and important logical contradiction between those who (like Jacky) are claiming that global voting for Board members is not in the interest of smaller countries and the developing world, and those who believe that it would significantly shift authority over global governance to them. I think Jacky’s position is not correct. She no doubt thinks it is. I’m willing to hear more about her position. It’s an important debate and it should not be disrupted or pushed aside by overly sensitive claims of “rudeness.” Your claim basically short-circuits that debate.   The same goes for an earlier comment you tried to dismiss as “ad hominem.” I made a comparison between the China-imposed electoral system in Hong Kong and ICANN’s so-called “bottom-up” consultative system. I cannot fathom how such a comment was interpreted by you as “ad hominem.” It was about political structures; it was not about you. Unless you mean that you will interpret any political criticism of your employer as a personal insult.     “Ad hominem” means that the argument relates “to the man [person]”. My arguments are not about personalities. They are about ideas and principles. From my point of view, both you and Jacky are fun and interesting people. No reason and intention to attack either of you personally. Frankly, I am not the least interested in personalities, practically to a fault. You have seen me agree with you online (something that has of course never been reciprocated) and you will see me disagree when our ideas differ. The same can occur with any other person on the list. That’s all it’s about. This is to be contrasted with, e.g., Suresh, almost all of whose comments about me are motivated entirely by personal animosity and have zero substance (e.g., I am “full of bile”). Which brings us to another point: sure, in the heat of debate I may stray over the line and offend people once in a while. Let me know when I do that. But if you want to be credible when you do, try applying the same standards to Veni and Alejandro and Suresh and all others.         ---------------- From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)   > i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality.     I think you’re spreading too far afield with this approach, Avri.   I would define rudeness in the context that I was complaining about as:   “The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone’s else’s honestly held viewpoint.”     I think it is fine to refer to individuals’ comments and suggestions, and it is also fine to disagree with them – in fact, that is exactly what works best with these sorts of discussions. As an example of what I think is fair comment, I will refer to a comment inserted by Milton this morning as a perfect example of the sort of rudeness that this list could well do without.   In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton responded:   “Well, all I can say is that the reason most American business people are terrified of such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I am afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet world" of tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in relative terms, erode their current power. ”     The “more accurately than you, I am afraid” was deliberately provocative, added nothing to the discussion, came with no evidence or reasoned analysis, and both mocked Jacqueline and dismissed her honestly held viewpoint.   It has no place in reasonable discussions. Which is a shame because Milton then went on to raise some interesting ideas about ALSes which I personally would be happy to discuss but which I won’t respond to because of the unpleasantness earlier in the email.       Kieren     ---------------- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:57 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)     On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote:   Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this problem should be addressed.     i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality.   we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness in their tactical role in internet discussion.   while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate.   a.   ps, was this rude? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 18:08:50 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:08:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <528471081-1196021329-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1533413697-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <528471081-1196021329-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1533413697-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <20071125230850.GG15251@hserus.net> Judith Oppenheimer [25/11/07 20:11 +0000]: >Kieren, at this point I'm confused. Besides the fact that Milton's >discussion has been perfectly dispassionate and rational, of course you are >following ICANN management's agenda - are you not employed by them? I >thought that's your job. There's nothing wrong with that, but its odd to >take on the job and then deny you're doing it. Well it is the difference between actually doing what he was hired for, and ostensibly appearing to be doing it, entirely for PR purposes and for ICANN to prove they are "inclusive", "listen to feedback" etc. So far, I feel Kieran is actually doing a good job, and exactly what he was hired for. Milton at least seems to feel otherwise. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Nov 25 19:39:07 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:39:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: 20071125230850.GG15251@hserus.net Message-ID: If I had to choose between Kieren McCarthy-G.M. and Esther Dyson ... McCarthy wins hands down.[.Period] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Nov 25 19:56:59 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:56:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C344@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C352@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> _____ From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] But if you wish to raise what I felt was an ad hominem attack, this is what you wrote: “Apparently, your real job is not promoting ‘public participation’ but promoting ‘public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's managers choose’.” MM replies: Provocative, yes. Ad hominem, no. Kieren, let’s get real. You are an employee of ICANN. Nothing inherently bad or good about that. It’s just a fact. So when you express opinions about controversial Internet governance political issues pertaining to ICANN, such as the at large elections, it is impossible for anyone on this list to know whether you are doing so in your capacity as ICANN employee or as Kieren McCarthy, individual. And sorry, no savvy person is going to take any disclaimers from you at face value. The situation is especially delicate for you. You are not just any employee, you are a publicist and someone who’s is supposed to encourage public participation. This would include ALL the public whether they agree with you or not, right? So let me ask you, how “encouraged” to participate does someone who believes in at large voting feel when ICANN’s promoter of public participation is out there slamming voting as a useless failure? The basic dilemma is this: either you are speaking with the organization’s blessing and promoting its agenda, or you are undermining the purpose of your position within ICANN, which is to be a neutral facilitator of broad public participation. Ain’t no middle ground. You may just have to accept the fact that your current employment situation makes it a no-win situation for you to express personal political positions about ICANN in public lists. I am not trying to shut you up, I am simply pointing out a relatively obvious problem that comes with your attempts to get involved in civil society discussions. Still feel picked on? Suppose for a moment that there was someone on this list from the ITU, who aggressively defended ITU’s right to take over ICANN’s functions, but insisted that this was “just his honestly held personal opinion” and that he was not following any “prescribed routes by senior executives at ITU.” How credible would that claim be? You know perfectly well that every supporter of ICANN would be screaming about the person’s conflict of interest. The odd thing is that I know of no other international organization that would allow its employees to do that. Certainly not the ITU. During WSIS they monitored the public discussions, they slipped strategic information to people once in a while, they had their opinions that they expressed privately, but they were too professional to jump into list trenches and knew that it would be counterproductive. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 5:58 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 5:58 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From karl at cavebear.com Sun Nov 25 19:59:41 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:59:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <474A1A7D.80906@cavebear.com> KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > The problem with proposals to "moderate" rudeness is that they are a > form of censorship. I very much agree with you. Speaking for myself, I do feel at times that many of the comments directed at me are intended not to facilitate discussion or engage on the actual issue under discussion, but, rather, to attempt to discredit me. (Of course that is how I feel and not necessarily indicative of the actual intent of those who make those comments.) On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being really bad and 10 being really good, any proposal or institution for internet governance which fails to incorporate, at a fundamental level, processes for real and meaningful public participation and accountability to the public is a proposal that rank at level 1 (or below), i.e. very egregious. By comparison, I'd rank the kind of occasional lapse of diplomatic courtesy and use of words that carry a hint of color to be pretty much of middling grade - not particularly good, but then again, neither particularly harmful. As an example of this kind of middling thing I'd put those attempts to discourage me from discussing some of ICANN's ills on the grounds that I have been pointing out those still extant ills since 1998. As for direct personal attacks - such as directly belittling a person's intelligence or capacity - I can't really say that I've seen much of that. Rather, I tend to perceive situations in which the offense seems more the product of an unreasonably sensitive person or cultural differences about discourse (we Americans tend to accept harsh degrees of discourse more than do some others and thus we may more easily slip into usage that we consider innocent but that triggers other cultural expectations of greater courtesy) - the cure for the former is for people to grow slightly thicker skins, the cure for the latter is for those of us who tend to come from places where rough-and-tumble discourse is accepted to learn to tone ourselves down. My own experience over the years tends to suggest that there could be a more sinister factor at work (and I hope I am simply engaging in raw speculation and that this is not in fact occurring here): intentionally feigned offense for the purpose of making the maker of the comment appear to be some sort of transgressor. Thus on my scale of badness, we are discussing how to prevent future (and existing) bodies of internet governance from pursuing structural methods or courses of action that are really bad. If along the way our level of discourse slips to less than some angelic degree of perfection, then, when comparing a real evil against a slight transgression, I'd let the slight, and hopefully innocently intended, transgression pass and remember that we are really addressing a far more significantly bad problem, the loss of institutions of internet governance that are clearly accountable to the community of internet users. Getting back to the inner topic that triggered this side thread: To my mind the idea that any institution of internet governance could be proposed, much less come into existence, that has no direct and clear method of process through which it is open, transparent, and most importantly, accountable, to the community of internet users is an idea that I find highly offensive. Nearly as offensive to me is the suggestion that we internet users are so childlike that our interactions must be informed by and performed through mechanisms created by the body of internet governance, particularly when business interests are not required to express their interests via internet-governance-body operated playpens. To me it is an easy balance - I will accept a few moments of rude behavior and attacks if in the larger scope it will help prevent the expansion of what I find to be serious and real dangers to just and accountable forms of internet governance. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 21:06:24 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:06:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C352@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C344@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C352@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <006201c82fd0$f3014970$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> With respect to this response and to a response by Judith Oppenheimer earlier. You both appear to view ICANN as a singular organisation whose staff work together to some pre-determined goal. The problem with this supposition is that it completely ignores the entire raison d'etre of ICANN: to co-ordinate between different supporting organisations and advisory committees. There is no "management agenda" beyond making sure that ICANN's processes work as effectively as possible; that due consideration is given to how to implement agreed policies; and that the model holds together, with tweaks and changes made where circumstances demand. As for me personally. The reason I am at ICANN is because I want to make it work. The organisation has been through several reviews and reorganizations and come through the other end. It is the model in place and the one that will stay in place for the foreseeable future. I want to strengthen that as far as possible for the good of the Internet. I think many in the ICANN community feel the same way. Just for clarity though: in my role - I think I've been with ICANN eight months now - I have never been told what to do; or not to do. I come up with ideas and I implement them. I try as far as possible to co-ordinate with the other staff and explain what I think the advantages are to what I am doing because usually it involves other people doing more work on top of their normal work. I speak to everyone. I listen to everyone. I am quite open about ideas for changes and improvements. And I try to implement the best ones. That's it. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. If people would only involve themselves in the work a little more, and try to work together rather than accuse others of being up to something, they would pretty quickly realise that outside the shouting and arm-waving are a lot of dedicated people working hard to do the best they can for the Internet. But that isn't the point of this thread. This thread isn't about me, or ICANN. It's about rudeness and the enduring lack of professional courtesy on this list - and that issue is not going to go away. Dealing with criticism by throwing accusations at the critic is a classic, if cheap, form of misdirection popular with politicians. I would hope that this list could hope to aim a little higher. Once we are done trying to paint me as somehow up to something, could we please move on to David Allen. And then David Goldstein. And then Norbert Bollow. And then Jacqueline Morris. And then Jeanette Hoffman. And then all the others on this list who have expressed the same sentiments about rude behaviour. Is everyone up to something? Is everyone trying to silence the brave few who are courageous enough to throw unrelated insults at individuals over email? Or is the reality that this list would hugely benefit from people being a little less dismissive and a little more respectful? Kieren _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) _____ From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] But if you wish to raise what I felt was an ad hominem attack, this is what you wrote: "Apparently, your real job is not promoting 'public participation' but promoting 'public participation on terms and conditions that ICANN's managers choose'." MM replies: Provocative, yes. Ad hominem, no. Kieren, let's get real. You are an employee of ICANN. Nothing inherently bad or good about that. It's just a fact. So when you express opinions about controversial Internet governance political issues pertaining to ICANN, such as the at large elections, it is impossible for anyone on this list to know whether you are doing so in your capacity as ICANN employee or as Kieren McCarthy, individual. And sorry, no savvy person is going to take any disclaimers from you at face value. The situation is especially delicate for you. You are not just any employee, you are a publicist and someone who's is supposed to encourage public participation. This would include ALL the public whether they agree with you or not, right? So let me ask you, how "encouraged" to participate does someone who believes in at large voting feel when ICANN's promoter of public participation is out there slamming voting as a useless failure? The basic dilemma is this: either you are speaking with the organization's blessing and promoting its agenda, or you are undermining the purpose of your position within ICANN, which is to be a neutral facilitator of broad public participation. Ain't no middle ground. You may just have to accept the fact that your current employment situation makes it a no-win situation for you to express personal political positions about ICANN in public lists. I am not trying to shut you up, I am simply pointing out a relatively obvious problem that comes with your attempts to get involved in civil society discussions. Still feel picked on? Suppose for a moment that there was someone on this list from the ITU, who aggressively defended ITU's right to take over ICANN's functions, but insisted that this was "just his honestly held personal opinion" and that he was not following any "prescribed routes by senior executives at ITU." How credible would that claim be? You know perfectly well that every supporter of ICANN would be screaming about the person's conflict of interest. The odd thing is that I know of no other international organization that would allow its employees to do that. Certainly not the ITU. During WSIS they monitored the public discussions, they slipped strategic information to people once in a while, they had their opinions that they expressed privately, but they were too professional to jump into list trenches and knew that it would be counterproductive. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 5:58 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 5:58 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Sun Nov 25 22:14:53 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (=?utf-8?B?SnVkaXRoIE9wcGVuaGVpbWVy?=) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:14:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Message-ID: <2014862215-1196046743-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1799727866-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Suresh, I can't speak to anyone's opinion of Kieren's job performance, but I can suggest that time would be better spent here continuing the thoroughly interesting discussion of the original subject above, "reinstate the vote", rather than this distracting diversion subject of "rudeness tactics", which seems silly and is surely a waste of time. Judith ------Original Message------ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sender: To: governance at lists.cpsr.org To: Judith Oppenheimer Cc: Kieren McCarthy Sent: Nov 25, 2007 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Judith Oppenheimer [25/11/07 20:11 +0000]: >Kieren, at this point I'm confused. Besides the fact that Milton's >discussion has been perfectly dispassionate and rational, of course you are >following ICANN management's agenda - are you not employed by them? I >thought that's your job. There's nothing wrong with that, but its odd to >take on the job and then deny you're doing it. Well it is the difference between actually doing what he was hired for, and ostensibly appearing to be doing it, entirely for PR purposes and for ICANN to prove they are "inclusive", "listen to feedback" etc. So far, I feel Kieran is actually doing a good job, and exactly what he was hired for. Milton at least seems to feel otherwise. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 25 23:24:43 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:24:43 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <2014862215-1196046743-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1799727866-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <2014862215-1196046743-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1799727866-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <008f01c82fe4$4618f9b0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > time would be better spent here continuing the thoroughly > interesting discussion of the original subject above, "reinstate > the vote", rather than this distracting diversion subject of > "rudeness tactics", which seems silly and is surely a waste of time. The problem I think you will find, Judith, is that because people feel so strongly about the history of the voting issue within ICANN that without some kind of understanding that people will respect one another's views and opinions without dismissing them, claiming some ulterior motives, or launching an attack, then the discussion will very quickly degenerate into finger-pointing. I've yet to see a calm discussion of the issue in seven years. In fact last week's posts were the closest it has ever come to reasonable and rational discourse. I hope it can pick up again. But unless people learn to temper their responses, I very much doubt it will be worth it. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Judith Oppenheimer [mailto:joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 7:15 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Kieren McCarthy Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Suresh, I can't speak to anyone's opinion of Kieren's job performance, but I can suggest that time would be better spent here continuing the thoroughly interesting discussion of the original subject above, "reinstate the vote", rather than this distracting diversion subject of "rudeness tactics", which seems silly and is surely a waste of time. Judith ------Original Message------ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sender: To: governance at lists.cpsr.org To: Judith Oppenheimer Cc: Kieren McCarthy Sent: Nov 25, 2007 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Judith Oppenheimer [25/11/07 20:11 +0000]: >Kieren, at this point I'm confused. Besides the fact that Milton's >discussion has been perfectly dispassionate and rational, of course you are >following ICANN management's agenda - are you not employed by them? I >thought that's your job. There's nothing wrong with that, but its odd to >take on the job and then deny you're doing it. Well it is the difference between actually doing what he was hired for, and ostensibly appearing to be doing it, entirely for PR purposes and for ICANN to prove they are "inclusive", "listen to feedback" etc. So far, I feel Kieran is actually doing a good job, and exactly what he was hired for. Milton at least seems to feel otherwise. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 25 23:32:55 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:32:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <008f01c82fe4$4618f9b0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <2014862215-1196046743-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1799727866-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <008f01c82fe4$4618f9b0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > I've yet to see a calm discussion of the issue in seven years. In fact last > week's posts were the closest it has ever come to reasonable and rational > discourse. > You know, I think that's very unfair. There were a number of thoughtful analyses and reports around the time of the election by a large number of groups. Several were quite thoughtful - even the ones I didn't agree with. (FWIW I wasn't a great fan of the electoral system, although Board Squatters were worse.) Unless of course you haven't ever read those reports? -- 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 23:47:21 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:47:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: References: <2014862215-1196046743-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1799727866-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <008f01c82fe4$4618f9b0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <009701c82fe7$6ef85b20$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > You know, I think that's very unfair. There were a number of > thoughtful analyses and reports around the time of the election by > a large number of groups. Several were quite thoughtful - even the > ones I didn't agree with. Yes, quite true. Although I was thinking more of discussions around the issue by the community. In fact I've recently been reviewing some of the glut of reports that ICANN has thrown up over the years. Of most interest to me was John Palfrey's participation in ICANN paper, following by McLaughlin's response. I occasionally try to get Palfrey and Zittrain interested in ICANN again but I suspect they are still suffering the trauma. What's interesting is that some papers still seem relevant today and others sound like they're coming from a different era. I have a bundle of six on UDRP that are sitting waiting for me to wade through - I think one is yours. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:33 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > I've yet to see a calm discussion of the issue in seven years. In fact last > week's posts were the closest it has ever come to reasonable and rational > discourse. > You know, I think that's very unfair. There were a number of thoughtful analyses and reports around the time of the election by a large number of groups. Several were quite thoughtful - even the ones I didn't agree with. (FWIW I wasn't a great fan of the electoral system, although Board Squatters were worse.) Unless of course you haven't ever read those reports? -- 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 Sun Nov 25 23:50:59 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:50:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <009701c82fe7$6ef85b20$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <2014862215-1196046743-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1799727866-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <008f01c82fe4$4618f9b0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <009701c82fe7$6ef85b20$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: ICANN promiesed to review the UDRP but never did. It would be wonderful if it could fix some of the errors in the procedural rules. The substantive rules ought probably to be left alone as there's not going to be a consensus to change them. But the procuedural rules are just sloppy, and could easily have several simple errors fixed. (And, yes, I do have a a paper on that....) On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> You know, I think that's very unfair. There were a number of >> thoughtful analyses and reports around the time of the election by >> a large number of groups. Several were quite thoughtful - even the >> ones I didn't agree with. > > > Yes, quite true. Although I was thinking more of discussions around the > issue by the community. > > In fact I've recently been reviewing some of the glut of reports that ICANN > has thrown up over the years. Of most interest to me was John Palfrey's > participation in ICANN paper, following by McLaughlin's response. > > I occasionally try to get Palfrey and Zittrain interested in ICANN again but > I suspect they are still suffering the trauma. > > What's interesting is that some papers still seem relevant today and others > sound like they're coming from a different era. I have a bundle of six on > UDRP that are sitting waiting for me to wade through - I think one is yours. > > > > Kieren > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >> I've yet to see a calm discussion of the issue in seven years. In fact > last >> week's posts were the closest it has ever come to reasonable and rational >> discourse. >> > > > You know, I think that's very unfair. There were a number of thoughtful > analyses and reports around the time of the election by a large number of > groups. Several were quite thoughtful - even the ones I didn't agree > with. (FWIW I wasn't a great fan of the electoral system, although Board > Squatters were worse.) > > Unless of course you haven't ever read those reports? > > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Nov 26 02:46:26 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:46:26 +0100 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?RE=A0?=: [governance] web: trust on the internet References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071124131123.03451888@peoplewho.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Sylvia for posting this. BTW, Mr. Clarke is not far from the Chinese "healthy Internet". Dioes he propose we should clean the Information Suoperhighway from all the drunken drivers? But who defines what a "drunken driver" is and who constitutes the police and who controls the police? Wolfgang ________________________________ De: Sylvia Caras [mailto:Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com] Date: sam. 24/11/2007 22:12 À: governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] web: trust on the internet Richard Clarke, the man who served President Bush as a special adviser for cyber security, has a five-point plan for saving the internet. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/02/richard_clarke_speech_trust_online_santa_clara_university_microsoft/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Nov 26 06:15:26 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:15:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <006201c82fd0$f3014970$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <783437.24888.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2aa69fe40711230441t1f603b92o6b1e7d23eb278d3c@mail.gmail.com> <20071123130949.23E4E2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <008501c82dfd$21355be0$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C344@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C352@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <006201c82fd0$f3014970$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: Kieren On 26/11/2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > With respect to this response and to a response by Judith Oppenheimer > earlier. > You both appear to view ICANN as a singular organisation whose staff work > together to some pre-determined goal. The problem with this supposition is > that it completely ignores the entire raison d'etre of ICANN: to co-ordinate > between different supporting organisations and advisory committees. > I've personally worked with ICANN on more than one occasion and you will have a hard task proving to me and many others that ICANN is NOT a "singular organisation whose staff work together to some pre-determined goal". I witnessed the behinds-the-scenes play-outs, the coordinated PR, the damage control. And when you say ICANN's raison d'etre is to "co-ordinate between different supporting organisations and advisory committees" perhaps that is so, but as long as the outcome of such coordination does not go against ICANN's interests. Rui ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Mon Nov 26 06:19:44 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:19:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <20071125230850.GG15251@hserus.net> References: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <528471081-1196021329-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1533413697-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20071125230850.GG15251@hserus.net> Message-ID: <474AABD0.4040207@rits.org.br> Yes, it seeems this thread with amateur shrinks and patients changing roles and positions in the couch is more proper to a good bar table late in the night, after a reasonable round of caipirinhas. It seems way past time to close it. What an incredible waste of time (how many are on sabbatical or on vacation here with not much to do?). --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Judith Oppenheimer [25/11/07 20:11 +0000]: >> Kieren, at this point I'm confused. Besides the fact that Milton's >> discussion has been perfectly dispassionate and rational, of course >> you are >> following ICANN management's agenda - are you not employed by them? I >> thought that's your job. There's nothing wrong with that, but its odd to >> take on the job and then deny you're doing it. > > Well it is the difference between actually doing what he was hired for, and > ostensibly appearing to be doing it, entirely for PR purposes and for ICANN > to prove they are "inclusive", "listen to feedback" etc. > > So far, I feel Kieran is actually doing a good job, and exactly what he was > hired for. Milton at least seems to feel otherwise. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 06:42:10 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:42:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tactics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <474A1A7D.80906@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:59:41 -0800) References: <474A1A7D.80906@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071126114210.3C3912202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being really bad and 10 being really good, > any proposal or institution for internet governance which fails to > incorporate, at a fundamental level, processes for real and meaningful > public participation and accountability to the public is a proposal that > rank at level 1 (or below), i.e. very egregious. > > By comparison, I'd rank the kind of occasional lapse of diplomatic > courtesy and use of words that carry a hint of color to be pretty much > of middling grade - not particularly good, but then again, neither > particularly harmful. Rudeness harms and prevents discussions, and it harms people who are repeatedly at the receiving end of rudeness primarily because it denies them the opportunity to express their viewpoint in a civilized environment which is conductive to constructive substantive discussion. If we want to facilitate discussions that lead to significant positive changes, we must somehow make sure that neither rudeness nor censorship of viewpoints nor any other mechanism prevents us from having discussions in which all relevant viewpoints get freely expressed. By the way, the category of "people who are repeatedly at the receiving end of rudeness" includes not only people who work in an internet governance organization, but also members of the general public trying to express a minority viewpoint. Some minority viewpoints are practically impossible to discuss in most fora because any attempt at constructive discussion will immediately get destroyed by the rudeness issue. An example of this is the point that I attempted to make recently about the problem of spam filters interfering with the ability of members of a certain minority group to have email communication with each other work reliably. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Nov 26 06:42:39 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:42:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <474AABD0.4040207@rits.org.br> References: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <528471081-1196021329-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1533413697-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20071125230850.GG15251@hserus.net> <474AABD0.4040207@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20071126115955.299F42BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> At 09:19 11/26/2007 -0200, you wrote: >Yes, it seeems this thread with amateur shrinks and patients >changing roles and positions in the couch is more proper to a good >bar table late in the night, after a reasonable round of >caipirinhas. It seems way past time to close it. It is interesting that everytime there is a serious discussion about moral principles in this list, there are also serious attempts to put an end to it. That is esp. valid if someone is trying to defend himself/herself from personal attacks. I am not surprized, people in general don't like people who have sharpened sense of fairness. In other words - it is good to attack Kieren, or any other ICANN staffer, but it is very bad if he explains with facts what are his positions (and very, very bad if they are solid). veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 21 13:48:12 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:48:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net> <82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071126115953.C8B552BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> At 19:28 11/21/2007 +0100, you wrote: >It has been shown that in countries >where the mainstream media informed about the process, the >participation rate was higher by far than in other countries in same >region with comparable rate of Internet users. I can confirm that with experience from Europe. An article in a German magazine was enough to give a huge lead to Andy compared to other candidates, including all of the East European ones. Also, if I am not mistaken, for some countries it might have been a matter of national pride to have their candidate elected. If we think seriously about it, such elections could take place, only if it is guaranteed that the countries with smaller number of population will have any chance to countries with billions of people. Otherwise the results of the elections will be known in advance. 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 07:16:20 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:16:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <20071126115955.299F42BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <528471081-1196021329-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1533413697-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20071125230850.GG15251@hserus.net> <474AABD0.4040207@rits.org.br> <20071126115955.299F42BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Veni, Carlos merely pointed out that this has gone on long enough - and perhaps you should backtrack over years of people's involvement on this list and elsewhere before passing judgement with your "serious attempts to put an end" to discussions about moral principles. And Carlos does not need anyone to defend him; he is quite capable of doing so himself, and in fact to most on this list he need not even do so, for they know the extent of his contributions - as I am certain you too are well aware. So, I am not defending Carlos - I am pointing out that you chose the wrong person at whom to level your insinuations of attempts to curb dialogue. Your point is valid, but misplaced. Regards, Rui On 26/11/2007, Veni Markovski wrote: > > At 09:19 11/26/2007 -0200, you wrote: > >Yes, it seeems this thread with amateur shrinks and patients > >changing roles and positions in the couch is more proper to a good > >bar table late in the night, after a reasonable round of > >caipirinhas. It seems way past time to close it. > > It is interesting that everytime there is a serious discussion about > moral principles in this list, there are also serious attempts to put > an end to it. That is esp. valid if someone is trying to defend > himself/herself from personal attacks. I am not surprized, people in > general don't like people who have sharpened sense of fairness. In > other words - it is good to attack Kieren, or any other ICANN > staffer, but it is very bad if he explains with facts what are his > positions (and very, very bad if they are solid). > > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Mon Nov 26 07:30:05 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:30:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: References: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <528471081-1196021329-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1533413697-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20071125230850.GG15251@hserus.net> <474AABD0.4040207@rits.org.br> <20071126115955.299F42BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711260430n6bd3084fredaa5c0dd787d721@mail.gmail.com> Rui, I am happy that you agree my point is valid. As for Carlos - there is no need to defend him, as you stated, esp that there is no attack against him. I was just using the point that once someone who is attacked (in this case Kieren) starts to respond, there are always voices that it is time to stop an end to this discussion. Such voices don't exist when the attacks started. The discussion about the personal attacks on this list is a needed one, as well as the end to such attacks. If you believe there will be an end, then I hope you will be right. veni On Nov 26, 2007 7:16 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > Veni, > [cut] Your point is valid, but misplaced. > > -------------- 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 Mon Nov 26 07:47:15 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:47:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711260430n6bd3084fredaa5c0dd787d721@mail.gmail.com> References: <002a01c82f94$53be60f0$6901a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <528471081-1196021329-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1533413697-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20071125230850.GG15251@hserus.net> <474AABD0.4040207@rits.org.br> <20071126115955.299F42BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> <2aa69fe40711260430n6bd3084fredaa5c0dd787d721@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <474AC053.4020000@rits.org.br> Now, just to make sure: could we continue the discussion and abandon the debate on how rude or delicate each one of us might be? --c.a. Veni Markovski wrote: > Rui, > I am happy that you agree my point is valid. As for Carlos - there is no > need to defend him, as you stated, esp that there is no attack against him. > I was just using the point that once someone who is attacked (in this case > Kieren) starts to respond, there are always voices that it is time to stop > an end to this discussion. Such voices don't exist when the attacks started. > > The discussion about the personal attacks on this list is a needed one, as > well as the end to such attacks. If you believe there will be an end, then > I hope you will be right. > > veni > > On Nov 26, 2007 7:16 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > >> Veni, >> [cut] > > Your point is valid, but misplaced. >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Nov 26 08:04:11 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:04:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Message-ID: <925945.1294.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Abandon the discussion please! It seems the players here are not interested in a "civil" discussion on a list aimed at something like a civil society. Someone made comments along the lines that people should have a thick skin. What utter garbage. Lists such as these need to be inclusive. By suggesting people, to a certain extent, should have thick skins is exclusive. It also seems the "established" players want to continue discussion on their terms, and frankly, for those who are initimidated or find the language off-putting, it's too bad - "it's my way or the highway" seems to be the attitude. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos Afonso To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Veni Markovski Cc: Rui Correia Sent: Monday, 26 November, 2007 11:47:15 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) Now, just to make sure: could we continue the discussion and abandon the debate on how rude or delicate each one of us might be? --c.a. Veni Markovski wrote: > Rui, > I am happy that you agree my point is valid. As for Carlos - there is no > need to defend him, as you stated, esp that there is no attack against him. > I was just using the point that once someone who is attacked (in this case > Kieren) starts to respond, there are always voices that it is time to stop > an end to this discussion. Such voices don't exist when the attacks started. > > The discussion about the personal attacks on this list is a needed one, as > well as the end to such attacks. If you believe there will be an end, then > I hope you will be right. > > veni > > On Nov 26, 2007 7:16 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > >> Veni, >> [cut] > > Your point is valid, but misplaced. >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Nov 26 08:20:20 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:20:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Why IPv4 address depletion matters (was Re: Reinstate...) In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> (veni@veni.com) References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071126132020.3BC4C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Veni Markovski wrote: > Of the many issues around the Internet, the DNS and esp. the IP > addresses are not on the priority list of anyone except people with > some commercial interest, scientific researchers, professionals. The > end user does not care about them. Possibly because they are not informed about how any mismanagement of these resources contributes, or is likely to contribute in the future, to problems that are truly painful for them. > That actually is the big pain of some people here - that regardless > of what they say, and how loud, the users still don't care about > ICANN, but about how much they pay for what kind of service. In my opinion, price of internet access cannot really be discussed independently of the question of economics of how having internet access will result in sufficient economic value creation that the infrastructure costs can thereby get paid for. Now the problem with IP address depletion is that unless progress is made with the transition to IPv6, there will in a few years be two fundamentally different types of internet access. "Consumer" internet access will be behind several layers of NAT, which allows to "surf the web", use email, etc, but which does not make it possible for businesses to allow customers to interact with their IT systems. In economically underdeveloped areas, only this kind of internet access will be available at all, making the already now difficult problem of economic development in such areas even worse. By contrast, there are enough IPv4 address numbers that businesses in economic centres and in the rich countries will always be able to get fixed IP addresses for their webservers. I believe that in principle, the internet could help a lot to create a "digital opportunity" in those regions of the world which are currently suffering from lack of economic development. However, I think that it is quite possible that this digital opportunity may be lost to a significant extent due to not paying enough attention to the IPv4 address depletion issue. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Nov 26 08:37:45 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:37:45 -0200 Subject: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) In-Reply-To: <925945.1294.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <925945.1294.qm@web54110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <474ACC29.9030705@rits.org.br> You are right on your concern, David, on the adequate way to engage in discussions, but I am worried about the method -- the list has a goal: to debate the issues of Internet governance. We have moved away from it by engaging in another kind of discussion which would more properly belong in another space (as I said, probably in a shrink or good manners list). Most, if not all, of the messages regarding opinions on behavior in the list could have been exchanged privately. But we seem to insist in keepíng the issue as central and public, and keep ranting at each other for everyone else to read. Is this our interest in this list? --c.a. David Goldstein wrote: > Abandon the discussion please! > > It seems the players here are not interested in a "civil" discussion on a list aimed at something like a civil society. Someone made comments along the lines that people should have a thick skin. What utter garbage. Lists such as these need to be inclusive. By suggesting people, to a certain extent, should have thick skins is exclusive. > > It also seems the "established" players want to continue discussion on their terms, and frankly, for those who are initimidated or find the language off-putting, it's too bad - "it's my way or the highway" seems to be the attitude. > > David > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Carlos Afonso > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Veni Markovski > Cc: Rui Correia > Sent: Monday, 26 November, 2007 11:47:15 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote) > > Now, just to make sure: could we continue the discussion and abandon > the > debate on how rude or delicate each one of us might be? > > --c.a. > > Veni Markovski wrote: >> Rui, >> I am happy that you agree my point is valid. As for Carlos - there is > no >> need to defend him, as you stated, esp that there is no attack > against him. >> I was just using the point that once someone who is attacked (in this > case >> Kieren) starts to respond, there are always voices that it is time to > stop >> an end to this discussion. Such voices don't exist when the attacks > started. >> The discussion about the personal attacks on this list is a needed > one, as >> well as the end to such attacks. If you believe there will be an > end, then >> I hope you will be right. >> >> veni >> >> On Nov 26, 2007 7:16 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >> >>> Veni, >>> [cut] >> Your point is valid, but misplaced. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 10:10:41 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:10:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Why IPv4 address depletion matters (was Re: Reinstate...) In-Reply-To: <20071126132020.3BC4C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> <20071126132020.3BC4C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2007 4:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Veni Markovski wrote: > > > Of the many issues around the Internet, the DNS and esp. the IP > > addresses are not on the priority list of anyone except people with > > some commercial interest, scientific researchers, professionals. The > > end user does not care about them. > > Possibly because they are not informed about how any mismanagement of > these resources contributes, or is likely to contribute in the future, > to problems that are truly painful for them. Are you saying that there is mismanagement currently, or are you referring to the classfull allocation era? > > > That actually is the big pain of some people here - that regardless > > of what they say, and how loud, the users still don't care about > > ICANN, but about how much they pay for what kind of service. > > In my opinion, price of internet access cannot really be discussed > independently of the question of economics of how having internet > access will result in sufficient economic value creation that the > infrastructure costs can thereby get paid for. > > Now the problem with IP address depletion is that unless progress is > made with the transition to IPv6, there will in a few years be two > fundamentally different types of internet access. "Consumer" internet > access will be behind several layers of NAT, which allows to "surf > the web", use email, etc, but which does not make it possible for > businesses to allow customers to interact with their IT systems. Unless they use a web interface. I must be missing smt, why do you need a public address for this? In > economically underdeveloped areas, only this kind of internet access > will be available at all, making the already now difficult problem of > economic development in such areas even worse. Again, I'm not getting you. Are you talking about economically underdeveloped areas in developed countries or economically underdeveloped regions of the world. If the former, well a market may develop in IP addresses at some point, so that there may be tiered accounts offered by ISPs (with the cheaper NAT accounts likely being taken up by customers with less disposable income). This market is not likely to last very long, as IPv6 deployment will surge as address space declines, and every home/customer will eventually have many hundreds or thousands of addresses in the "Internet of Things". If the latter, as I have mentioned before, the 2 youngest RIRs have the slowest rate of address "usage", so Africa and Latin America may have IP addresses to give away long after the USA and EU run out. Another complicating factor is that when the IANA runs out of IPs, the RIRs will still have them for a period, When the RIRs run out, LIRs will still have them for a period. This period could be days months or even years. By contrast, there > are enough IPv4 address numbers that businesses in economic centres > and in the rich countries will always be able to get fixed IP addresses > for their webservers. If a market develops, probably. But why do you need a public IP address per serever? That's very old school thinking, You can run many many webservers using 1 IP. > > I believe that in principle, the internet could help a lot to create a > "digital opportunity" in those regions of the world which are currently > suffering from lack of economic development. > very true! > However, I think that it is quite possible that this digital > opportunity may be lost to a significant extent due to not paying > enough attention to the IPv4 address depletion issue. What do you propose? Since you are in Europe, perhaps this is a place to start researching other proposals: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/ -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Nov 26 10:30:23 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:30:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Craig: Thanks for your constructive intervention. I've reviewed the site and it's interesting. Of course from political science I am familiar with different techniques of voting and yes, one can design systems that are much better at aggregating preferences than what ICANN did in 2000, or for that matter one could improve the voting systems used by any organization. The problem is that we are not engaged on a debate about the proper voting technique; we are debating whether there should be voting _at all_. It is an essentially political debate in which one side feels that they cannot trust a democratic Board election system and prefer something more manageable and controllable; the other side wants to empower a global public. Until there is broader political consensus on this question, the question of the specific technique used to implement democracy is secondary. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Simon [mailto:cls at rkey.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:05 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Is it better to reinstate the vote, or to push for something better? > > Many of the old-timers on this list will remember me from the early > ICANN period, when I was researching a Ph.D. that focused on DNS > politics (Thanks again to those who graciously put up with my > pestering). Since then, I’ve thought a lot about how a practical venue > for online democracy might work. Earlier this year I decided to apply > myself to implementing and refining some of those ideas. > > I call my project an experiment in collaborative expression of > converging and diverging opinion. It’s ultimately about creating a > massively scalable mechanism for structured argument and consensus > building. > > What's been achieved so far is largely inspired by the preferential > voting system used in ICANN's 2000 election. It showcases an interactive > ranked choice ballot and highly granular visualizations of Instant > Runoff Vote (IRV) elections, displayed round by round. See an > operational example (for the ongoing US Democratic Party presidential > primary) at http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=157. Thus far > I’ve been promoting the system to political bloggers, to pollsters, and > also to various advocates of IRV and online democracy in the US. > > My long-term take on IRV goes far beyond a preferential ballot system. > I’ve put groundwork in place at my site to allow for what I call “panel > voting.” It’s a way of filtering and reaggregating results to show the > behaviors within slices of the voting population. > > Panel voting would permit display of collective preferences among > pre-designated and self-designated groups of individuals. Those groups > could be aggregated by geopolitical/regional origins, credentialed > qualifications, professed loyalties, etc. That filtering feature is also > intended to provide a way for new coalitions to become “conscious” of > themselves, as potential coalition members come to recognize their > shared preferences. > > The most ambitious aspect of the project is providing a way for new > ideas to be offered, vetted, refined, and embraced within online > communities. My approach, still mostly on paper, would combine an open > nomination process with dynamically convened panels whose members would > serve as vetting juries. > > I agree with Kieren about the legitimating virtue of venues in which > power (in the form of respected candidates for leadership) can “bubble > up” within a structured chain. > > The challenge is to provide an online mechanism by which candidates for > decision – not just people seeking office, but position papers, policy > statements, formal agreements, and so on – can be nominated and bubbled > up through and across various constellations of panels, seeking final > ratification by the group as a whole. > > Achieving an effective level of large-scale online democracy requires > far better leverage of web technology than what’s been demonstrated so > far. In my view, mailing lists, blogs, and traditional online fora are > generally too linear and too noisy to help sort out the problems of > widely diverse and rapidly growing communities. Yet they are also too > prone to becoming echo chambers suited best for preaching to the choir. > Wikis, though excellent at expressing the results of consensus-oriented > processes, are poorly set up for venting the give and take of an > underlying debate. > > The purpose of constitutional politics is to channel conflict and > competition. What’s needed for an Internet-based decision-making venue > is a widely accessible, democratically open consensus-forging mechanism > that can simultaneously open up new channels for fresh and useful input > while also allowing friendly refinements that fortify existing > contributions. > > ICANN’s 2000 election struck me as a squandered opportunity. Though so > many thousands of people registered and voted, there was no followup > attempt to reconnect them and nurture what might have emerged as a > viable online community > > I’m not writing to lament the past, however, but to offer thoughts about > how to structure a useful and enduring medium for online democracy... > something that would be worthy of such a large community. > > Does my project sound the like the right direction toward a solution set > that would satisfy the ICANN community? > > Craig Simon > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: > 11/24/2007 10:06 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 10:50 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Nov 26 10:40:06 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:40:06 -0200 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <474AE8D6.9010409@rits.org.br> Well stated, Milton. rgds --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > Craig: > Thanks for your constructive intervention. I've reviewed the site and it's interesting. Of course from political science I am familiar with different techniques of voting and yes, one can design systems that are much better at aggregating preferences than what ICANN did in 2000, or for that matter one could improve the voting systems used by any organization. > > The problem is that we are not engaged on a debate about the proper voting technique; we are debating whether there should be voting _at all_. It is an essentially political debate in which one side feels that they cannot trust a democratic Board election system and prefer something more manageable and controllable; the other side wants to empower a global public. Until there is broader political consensus on this question, the question of the specific technique used to implement democracy is secondary. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Craig Simon [mailto:cls at rkey.com] >> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:05 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >> >> Is it better to reinstate the vote, or to push for something better? >> >> Many of the old-timers on this list will remember me from the early >> ICANN period, when I was researching a Ph.D. that focused on DNS >> politics (Thanks again to those who graciously put up with my >> pestering). Since then, I’ve thought a lot about how a practical venue >> for online democracy might work. Earlier this year I decided to apply >> myself to implementing and refining some of those ideas. >> >> I call my project an experiment in collaborative expression of >> converging and diverging opinion. It’s ultimately about creating a >> massively scalable mechanism for structured argument and consensus >> building. >> >> What's been achieved so far is largely inspired by the preferential >> voting system used in ICANN's 2000 election. It showcases an interactive >> ranked choice ballot and highly granular visualizations of Instant >> Runoff Vote (IRV) elections, displayed round by round. See an >> operational example (for the ongoing US Democratic Party presidential >> primary) at http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=157. Thus far >> I’ve been promoting the system to political bloggers, to pollsters, and >> also to various advocates of IRV and online democracy in the US. >> >> My long-term take on IRV goes far beyond a preferential ballot system. >> I’ve put groundwork in place at my site to allow for what I call “panel >> voting.” It’s a way of filtering and reaggregating results to show the >> behaviors within slices of the voting population. >> >> Panel voting would permit display of collective preferences among >> pre-designated and self-designated groups of individuals. Those groups >> could be aggregated by geopolitical/regional origins, credentialed >> qualifications, professed loyalties, etc. That filtering feature is also >> intended to provide a way for new coalitions to become “conscious” of >> themselves, as potential coalition members come to recognize their >> shared preferences. >> >> The most ambitious aspect of the project is providing a way for new >> ideas to be offered, vetted, refined, and embraced within online >> communities. My approach, still mostly on paper, would combine an open >> nomination process with dynamically convened panels whose members would >> serve as vetting juries. >> >> I agree with Kieren about the legitimating virtue of venues in which >> power (in the form of respected candidates for leadership) can “bubble >> up” within a structured chain. >> >> The challenge is to provide an online mechanism by which candidates for >> decision – not just people seeking office, but position papers, policy >> statements, formal agreements, and so on – can be nominated and bubbled >> up through and across various constellations of panels, seeking final >> ratification by the group as a whole. >> >> Achieving an effective level of large-scale online democracy requires >> far better leverage of web technology than what’s been demonstrated so >> far. In my view, mailing lists, blogs, and traditional online fora are >> generally too linear and too noisy to help sort out the problems of >> widely diverse and rapidly growing communities. Yet they are also too >> prone to becoming echo chambers suited best for preaching to the choir. >> Wikis, though excellent at expressing the results of consensus-oriented >> processes, are poorly set up for venting the give and take of an >> underlying debate. >> >> The purpose of constitutional politics is to channel conflict and >> competition. What’s needed for an Internet-based decision-making venue >> is a widely accessible, democratically open consensus-forging mechanism >> that can simultaneously open up new channels for fresh and useful input >> while also allowing friendly refinements that fortify existing >> contributions. >> >> ICANN’s 2000 election struck me as a squandered opportunity. Though so >> many thousands of people registered and voted, there was no followup >> attempt to reconnect them and nurture what might have emerged as a >> viable online community >> >> I’m not writing to lament the past, however, but to offer thoughts about >> how to structure a useful and enduring medium for online democracy... >> something that would be worthy of such a large community. >> >> Does my project sound the like the right direction toward a solution set >> that would satisfy the ICANN community? >> >> Craig Simon >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: >> 11/24/2007 10:06 AM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 10:50 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 11:08:44 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:08:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Hello all, I have been away for the last 10 days, so just catching up now. On Nov 17, 2007 12:13 AM, Dan Krimm wrote: > Whatever, Veni. This is just rhetorical jousting. > Or a firmly held opinion that's opposed to yours. > > And excuse me, how is ICANN "responsible for" only a "small segment of the > Internet"?? Because, via IANA it only has a very narrow role to play. Isn't ICANN responsible for the *entire DNS* over the *entire > Internet*? Not at all. DNS is a distributed hierarchy. Most DNS administration is done near the edge of the network. ICANN is responsible for a very small fraction of it! Let's say I want to visit your website, and I have never been there before (and neither has any other customers of my ISP). Let's also say for the purposes of this discussion that no other customers of my ISP have been to a .com site either (or the cache of my DNS server has just been flushed.) I put http://www.musicunbound.com/ in my url window, and my cranky old box (called sentry.bushnet.net) makes a query for the Address record for the above URL. Well, since the cache has just been flushed it doesn't "know" how to reach this site (even if it ever has had it in cache). But sentry "knows" how to reach the rootservers, so it asks one of these. It gets a response saying basically "dunno that, but I DO know how to find the NS for .com, heres the address of that one, go ask it", so sentry, armed with the address of .com's NS, asks the same question to .com's NS (say d.gtld-servers.net). at 192.31.80.30, which says "dunno, but go see ns2.dreamhost.com. at 66.33.206.206, he can tell you", so sentry troops down the pipe again to 66.33.206.206 asking ns2.dreamhost.com what the adress of www.musicunbound.com/ is, and because it's an authoritative server for the zone, ns2.dreamhost.com says, you need the webserver at 208.113.195.100, and my browser can fetch it. The point of that long story is just to illustrate that ICANN via IANA has helped to populate the rootzone, and signed various deals with Verisign to admin the .com zone (this example), and a rootserver (or 2). However, it is certainly possible that my query went thru a non-ICANN/non Versiign administered rootserver(there are 10 of them). My local recursive caching, forwarding NS did much of the heavy lifting, and the bulk of the work is in setting up and maintaining the NSs at the edges, (your edge and mine). ICANN has nowt to do with the various routers, switches and servers between my browser and your website, those are owned by ISPs large and small. Of course, these run on IP, but ICANN really has very little to do with IP address distribution either, since that is done by the RIRs and LIRs. Of course IANA distributes to the RIRs, but that's purely an administrative function. > Everyone and everything on the Internet uses the DNS, Who told you this? Some things things don't. because > DNS is in effect the main gatekeeper to any content or applications on the > net It's not. DNS is a layer of misdirection allowing humans to type in things they can recall, a handy "phone book" if you will. It might go away in a decade, and we would have something better in place. > > But if we are to resolve this, we can't avoid dealing with the political > elephant. Better to look straight at it and deal with it on its own terms, > however inconvenient it may be to those in power for everyone else to > actually see it. But be realistic: elephants are too big to sweep under > the rug. My opinion, oft-stated in this forum is that it's a molehill, that some see as a mountain. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Nov 26 11:10:09 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:10:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Interview - P.D.Thrush Message-ID: Kieren McCarthy G.M. Kieren, The IGF2007 Rio conference, offered Mr. Thrush the proverbial Warhol' 15-minutes-of-Fame. OK ... Not very Fair to him, so I'd like to give it a 'fair-shot'. Would you be willing to Interview him "as an investigative reporter" such as you had in your sex.com book, AND pose questions this list raises? Then post the interview on your blog? - Is that Fair enough? If yes, here's the first question [anyone on this mail-list can respond 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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr Mon Nov 26 11:09:56 2007 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:09:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Of course, Milton intervention meet our experience about telecentre in africa. In democratic porcess and according the freedom of expression, telecentre or access community centre is the way to give opportunity to citizen anywhere he is, to give his voice or to take part in democratic debate. I know, it's not reality in africa countries but it's a process and a long process before people can understand what means internet and opportunity offered by ICT. the big problem concern the debate about ICT advantage is not engaged deeply in africa countries. the generic domain name is very necessary for different community to have a web site with their own common language. Baudouin 2007/11/26, Milton L Mueller : > > Craig: > Thanks for your constructive intervention. I've reviewed the site and it's > interesting. Of course from political science I am familiar with different > techniques of voting and yes, one can design systems that are much better at > aggregating preferences than what ICANN did in 2000, or for that matter one > could improve the voting systems used by any organization. > > The problem is that we are not engaged on a debate about the proper voting > technique; we are debating whether there should be voting _at all_. It is an > essentially political debate in which one side feels that they cannot trust > a democratic Board election system and prefer something more manageable and > controllable; the other side wants to empower a global public. Until there > is broader political consensus on this question, the question of the > specific technique used to implement democracy is secondary. > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Craig Simon [mailto:cls at rkey.com] > > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:05 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > > > Is it better to reinstate the vote, or to push for something better? > > > > Many of the old-timers on this list will remember me from the early > > ICANN period, when I was researching a Ph.D. that focused on DNS > > politics (Thanks again to those who graciously put up with my > > pestering). Since then, I've thought a lot about how a practical venue > > for online democracy might work. Earlier this year I decided to apply > > myself to implementing and refining some of those ideas. > > > > I call my project an experiment in collaborative expression of > > converging and diverging opinion. It's ultimately about creating a > > massively scalable mechanism for structured argument and consensus > > building. > > > > What's been achieved so far is largely inspired by the preferential > > voting system used in ICANN's 2000 election. It showcases an interactive > > ranked choice ballot and highly granular visualizations of Instant > > Runoff Vote (IRV) elections, displayed round by round. See an > > operational example (for the ongoing US Democratic Party presidential > > primary) at http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=157. Thus far > > I've been promoting the system to political bloggers, to pollsters, and > > also to various advocates of IRV and online democracy in the US. > > > > My long-term take on IRV goes far beyond a preferential ballot system. > > I've put groundwork in place at my site to allow for what I call "panel > > voting." It's a way of filtering and reaggregating results to show the > > behaviors within slices of the voting population. > > > > Panel voting would permit display of collective preferences among > > pre-designated and self-designated groups of individuals. Those groups > > could be aggregated by geopolitical/regional origins, credentialed > > qualifications, professed loyalties, etc. That filtering feature is also > > intended to provide a way for new coalitions to become "conscious" of > > themselves, as potential coalition members come to recognize their > > shared preferences. > > > > The most ambitious aspect of the project is providing a way for new > > ideas to be offered, vetted, refined, and embraced within online > > communities. My approach, still mostly on paper, would combine an open > > nomination process with dynamically convened panels whose members would > > serve as vetting juries. > > > > I agree with Kieren about the legitimating virtue of venues in which > > power (in the form of respected candidates for leadership) can "bubble > > up" within a structured chain. > > > > The challenge is to provide an online mechanism by which candidates for > > decision – not just people seeking office, but position papers, policy > > statements, formal agreements, and so on – can be nominated and bubbled > > up through and across various constellations of panels, seeking final > > ratification by the group as a whole. > > > > Achieving an effective level of large-scale online democracy requires > > far better leverage of web technology than what's been demonstrated so > > far. In my view, mailing lists, blogs, and traditional online fora are > > generally too linear and too noisy to help sort out the problems of > > widely diverse and rapidly growing communities. Yet they are also too > > prone to becoming echo chambers suited best for preaching to the choir. > > Wikis, though excellent at expressing the results of consensus-oriented > > processes, are poorly set up for venting the give and take of an > > underlying debate. > > > > The purpose of constitutional politics is to channel conflict and > > competition. What's needed for an Internet-based decision-making venue > > is a widely accessible, democratically open consensus-forging mechanism > > that can simultaneously open up new channels for fresh and useful input > > while also allowing friendly refinements that fortify existing > > contributions. > > > > ICANN's 2000 election struck me as a squandered opportunity. Though so > > many thousands of people registered and voted, there was no followup > > attempt to reconnect them and nurture what might have emerged as a > > viable online community > > > > I'm not writing to lament the past, however, but to offer thoughts about > > how to structure a useful and enduring medium for online democracy... > > something that would be worthy of such a large community. > > > > Does my project sound the like the right direction toward a solution set > > that would satisfy the ICANN community? > > > > Craig Simon > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: > > 11/24/2007 10:06 AM > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: > 11/26/2007 10:50 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 11:21:43 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:21:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <4747DFE1.8010306@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4747DFE1.8010306@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45ed74050711260821o30567c49j595b55748c1d2e22@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, These points are especially intriguing for those of us in other venues working towards People's Assemblies, but without the ICANN / other background as considerations. When you have time, could you possibly list some basic procedural steps, and / or substantive elements, characterizing the systems you reference? With appreciation, and *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff On 11/24/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Kieren McCarthy ha scritto: > > It strikes me that if you ignore the torrid history and clash of egos > over > > the years, that the ALAC/RALO/ALS system is a pretty logical structure, > > designed to be scalable and to ensure regional representation. > > > > But many of the comments on this list take as a presumption that this is > not > > a logical structure. > > > > I think everyone may be missing the bigger picture. > > > > For example, with this election argument: no one is pondering where the > > candidates - or, rather, the best candidates - come from. > > I think that you got the key points of why we designed the structure > like that, five years ago; I'm happy to see that, once one gets deeper > into the complexities of the mechanism, the need for a "glocal" and > multilayered system becomes self-evident. > > However, there are a couple of things that, IMHO, do not work well and, > in hindsight, may need to be readdressed. > > The first is that the system tends to bubble up good politicians, but > not good workers. Of course I am grossly simplifying, but during these > years not many of the ALAC members were interested in rolling up their > sleeves and producing policy input to ICANN, or being practical enough > to focus on current end-user problems. Most of them were more interested > in discussing high level political issues such as WSIS, relationships > with the USG, or even more often the internalities of the At Large > itself, i.e. procedural issues. Not all ALAC members see the ALAC as a > service to the community at large - many see it as a way to promote > personal opinions and their pet issues, and in a few cases people seemed > only focused on self-promotion. > > The third is that the system is not representative yet, and in this I > think that Karl has a point. Sure we'll not get millions of citizens > directly interested in ICANN, and sure the disinformed and nationalistic > (when not plainly random) votes of the 2000 elections were very far from > actual democracy (more similar to practical democracy, the one that > elects Bush and Berlusconi). However, the ALAC "bubbling up" system > mostly failed in bringing up the issues that registrants really care > about. There is a lack of end user participation at the bottom level; > the ALSes were mostly meant to be "entry points" that could take care of > identifying and gathering the users, and providing information to them > in local languages; however, there has always been the idea that some > form of general, individual-based election would eventually take place, > or at least that a smart and committed individual, by entering the > system at an ALS, could very quickly get to the top level, without being > blocked by layers of bureaucracy and established leaderships. The ALSes > and their leadership have too much power in the present system, and they > tend to capture the scene. > > However, these are points that can be addressed, and I expect that > (assuming that I continue participating in ICANN) there will be a chance > to discuss them thoroughly. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Mon Nov 26 11:25:54 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (=?utf-8?B?SnVkaXRoIE9wcGVuaGVpbWVy?=) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:25:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <20071126115953.C8B552BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356><008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356><004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223><7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net><82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org><20071126115953.C8B552BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <1760977161-1196094203-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-906021770-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Veni, your points about election considerations are well taken, and should be part of the conversation on how to build on what was accomplished from the first ICANN election. If we only looked at what we think goes wrong (or who the press paid attention to - and that's not a bad thing - the press should be encouraged to pay attention to all the candidates, wouldn't that be great!), and therefore said something does't work - we'd never hold another U.S. election. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Veni Markovski Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:48:12 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote At 19:28 11/21/2007 +0100, you wrote: >It has been shown that in countries >where the mainstream media informed about the process, the >participation rate was higher by far than in other countries in same >region with comparable rate of Internet users. I can confirm that with experience from Europe. An article in a German magazine was enough to give a huge lead to Andy compared to other candidates, including all of the East European ones. Also, if I am not mistaken, for some countries it might have been a matter of national pride to have their candidate elected. If we think seriously about it, such elections could take place, only if it is guaranteed that the countries with smaller number of population will have any chance to countries with billions of people. Otherwise the results of the elections will be known in advance. 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 lists at privaterra.info Mon Nov 26 11:46:02 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:46:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Security issue @ IGF / Rio - Check your bank statements Message-ID: <36078294-E9D4-4B81-9A90-1866C02CFBCE@privaterra.info> There have been some reports from IGF participants regarding financial fraud taking place on or during the dates of Nov 11 - Nov 20. reports include - but are not limited to : unauthorized ATM withdrawals, unauthorized purchases, as well as card (with PIN) cloning,etc. Please check your bank and/or credit card statements to see if any unauthorized transactions might have taken place. If you were unfortunate to have suffered a fraud , please report it here - so that we can share the information with the financial security officials from Brazil and relevant financial institutions (visa, mastercard, etc) regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 12:02:56 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:02:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Interview - P.D.Thrush In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007f01c8304e$32e2b600$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> I like the idea but whatever I produced it would currently still be seen as somehow selling the ICANN line. What might work better is if I tried to set up a chatroom session. I know Channel 4 in the UK does a lot of these with politicians, businessmen, film-makers etc etc. If you think it's a good idea, I could look into it... Kieren -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 8:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Interview - P.D.Thrush Kieren McCarthy G.M. Kieren, The IGF2007 Rio conference, offered Mr. Thrush the proverbial Warhol' 15-minutes-of-Fame. OK ... Not very Fair to him, so I'd like to give it a 'fair-shot'. Would you be willing to Interview him "as an investigative reporter" such as you had in your sex.com book, AND pose questions this list raises? Then post the interview on your blog? - Is that Fair enough? If yes, here's the first question [anyone on this mail-list can respond here....] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Nov 26 12:07:07 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:07:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] Security issue @ IGF / Rio - Check your bank statements In-Reply-To: <36078294-E9D4-4B81-9A90-1866C02CFBCE@privaterra.info> References: <36078294-E9D4-4B81-9A90-1866C02CFBCE@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <474AFD3B.6090108@rits.org.br> Report it here?? In the list?? I guess you should suggest people direct their reports to the appropriate people -- yet another issue not pertaining to IG which might creep up here. I will be glad to redirect any report to the local organizers (who obviously cannot do much except to forward them to the local subsidiaries of the banks or card operators involved), but I personally find very strange, however, that people do not contact their banks' branches or card operators directly -- this is the proper way to file a complaint. --c.a. Robert Guerra wrote: > There have been some reports from IGF participants regarding financial > fraud taking place on or during the dates of Nov 11 - Nov 20. > > reports include - but are not limited to : unauthorized ATM withdrawals, > unauthorized purchases, as well as card (with PIN) cloning,etc. > > Please check your bank and/or credit card statements to see if any > unauthorized transactions might have taken place. If you were > unfortunate to have suffered a fraud , please report it here - so that > we can share the information with the financial security officials from > Brazil and relevant financial institutions (visa, mastercard, etc) > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 12:17:39 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:17:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Security issue @ IGF / Rio - Check your bank statements In-Reply-To: <474AFD3B.6090108@rits.org.br> References: <36078294-E9D4-4B81-9A90-1866C02CFBCE@privaterra.info> <474AFD3B.6090108@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <06F63EEF-BCC3-4B65-9323-9616B53A0507@privaterra.info> Carlos: On 26-Nov-07, at 12:07 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Report it here?? In the list?? I guess you should suggest people > direct their reports to the appropriate people -- yet another issue > not pertaining to IG which might creep up here. > I was referring to the fact that people who might have had "issues" should just mention that. no further details, of course should be mentioned on such a public list. > I will be glad to redirect any report to the local organizers (who > obviously cannot do much except to forward them to the local > subsidiaries of the banks or card operators involved), but I > personally find very strange, however, that people do not contact > their banks' branches or card operators directly -- this is the > proper way to file a complaint. > One or more IGF participants might have used a common ATM, and then been subject to an "issue" of some kind. Knowing - a. if it happened, b. to whom. and if there are similarities in the location of a possible fraud - might help banks and/or relevant financial institutions with their investigation. In short - The reasoning behind my initial post was that sharing info on possible security issues could be helpful to those involved. regards Robert > > Robert Guerra wrote: >> There have been some reports from IGF participants regarding >> financial fraud taking place on or during the dates of Nov 11 - Nov >> 20. >> reports include - but are not limited to : unauthorized ATM >> withdrawals, unauthorized purchases, as well as card (with PIN) >> cloning,etc. >> Please check your bank and/or credit card statements to see if any >> unauthorized transactions might have taken place. If you were >> unfortunate to have suffered a fraud , please report it here - so >> that we can share the information with the financial security >> officials from Brazil and relevant financial institutions (visa, >> mastercard, etc) >> regards, >> Robert >> --- >> Robert Guerra >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 13:33:19 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:33:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Interview - P.D.Thrush In-Reply-To: 007f01c8304e$32e2b600$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356 Message-ID: I can live with that. (also - What would Peter like to do?) We should get the Questions first though, then decide if the Ch4 Chat Session is the right platform-medium. People in differnt time zones is the trouble with 'live' cast. I belive Most folks here would settle for a short-list of Q&A's >What might work better is if I tried to set up a chatroom session. I know >Channel 4 in the UK does a lot of these with politicians, businessmen, >Film-makers etc etc. lol, Micheal Moore? a new documentary 'Peter & Me' *[ Michael Moore did a documentary on GM's CEO Roger Smith] Let us know if the Q&A is a go. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 14:03:52 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:03:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> As ever, Wolfgang's post seems to be the best spot to get back into this conversation. So as an interesting historical review, the concern with the voting last time was the fact that anyone could get an email address and so it was open to manipulation. The idea was anyone who was a domain name holder could vote. But then people felt this was power in the hand of landowners. What's interesting of course is that now if you based votes on domain names, you would get possibly an even worse bias because of the recent arrival of the domainer market. With some companies owning tens of thousands of domains - and possessing the technology to use each one individually, an election could be entirely dominated by which way one or two individuals heading these domainer companies decided to vote. It strikes me that this inability to pin down an individual to a single vote is not something that is going to go away. There has to be some kind of real-world verification so that multiple votes require people to physically do something. Wrt the World Internet User Summit in Paris - I am wholeheartedly behind this idea and am happy to help in whatever way I can. I would urge people to view both myself and ICANN as a useful resource in this process. Re: the OECD. I don't agree with Wolfgang's summary of the OECD as "only a limited number of states". There are a lot of governments who will be there as observers if not necessarily formal members. From what I understand the OECD's musings tend to have a significant impact on people's thinking about an issue. But to get back to the ALAC/RALO/ALS system. I'm surprised that Wolfgang is so damning of it as a "stupid superstructure". I know the history is torrid, but as I explained in another email, I see the structure itself as a pretty good construct (Vittorio had some interesting real-world observations about it). I have a serious question about this. Is there anything in the structure that actually prevents or restricts ideas from the wider community from going through review and ending up as firm statements or policies? If there is a bottleneck, or a procedural problem, or a structural issue? If so, what is it? Let's get it out and discuss it. I'm happy to see if I can deal with the issues people appear to be raising about creating an ALS - but what else is out there? [As an aside - is this the right list/forum for this sort of discussion? I am more than happy to set up a forum on ICANN's public participation site if people would prefer this conversation taken off this list.] One of the problems I have found with ICANN's processes is that there isn't enough pre-discussion. People tend to get riled up in their own groups before a single meeting on a certain date (almost always at an ICANN meeting). Then at the meeting itself all the different clashing viewpoints pour out and at the end of the two hours / three hours the chair is left with an impossible task of finding the middle ground. The more informal pre-meetings and discussions - particularly between different groups - that are held before a formal meeting the better I think the system will work. So when it comes to a meeting, you already know what everyone thinks, you have already begun to find compromises with different stakeholders and then the meeting can be used to get the feel of the room on particular aspects where it has become clear people do not agree. Is this useful to people? Do people think that if such pre-meetings were a good idea, they would have to also happen at ICANN meetings? Because I can try to reform the way ICANN meetings are run if large groups of people think this would be useful. I also think there is an important and interesting discussion to be had over: what is the role and what should be the role of the individual within ICANN's processes? Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:18 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Innovation Dear list I was rather silent so far on this interesting debate but as a "veteran" I wanted to listen to the many voices around. It is always good to go back to history and to learn from the mistakes and to understand how contradictions - rooted in conflicting interests - have driven development. I was involved in the MAC when we discussed this with Charles Nession, Jonathan Zittrain (he was the Executive Secretary of the MAC) and others in 1999 in Singapore, Cambridge and Berlin (which paved the way for the elections), I was involved as member of the MITF, and I workd together with Carl Bildt in the ALSG in 2001. In the first meeting in Stockhlom (2001) Carl Bildt, as former democratically elected prime minister of a democratic country, was rather sceptical about elections (too low voters turnour to be really democratic). But in the course of the debate he changed his mind, saw this as an innovation and became a supporter of elections, however just for domain name holders, which can be easier indentified than e-mail address holders. The final ALSG report, which recommended this scheme - was critisied because such an election would have excluded a lot of students from universities who normally do not have an own domain name. The argument was that this is like in the middle ages where just land oweners have right to vote. The report was presented in Montevideo where they have a lot of experiences with Latifundistas. However the report recommended elections. This was on September, 8, 2001. And as we know, September 11, 2001 changed ICANN from a playground on Cyberdemocracy into a project of Cybersecurity. Believe it or not, we live (unfortunately) now in a different world. We can not go back to history. If history comes back one to one, than this is always a farce or a comedy. We have to move foreward. I fully support Gurus call for "creativity" and "innovation". We all agree that the stupid superstructure of ALS/RALO/ALAC was established to keep the individual users on a distance from policy development and decision making to minimze undefined "risks". And as long as the ALAC construction was as weak as it was (and is) this has worked well for the inventors of the system. Is there a chance for an innovative new approach? Why not. 1. the proposed "World Internet User Summit" in June 2008 in Paris - as part of the ICANN meeting - is an unique opportunity. There is a need to start now with the preparations, to establish a drafting committee for an "Internet Users Declaration" and to do outreach beyond accredited ALS. Such a declaration can be based on all the nice documents of the 1990s, the elcetion experiences of 2000 plus the Civil Society Declaration from WSIS I. It will also go beyond the planned user event during the OECD Ministerial Meeting in Seoul just on the even of the Paris meeting. OECD includes only a limited number of states. 2. the forthcoming ALAC review process offers broad opportunities to analyze the weakness and risks of the existing structures and to make constructive proposals. Peter Dengath Tresh, ICANNs new CEO, has underlined during the IGF in Rio, that the review process is part of ICANN democratization process. So this is the place where all the critics can be channeled. Looking backwards is sometimes useful. Looking forward is the challenge of the next couple of years. Regards wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Nov 26 13:58:22 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:58:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <005d01c8305e$531d0910$f9571b30$@com> Hi Milton How about changing the statement of the problem: Rather than: " one side feels that they cannot trust a democratic Board election system and prefer something more manageable and controllable; the other side wants to empower a global public" How about: one side feels that they cannot subscribe to an election system that has no safeguards to ensure a true "global" reach and thinks that elections in this situation will give an advantage to economically empowered users in the North, and prefer a system that is less ostensibly representative but gives weight to less-developed regions globally; the other side wants to run a one-user one-vote election that might essentially be a US-ian and European election, as few users in the South will be informed or able to vote, and are against a system that focuses on education and empowerment of less-informed and less-developed users. The two statements will provoke very different discussions... Of course there's a neutral way to state the discussion and neither of the above is it. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 11:30 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Craig Simon; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Craig: Thanks for your constructive intervention. I've reviewed the site and it's interesting. Of course from political science I am familiar with different techniques of voting and yes, one can design systems that are much better at aggregating preferences than what ICANN did in 2000, or for that matter one could improve the voting systems used by any organization. The problem is that we are not engaged on a debate about the proper voting technique; we are debating whether there should be voting _at all_. It is an essentially political debate in which one side feels that they cannot trust a democratic Board election system and prefer something more manageable and controllable; the other side wants to empower a global public. Until there is broader political consensus on this question, the question of the specific technique used to implement democracy is secondary. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Simon [mailto:cls at rkey.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:05 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy > Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > Is it better to reinstate the vote, or to push for something better? > > Many of the old-timers on this list will remember me from the early > ICANN period, when I was researching a Ph.D. that focused on DNS > politics (Thanks again to those who graciously put up with my > pestering). Since then, I’ve thought a lot about how a practical venue > for online democracy might work. Earlier this year I decided to apply > myself to implementing and refining some of those ideas. > > I call my project an experiment in collaborative expression of > converging and diverging opinion. It’s ultimately about creating a > massively scalable mechanism for structured argument and consensus > building. > > What's been achieved so far is largely inspired by the preferential > voting system used in ICANN's 2000 election. It showcases an interactive > ranked choice ballot and highly granular visualizations of Instant > Runoff Vote (IRV) elections, displayed round by round. See an > operational example (for the ongoing US Democratic Party presidential > primary) at http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=157. Thus far > I’ve been promoting the system to political bloggers, to pollsters, and > also to various advocates of IRV and online democracy in the US. > > My long-term take on IRV goes far beyond a preferential ballot system. > I’ve put groundwork in place at my site to allow for what I call “panel > voting.” It’s a way of filtering and reaggregating results to show the > behaviors within slices of the voting population. > > Panel voting would permit display of collective preferences among > pre-designated and self-designated groups of individuals. Those groups > could be aggregated by geopolitical/regional origins, credentialed > qualifications, professed loyalties, etc. That filtering feature is also > intended to provide a way for new coalitions to become “conscious” of > themselves, as potential coalition members come to recognize their > shared preferences. > > The most ambitious aspect of the project is providing a way for new > ideas to be offered, vetted, refined, and embraced within online > communities. My approach, still mostly on paper, would combine an open > nomination process with dynamically convened panels whose members would > serve as vetting juries. > > I agree with Kieren about the legitimating virtue of venues in which > power (in the form of respected candidates for leadership) can “bubble > up” within a structured chain. > > The challenge is to provide an online mechanism by which candidates for > decision – not just people seeking office, but position papers, policy > statements, formal agreements, and so on – can be nominated and bubbled > up through and across various constellations of panels, seeking final > ratification by the group as a whole. > > Achieving an effective level of large-scale online democracy requires > far better leverage of web technology than what’s been demonstrated so > far. In my view, mailing lists, blogs, and traditional online fora are > generally too linear and too noisy to help sort out the problems of > widely diverse and rapidly growing communities. Yet they are also too > prone to becoming echo chambers suited best for preaching to the choir. > Wikis, though excellent at expressing the results of consensus-oriented > processes, are poorly set up for venting the give and take of an > underlying debate. > > The purpose of constitutional politics is to channel conflict and > competition. What’s needed for an Internet-based decision-making venue > is a widely accessible, democratically open consensus-forging mechanism > that can simultaneously open up new channels for fresh and useful input > while also allowing friendly refinements that fortify existing > contributions. > > ICANN’s 2000 election struck me as a squandered opportunity. Though so > many thousands of people registered and voted, there was no followup > attempt to reconnect them and nurture what might have emerged as a > viable online community > > I’m not writing to lament the past, however, but to offer thoughts about > how to structure a useful and enduring medium for online democracy... > something that would be worthy of such a large community. > > Does my project sound the like the right direction toward a solution set > that would satisfy the ICANN community? > > Craig Simon > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: > 11/24/2007 10:06 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 10:50 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Nov 26 14:25:05 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:25:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <1760977161-1196094203-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-906021770-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <005201c82bd5$bf27e3b0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356><008b01c82bf8$0c23dda0$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356><004e01c82bf9$58091360$0100000a@ICANN1223><7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C2CE@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><20071121154643.GC25372@hserus.net><82367CE0-B6AE-4EA7-A66F-ECC365074055@ras.eu.org><20071126115953.C8B552BC002@mxr.isoc.bg> <1760977161-1196094203-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-906021770-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <9A0EF0D9-A2DE-48E6-9E76-AFC79A2D0550@ras.eu.org> Judith, Actually, Veni was backing my point which stated the role of mainstream medias in simply *informing* on the process and the consequences on the number of *votes* in the country where this happened, namely Germany w.r.t. to other countries in the same region. In other words, the point was on capacity building/raising awareness in the general public on the simple fact that elections were being held, and how this may influence the participation rate and thus the election results. So, the issue is still whether or not a global election to a global organization like ICANN makes political sense, not whether or not there were flaws in the at-large elections process in 2000 (as these flaws are well known and have been extensively documented already). Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris Le 26 nov. 07 à 17:25, Judith Oppenheimer a écrit : > Veni, your points about election considerations are well taken, and > should be part of the conversation on how to build on what was > accomplished from the first ICANN election. > > If we only looked at what we think goes wrong (or who the press > paid attention to - and that's not a bad thing - the press should > be encouraged to pay attention to all the candidates, wouldn't that > be great!), and therefore said something does't work - we'd never > hold another U.S. election. > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Veni Markovski > > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:48:12 > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote > > > At 19:28 11/21/2007 +0100, you wrote: > >> It has been shown that in countries >> where the mainstream media informed about the process, the >> participation rate was higher by far than in other countries in same >> region with comparable rate of Internet users. > > I can confirm that with experience from Europe. An article in a > German magazine was enough to give a huge lead to Andy compared to > other candidates, including all of the East European ones. Also, if I > am not mistaken, for some countries it might have been a matter of > national pride to have their candidate elected. If we think seriously > about it, such elections could take place, only if it is guaranteed > that the countries with smaller number of population will have any > chance to countries with billions of people. Otherwise the results of > the elections will be known in advance. > > veni > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Mon Nov 26 14:49:01 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:49:01 -0800 Subject: ALAC issues (was: Re: [governance] Innovation) In-Reply-To: <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >If there is a bottleneck, or a procedural problem, or a structural issue? I've given this a fair amount of thought recently, in large part because the ALAC proved itself incapable of reacting to an ICANN call for comments on a fairly important issue, in spite of the fact that the work was done for it by a long time ALAC supporter (me). You can see my comment to the ALAC here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/ 2007q4/002359.html I think one part of the ALAC's problem is that it is composed of organizations, but the people involved are not authorized to speak on behalf of those organizations in all instances. Most organizations need some formal approval process before they sign their names to a policy document, and they are usually and understandably unwilling to attach their names to something that is not core to their mission and/ or is poorly understood by their leadership. ICANN matters are rarely core to anyone's missions and almost always poorly understood by those not involved on a daily basis. To solve this, the ALAC could (a) abandon the organizational model and move to an individual membership model; or (b) asks organizations to appoint one member from the ALS to serve as liaison to the RALO, but free him or her to act in a personal capacity, not as a representative of the organization. I'm sure there are more possibilities as well. -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html ------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2974 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 Mon Nov 26 15:00:46 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:00:46 -0500 Subject: ALAC issues (was: Re: [governance] Innovation) In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <20071126200215.A48322BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> At 11:49 11/26/2007 -0800, Bret wrote: >To solve this, the ALAC could (a) abandon the organizational model >and move to an individual membership model; or (b) asks organizations >to appoint one member from the ALS to serve as liaison to the RALO, >but free him or her to act in a personal capacity, not as a >representative of the organization. I'm sure there are more >possibilities as well. Bret, I think that a way to deal with this is to creat an AL mailing list, which will be purely for AL-related issues; no personal mails, no wasting of time, etc., and then the liaison we can elect to represent ISOC-Bulgaria would be able to really spend some (little) time there. At the moment it is very difficult to find someone who will be able to spend enormous amounts of time reading through the e-mails. Interestingly enough, the discussion about improving the ALAC model is taking place on the... governance list, not in the AL lists ;-) 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 joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Mon Nov 26 15:11:11 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:11:11 -0600 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Message-ID: <75f869c4a7c49ca7af84489530c0450e@smtp.cfdynamics.com> I am taking the liberty of reposting something that Dan posted here last week. It is extremely compelling, appropriate to this recurring "us versus them" theme, and well worth reading again. And again. IMHO. Judith From: Dan Krimm Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:52:01 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote I hope everyone in the US had a Happy Thanksgiving holiday -- I certainly did: I didn't go online for a moment. And what a state this list is in as I return... One comment, certainly not intended to be ad hominem: At 12:23 PM -0500 11/23/07, Veni Markovski wrote: For some of the Americans the issues about the Internet are related to something, which some of them believe, is related to power. For the other Netizens - we care about the price at which we get our Internet connection, about the freedom of access, freedom of speech, etc. But some of the Americans, who take so many things for granted, just because they happen to be born in the USA, we need to just try to educate them about "the other world". I would wonder how "freedom of access" and "freedom of expression" (both of which I personally feel quite passionate about protecting), are not fundamentally issues of power. IMHO these rights are not merely "related to power" but are in fact *direct manifestations of power* -- if you have political power, then you have these freedoms, and if you do not have political power, generally you do not these freedoms in meaningful terms (though those in power may try to convince you that you do have them -- that makes it easier to control you, if you don't believe you have anything to fight for). Certainly my experience is dominated by the US environment, and in this politically highly divided country these freedoms are among the most important power issues we are fighting about. All of our freedoms are in direct danger, because in this country we are facing a systematic erosion of the rule of law in favor of the rule of humans. A lot of people outside the US criticize the US (actually, the US government) because of its supremely arrogant attitudes toward the rest of the world. What they may not realize is that *very many* people inside the US (I would include myself) criticize the current US administration for precisely those reasons, and that those imperial behaviors are aimed domestically as well as overseas. What the current US administration has done is systematically erode the checks and balances in our own Constitution in rather dangerous ways, with the strategic help of corporate mass media (and increasingly the telcos and cable companies are getting into it), and we are genuinely alarmed and trying our level best to fight back against what we see as steps to take our own country away from democratic standards of governance and toward a more authoritarian model that involves strong control over information. (In short, Orwell's dystopia can be arrived at either through over-centralization of public government or by wild deregulation of the private sector. In both extreme cases, the public and private sectors ultimately merge in a monopoly of elite power over and against the general public. Personally I view the "socialism versus free market" debate as a patently false dichotomy. I can go into further detail elsewhere if you like, but for the purposes of this particular discussion, I merely wish to set the conceptual context, which is that the US is currently facing the most serious threat to civil liberties in several generations.) So, in my personal case, it is not about "taking [anything] for granted" anywhere else in the world, but rather about seeing a frightening potential on the horizon at home that may not yet have propagated to all other areas of the world, but which needs to be opposed here and now and also at the international level regardless of whether it has arrived fully formed in all other regions. So, please understand that in the US the "privatization" trend in the sense of "outsourcing public governance" has some *very* nefarious overtones, and US domestic civil society has grown a hair-trigger sensitivity to such dynamics when they seem to be designed to undermine accountability of public governance to the general public in favor of giving power to wealthy private sector entities, and to growing closer bonds between private (economic) and public (political) power. (In the public policy world this is expressed by the jargon term "industry capture" [of government] and is often driven by "iron triangles" between industry lobbyists, agency regulators, and legislators.) So, this is the political context within which some of us see dynamics of Internet governance (the very word "governance" is about the institutional structures determining who has political *power* to control others), and it fits into this larger context in a fairly direct and disturbing manner. This is the "governance" list, after all, and the "G" in IGC and IGF and IGP is all about political power. So, with due respect, I present this description as a way to inform "the other world" as to what is going on inside the US, how it fits in with what you might see of explicit US foreign relations (which are tangibly frightening to many "USians"), the role towards which US civil society has gravitated in the last 7 years, how trends surrounding control of access and expression on the Internet fit into a disturbing pattern of strategic power shifts, and why we might see commonalities between the general problems of power battles in the US and the specific case of Internet governance, especially in cases where IG has a foot in the US legal and political jurisdiction. In short, the US is living through a recap of the "gilded age" of the previous century, once again moving systematically toward plutocracy, and creating a new generation of "robber barons" who strive to control the general public at home and have imperial designs abroad. US civil society (and many in academia) are aligned against this dangerous trend both domestically and with regard to international affairs. And, the information infrastructure is front and center in these power battles, because in the Information Age (or the "Information Society" if you prefer), control over information is perhaps the most important currency of political power itself. If we are throwing around traditional mottos, the one I prefer for our age is "knowledge is power" and the confluence of money and information-control is the "nuclear-powered" version of political power in the emerging information society, and the Internet (the most "disruptive" technology of our lifetimes, so far, even more than nuclear technology) is at the core of *all* of this. I would suggest that this is the framework within which you would best understand our positions and recommendations. There is no separation between freedom of access and freedom of expression and "power to the people" -- in my framework they are all part of the same thing, and the Internet is inextricably woven throughout the entire cloth. Bottom line: The Internet is *all* about power of information (and control over information), and that is becoming the most important form of power in our world as time progresses. Dan On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: Hi Milton How about changing the statement of the problem: Rather than: " one side feels that they cannot trust a democratic Board election system and prefer something more manageable and controllable; the other side wants to empower a global public" How about: one side feels that they cannot subscribe to an election system that has no safeguards to ensure a true "global" reach and thinks that elections in this situation will give an advantage to economically empowered users in the North, and prefer a system that is less ostensibly representative but gives weight to less-developed regions globally; the other side wants to run a one-user one-vote election that might essentially be a US-ian and European election, as few users in the South will be informed or able to vote, and are against a system that focuses on education and empowerment of less-informed and less-developed users. The two statements will provoke very different discussions... Of course there's a neutral way to state the discussion and neither of the above is it. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 11:30 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Craig Simon; Kieren McCarthy Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Craig: Thanks for your constructive intervention. I've reviewed the site and it's interesting. Of course from political science I am familiar with different techniques of voting and yes, one can design systems that are much better at aggregating preferences than what ICANN did in 2000, or for that matter one could improve the voting systems used by any organization. The problem is that we are not engaged on a debate about the proper voting technique; we are debating whether there should be voting _at all_. It is an essentially political debate in which one side feels that they cannot trust a democratic Board election system and prefer something more manageable and controllable; the other side wants to empower a global public. Until there is broader political consensus on this question, the question of the specific technique used to implement democracy is secondary. --MM -----Original Message----- From: Craig Simon [mailto:cls at rkey.com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:05 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote Is it better to reinstate the vote, or to push for something better? Many of the old-timers on this list will remember me from the early ICANN period, when I was researching a Ph.D. that focused on DNS politics (Thanks again to those who graciously put up with my pestering). Since then, I’ve thought a lot about how a practical venue for online democracy might work. Earlier this year I decided to apply myself to implementing and refining some of those ideas. I call my project an experiment in collaborative expression of converging and diverging opinion. It’s ultimately about creating a massively scalable mechanism for structured argument and consensus building. What's been achieved so far is largely inspired by the preferential voting system used in ICANN's 2000 election. It showcases an interactive ranked choice ballot and highly granular visualizations of Instant Runoff Vote (IRV) elections, displayed round by round. See an operational example (for the ongoing US Democratic Party presidential primary) at http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=157. Thus far I’ve been promoting the system to political bloggers, to pollsters, and also to various advocates of IRV and online democracy in the US. My long-term take on IRV goes far beyond a preferential ballot system. I’ve put groundwork in place at my site to allow for what I call “panel voting.” It’s a way of filtering and reaggregating results to show the behaviors within slices of the voting population. Panel voting would permit display of collective preferences among pre-designated and self-designated groups of individuals. Those groups could be aggregated by geopolitical/regional origins, credentialed qualifications, professed loyalties, etc. That filtering feature is also intended to provide a way for new coalitions to become “conscious” of themselves, as potential coalition members come to recognize their shared preferences. The most ambitious aspect of the project is providing a way for new ideas to be offered, vetted, refined, and embraced within online communities. My approach, still mostly on paper, would combine an open nomination process with dynamically convened panels whose members would serve as vetting juries. I agree with Kieren about the legitimating virtue of venues in which power (in the form of respected candidates for leadership) can “bubble up” within a structured chain. The challenge is to provide an online mechanism by which candidates for decision – not just people seeking office, but position papers, policy statements, formal agreements, and so on – can be nominated and bubbled up through and across various constellations of panels, seeking final ratification by the group as a whole. Achieving an effective level of large-scale online democracy requires far better leverage of web technology than what’s been demonstrated so far. In my view, mailing lists, blogs, and traditional online fora are generally too linear and too noisy to help sort out the problems of widely diverse and rapidly growing communities. Yet they are also too prone to becoming echo chambers suited best for preaching to the choir. Wikis, though excellent at expressing the results of consensus-oriented processes, are poorly set up for venting the give and take of an underlying debate. The purpose of constitutional politics is to channel conflict and competition. What’s needed for an Internet-based decision-making venue is a widely accessible, democratically open consensus-forging mechanism that can simultaneously open up new channels for fresh and useful input while also allowing friendly refinements that fortify existing contributions. ICANN’s 2000 election struck me as a squandered opportunity. Though so many thousands of people registered and voted, there was no followup attempt to reconnect them and nurture what might have emerged as a viable online community I’m not writing to lament the past, however, but to offer thoughts about how to structure a useful and enduring medium for online democracy... something that would be worthy of such a large community. Does my project sound the like the right direction toward a solution set that would satisfy the ICANN community? Craig Simon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 10:50 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Nov 26 15:17:02 2007 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:17:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <474B29BE.2040203@rkey.com> I'm all for empowering a global public, of course, and I certainly understand the context of this debate. But it's not necessary to wait for a win on those issues before attacking the problems of building a next-generation interface for online decision-making. What would work for an expressly global polity should also work within smaller constituencies... and not just as test beds, but for their practical purposes. Craig Milton L Mueller wrote: > Craig: > Thanks for your constructive intervention. I've reviewed the site and it's interesting. Of course from political science I am familiar with different techniques of voting and yes, one can design systems that are much better at aggregating preferences than what ICANN did in 2000, or for that matter one could improve the voting systems used by any organization. > > The problem is that we are not engaged on a debate about the proper voting technique; we are debating whether there should be voting _at all_. It is an essentially political debate in which one side feels that they cannot trust a democratic Board election system and prefer something more manageable and controllable; the other side wants to empower a global public. Until there is broader political consensus on this question, the question of the specific technique used to implement democracy is secondary. > > --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 lists at privaterra.info Mon Nov 26 15:17:01 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:17:01 -0500 Subject: ALAC issues (was: Re: [governance] Innovation) In-Reply-To: <20071126200215.A48322BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <20071126200215.A48322BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <72F97FD3-9263-4720-B85C-CF7A900409B9@privaterra.info> Veni: Personally, i do not agree with your indirect comments about the tone, quality, or nature of the existing discussions taking place on the at- large list. If you aren't currently subscribed to the Public and quite open at- large mailing list, please do subscribe. details are as follows: The worldwide community of ICANN At-Large discussion forum http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org that being said - I hope your comments don't imply that ICANN staff (which you are) have passed judgement on the existing At-Large public list. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Nov-07, at 3:00 PM, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 11:49 11/26/2007 -0800, Bret wrote: > >> To solve this, the ALAC could (a) abandon the organizational model >> and move to an individual membership model; or (b) asks organizations >> to appoint one member from the ALS to serve as liaison to the RALO, >> but free him or her to act in a personal capacity, not as a >> representative of the organization. I'm sure there are more >> possibilities as well. > > > Bret, > I think that a way to deal with this is to creat an AL mailing list, > which will be purely for AL-related issues; no personal mails, no > wasting of time, etc., and then the liaison we can elect to > represent ISOC-Bulgaria would be able to really spend some (little) > time there. > At the moment it is very difficult to find someone who will be able > to spend enormous amounts of time reading through the e-mails. > Interestingly enough, the discussion about improving the ALAC model > is taking place on the... governance list, not in the AL lists ;-) > > 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 karl at cavebear.com Mon Nov 26 15:31:03 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:31:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > So as an interesting historical review, the concern with the voting last > time was the fact that anyone could get an email address and so it was open > to manipulation. This boggyman argument that the election could be "manipulated" is an argument that is being used not to find the errors and fix them but rather to prevent any attempt to hold elections at all. Every election process can be manipulated - I work in the area of open voting for really high stakes political elections and I never ceased to be amazed at all the methods that can be used to coerce voters or affect results. In other words, ICANN is using the demand for perfection in voting as an enemy of any adequate system. It is odd that ICANN has substituted the ALAC, a system that is far more manipulable, indeed it comes pre-manipulated. > The idea was anyone who was a domain name holder could vote. But then people > felt this was power in the hand of landowners. You have to get your history right. There was a 100% distinct and separate move to form a "constituency" (just like those for intellectual property, registries, registrars, etc) within ICANN for those who own domain names, the IDNO. The petition can be seen at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm ICANN did, as ICANN does, simply ignored this rather valid petition to form a new constituency. This constituency was open to everyone who could demonstrate ownership of a domain name - even ibm.com or att.com could serve as the foundation for ownership if an individual person could be ascertained who had enough vested in himself/herself that it constituted ownership. The IDNO did use an election system. But the IDNO should not be at all confused with the ICANN election system. > What's interesting of course is that now if you based votes on domain names, > you would get possibly an even worse bias because of the recent arrival of > the domainer market. With some companies owning tens of thousands of domains > - and possessing the technology to use each one individually, an election > could be entirely dominated by which way one or two individuals heading > these domainer companies decided to vote. Well, since we are continuing to go down the road blazed by the IDNO, take a look at our system as described at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm - We allowed only one vote per person no matter how many domain names were owned. There is a very nice property about using domain name ownership as a foundation for *constituency* membership - and that property is that domain names tend to be purchased using credit mechanisms, thus there is an identity forged by a banking relationship that is a) paid for by the banks and b) tends to be of longer term or at least more trustable than a mere e-mail identity. That helped to solve the "on the internet nobody knows you are a dog" problem that seems send many of ICANN's anti-election people into convulsions. > It strikes me that this inability to pin down an individual to a single vote > is not something that is going to go away. There has to be some kind of > real-world verification so that multiple votes require people to physically > do something. Yes, as was demonstrated by the ICANN person registering and voting twice. That was the only known instance of such behaviour in the year 2000 election. ICANN spent a chunk of money (not nearly as much money as it has pumped into the ALAC life support system) to validate somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 for the year 2000 election. In its headlong panic to prevent any further elections ICANN simply abandoned that investment. One ICANNnite even went so far as to encrypt the data and kept the key to himself (and he is no longer with ICANN) so that it could not be opened for any subsequent use, including a subsequent round of elections. (Such a commitment to privacy is admirable - too bad it is not equally found in the context of "whois".) Had ICANN built upon that investment we would today have had three more rounds of elections, each one would have built a better identified and more robust electorate and user-built information/conversation systems. Instead we have ICANN funded playpens. And are these immune to capture. No. In fact they are even more easily captured than elections. For example, as soon as the intellectual property industry feels a need to do so, the ALAC will become filled and run by intellectual property lawyers, paralegals, and clients who are cajoled into joining. The reason that the IP has not done this is that they can see that the ALAC is a poor vehicle for exerting any pressure on ICANN's decisions and that they already have a much better vehicle, a polished Rolls-Royce formal constituency deep within ICANN as compared to the broken down bicycle that is the ALAC. > But to get back to the ALAC/RALO/ALS system. I'm surprised that Wolfgang is > so damning of it as a "stupid superstructure". I know the history is torrid, > but as I explained in another email, I see the structure itself as a pretty > good construct (Vittorio had some interesting real-world observations about > it). It is a good construct. That is if the purpose is to create isolation between the community of internet users and ICANN. As I have mentioned previously, the ALAC system bears an uncanny resemblance to the hierarchy of soviet committees that formed the "democratic" system of the old USSR. Isolation of ICANN-central from internet users is but one of the two foundation stones of the ALAC. The other is a very paternalistic view that internet users are mere children who are incapable of organizing themselves or informing themselves. So ICANN provides, and even funds, safe warm places, well supplied with milk and cookies, so that internet users can play with toy steering wheels that provide no real control, no means of holding ICANN's inner circle accountable. The ALAC's failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves. Internet users recognize the futility of accepting a powerless position in a contrived and paternalistic system. Even after years of ICANN money pumped directly into its veins and ICANN hired cheerleaders waving their pom poms to create excitement, the ALAC doesn't even rate a faint shadow of the vitality that was achieved by internet users in just a few months in year 2000. > I have a serious question about this. Is there anything in the structure > that actually prevents or restricts ideas from the wider community from > going through review and ending up as firm statements or policies? In nearly every deliberative body a well known technique for killing a proposal is to send it through a sequence of committees. So to answer your question, yes there is "a chance", but practical experience with deliberative systems has demonstrated time and time again that the ALAC method, a hierarchy of committees, is an effective means of reducing that chance. > [As an aside - is this the right list/forum for this sort of discussion? I > am more than happy to set up a forum on ICANN's public participation site if > people would prefer this conversation taken off this list.] This is a good place for this because it is important that no new body of internet governance repeat ICANN's mistakes. ICANN has defined itself to be a regulator of domain name business practices for the protection of a few incumbent TLD registries and the intellectual property business. We can thank the internet gods that ICANN has abandoned its intended job of making sure that the actual knobs and levers of DNS are operated so that DNS query packets are efficiently turned into DNS reply packets without bias against any query source or query subject. That job is open and we will have to form another body of internet governance to do that job - it is an important job that is presently being untended. And that body, along with bodies to help deal with the provision of adequate end-to-end service levels and the like, are yet to be formed. In the interest of learning and improving, ICANN provides a bright red sign that says "Proceed at your own risk: This way has been tried and found wanting." > I also think there is an important and interesting discussion to be had > over: what is the role and what should be the role of the individual within > ICANN's processes? The individual is the atomic unit of internet governance. We should not stray from principle that governance arises from the collective opinion and consent of the people. The question should not be "what role for individuals" - the answer to that is obvious. Rather the question should be "what role for legal fictions such as corporations and governments?" See my note "Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road for Internet Governance" at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Nov 26 15:39:04 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:39:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: CSTD intersession Panel (28-30/11, KL): circulation of IS-related Concept note Message-ID: <200711262039.lAQKcxNq022938@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to draw your attention to the recent publication on line of the CSTD Secretariat background note on "Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment". See attached. This paper will be the basis for the discussion on this issue during the Panel, taking place on Thursday 29 November. Note that the CSTD Secretariat is ready to receive CS written contributions to be posted on line. Other information can be found on line at: http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068 &lang=1&m=13906&year=2007&month=11. Best regards, Philippe 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSTD Secretariat - Background note Development oriented IS - KL Panel Nov 2007.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 288889 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSTD Panel 28-29 11 Programme.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 510791 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Nov 26 15:47:55 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:47:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Science, Technology, Innovation and ICTs for Development: UNCTAD XII pre-event (6 december, Geneva) Message-ID: <200711262047.lAQKlfFR026178@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Note as well this up coming UNCTAD meeting addressing the overall theme: "Science, Technology, Innovation and ICTs for Development". This event is organised in preparation to the 12th UNCTAD quadrennial ministerial Conference, taking place in Accra, Ghana in April 2008. See more information at http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942 &lang=1&m=14561&info=not. My understanding is that while closely related to WSIS issue, this meeting is not part of UNCTAD follow up to WSIS. Therefore, only NGOs in consultative status with UNCTAD might be able to participate... We were however informed that other relevant CS representatives could ask for an ad hoc "invitation" to the division organising the event, so that they could be put in the list of participants as invited persons. CONGO would be ready to compile a list of individuals requesting such an invitation. Is there anybody willing to take part in this meeting? Best regards, Ph 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 veni at veni.com Mon Nov 26 16:11:41 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:11:41 -0500 Subject: ALAC issues (was: Re: [governance] Innovation) In-Reply-To: <72F97FD3-9263-4720-B85C-CF7A900409B9@privaterra.info> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <20071126200215.A48322BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <72F97FD3-9263-4720-B85C-CF7A900409B9@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <20071126211212.912F92BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> At 15:17 11/26/2007 -0500, you wrote: >that being said - I hope your comments don't imply that ICANN staff >(which you are) have passed judgement on the existing At-Large public >list. Robert, from time to time I publish this signature at the end of my e-mails. My understanding has always been, that unless I send something from @icann.org e-mail, and signed properly, it represents my personal opinion. It is much easier on this list (as well as on others) not to include the signature, as it is additional traffic, and because I've always been participating here as an individual, and very rarely as ISOC-Bulgaria board. Even when I was on the Board, I've been writing here, and I think on several occasions I had to explain to people that the board members can not talk on behalf of the organization, unless authorized. Same here - if you ever see me signing an e-mail with something, then, and only then, you can assume it is really signed on behalf of the organization I represent for that particular message. And of course, it has to come with my digital signature as per the EU directives, if you want to consider it an official document. Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Nov 26 16:28:21 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:28:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <47473040.9020406@cavebear.com> <00c301c82e1b$f5cdd080$0201a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <47482FA4.1020009@rkey.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C377@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: It strikes me that ICANN may be proceeding from a board-election process typical among private nonprofit organizations as incorporated under US and California laws. Nonprofit orgs can set up their bylaws with various options, but they need not have "members" that elect the directors, and even when they do they need not allow members to nominate candidates. (And whether ICANN's "open" processes for determining NomCom members is genuinely representative of the public interest is quite debatable.) NPOs (i.e., typical civil society organizations operating under nonprofit status) may be familiar with a variety of such options, and many of them (us) indeed keep a fairly tight rein on the membership of the board. In fact, this is often a good thing, when an NPO needs to consider its "board matrix" to determine if important skill sets are missing from the board, in order to properly conduct effective oversight of the organization for which it has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public interest, according to the organization's mission statement. But NPOs are not designed as public institutions (they have a tax-exempt status to the extent that they honor the public interest mission stated in their articles of incorporation -- that's about it), and the standards of accountability for a private NPO are quite distinct from the standards of accountability for public institutions, partly because the public constituency of an NPO is typically quite different from (i.e., much narrower than) that of a generally public institution. This is where the location of ICANN "in the gray area" between public and private status is most confusing and vague, and allows opportunities to be "creative" in navigating accountability issues. In short, ICANN is "in between the cracks" of public and private legal status, and I believe that is the origin of the bulk of this debate. For example, if ICANN were indisputably a public entity (i.e., an official arm of the USG), it would be subject to US statutory constraints WRT public notice-and-comment procedures, freedom of expression, etc. (and its current operation would almost certainly be in violation of some of these provisions). OTOH, if it were entirely private it would be subject to the same antitrust laws that govern other private entities involved in commerce. But by aiming for the cracks (via the white paper and MoU/JPA with DoC/NTIA, with relatively weak oversight by NTIA -- wink, wink, nudge, nudge, let's talk about it offline and in the back room) it seems to be aiming to escape the jurisdiction of both public entities and private antitrust law, in a sort of legal "none of the above" categorization. ICANN has often said it is "inventing a new way" to do things, and part of that new way is this intermediate legal status that is not well defined in statute or the courts (at least in the US). However, eventually the legal system might well catch up to them, perhaps more likely starting in the courts since they can respond to changing circumstances more quickly than statutes and even federal agency regulations. Okay, so, bottom line question: Should ICANN model itself after NPOs or public agencies in terms of public accountability? The answer: It depends on what ICANN is really doing. If it is fulfilling important governance functions typical of public institutions, then it makes sense that its processes of accountability should be modeled after public institutions (like public voting for positions that have ultimate policy-making/approving authority, especially when actual government oversight is weak and thus the electoral process that provides some measure of accountability for public institutions is weak in its application to ICANN). I concur with those who see ICANN as clearly addressing public political issues and public governance -- it is "inventing new law" and a new legal jurisdiction with significant political impacts on the public at large -- and thus it ought to model itself after the precedents for public accountability of governments, rather than seeing itself serving only a small constituency of tech elites. So, not that this has solved anything (I have gradually come to understand that the "only technical" versus "public policy" debate has been part of ICANN since its inception), but hopefully this sets the discussion in an additional theoretical context to help evaluate the options. Part of the problem with the whole "privatization of government" movement over the last 20-30 years is that this "new public management" approach to what is now being termed "cross-sectoral governance" in the public policy profession has no clear precedent, and the whole thing is being invented from scratch, with lots of mistakes along the path due to the trial-and-error methods of this invention process (i.e., there's a lot of error along the way, as we proceed through a series of trials). When these experiments settle down, they tend to involve new forms of regulation to replace direct provision of services by the government, but in the transition period it is often the case that these semi-private entities are under-regulated, leading to systematic problems in serving the public interest. ICANN is undoubtedly still a work-in-progress, and so the public accountability debate must remain one of the most critical issues before the organization. In this context, I personally come down on the side of urging more public accountability, of course (I see ICANN as still under-regulated from the point of view of public interests, and this allows private powers to run a little freer than they ought, at present). Dan PS -- FWIW, I'm a big fan of IRV voting methods. I wish we had it for all of our political elections in the US. Basically, I like the way it preserves "one citizen/one vote" for all head-to-head matchups between all possible candidates, and removes the problem of the split vote in voting blocs. But, it needs a reliable voter-verified paper audit trail in order to remain effectively accountable to the public, otherwise we have no way of checking whether an election was carried out fairly and justly. At 10:30 AM -0500 11/26/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Craig: >Thanks for your constructive intervention. I've reviewed the site and it's >interesting. Of course from political science I am familiar with different >techniques of voting and yes, one can design systems that are much better >at aggregating preferences than what ICANN did in 2000, or for that matter >one could improve the voting systems used by any organization. > >The problem is that we are not engaged on a debate about the proper voting >technique; we are debating whether there should be voting _at all_. It is >an essentially political debate in which one side feels that they cannot >trust a democratic Board election system and prefer something more >manageable and controllable; the other side wants to empower a global >public. Until there is broader political consensus on this question, the >question of the specific technique used to implement democracy is >secondary. > >--MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Craig Simon [mailto:cls at rkey.com] >> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:05 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote >> >> Is it better to reinstate the vote, or to push for something better? >> >> Many of the old-timers on this list will remember me from the early >> ICANN period, when I was researching a Ph.D. that focused on DNS >> politics (Thanks again to those who graciously put up with my >> pestering). Since then, I've thought a lot about how a practical venue >> for online democracy might work. Earlier this year I decided to apply >> myself to implementing and refining some of those ideas. >> >> I call my project an experiment in collaborative expression of >> converging and diverging opinion. It's ultimately about creating a >> massively scalable mechanism for structured argument and consensus >> building. >> >> What's been achieved so far is largely inspired by the preferential >> voting system used in ICANN's 2000 election. It showcases an interactive >> ranked choice ballot and highly granular visualizations of Instant >> Runoff Vote (IRV) elections, displayed round by round. See an >> operational example (for the ongoing US Democratic Party presidential >> primary) at http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=157. Thus far >> I've been promoting the system to political bloggers, to pollsters, and >> also to various advocates of IRV and online democracy in the US. >> >> My long-term take on IRV goes far beyond a preferential ballot system. >> I've put groundwork in place at my site to allow for what I call "panel >> voting." It's a way of filtering and reaggregating results to show the >> behaviors within slices of the voting population. >> >> Panel voting would permit display of collective preferences among >> pre-designated and self-designated groups of individuals. Those groups >> could be aggregated by geopolitical/regional origins, credentialed >> qualifications, professed loyalties, etc. That filtering feature is also >> intended to provide a way for new coalitions to become "conscious" of >> themselves, as potential coalition members come to recognize their >> shared preferences. >> >> The most ambitious aspect of the project is providing a way for new >> ideas to be offered, vetted, refined, and embraced within online >> communities. My approach, still mostly on paper, would combine an open >> nomination process with dynamically convened panels whose members would >> serve as vetting juries. >> >> I agree with Kieren about the legitimating virtue of venues in which >> power (in the form of respected candidates for leadership) can "bubble >> up" within a structured chain. >> >> The challenge is to provide an online mechanism by which candidates for >> decision - not just people seeking office, but position papers, policy >> statements, formal agreements, and so on - can be nominated and bubbled >> up through and across various constellations of panels, seeking final >> ratification by the group as a whole. >> >> Achieving an effective level of large-scale online democracy requires >> far better leverage of web technology than what's been demonstrated so >> far. In my view, mailing lists, blogs, and traditional online fora are >> generally too linear and too noisy to help sort out the problems of >> widely diverse and rapidly growing communities. Yet they are also too >> prone to becoming echo chambers suited best for preaching to the choir. >> Wikis, though excellent at expressing the results of consensus-oriented >> processes, are poorly set up for venting the give and take of an >> underlying debate. >> >> The purpose of constitutional politics is to channel conflict and >> competition. What's needed for an Internet-based decision-making venue >> is a widely accessible, democratically open consensus-forging mechanism >> that can simultaneously open up new channels for fresh and useful input >> while also allowing friendly refinements that fortify existing >> contributions. >> >> ICANN's 2000 election struck me as a squandered opportunity. Though so >> many thousands of people registered and voted, there was no followup >> attempt to reconnect them and nurture what might have emerged as a >> viable online community >> >> I'm not writing to lament the past, however, but to offer thoughts about >> how to structure a useful and enduring medium for online democracy... >> something that would be worthy of such a large community. >> >> Does my project sound the like the right direction toward a solution set >> that would satisfy the ICANN community? >> >> Craig Simon >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: >> 11/24/2007 10:06 AM >> > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: >11/26/2007 10:50 AM > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 16:40:27 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:40:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: I do understand that ICANN's relationships with the RSOs are informal -- there is no direct authority. That suggests that if ICANN oversteps its "consensus" that RSOs could decide to walk away from ICANN. An interesting idea, though that seems unlikely given the transaction costs of coordinating the root outside of ICANN. As for "some things" not using DNS, well, fine, but you did not contradict the other part of my statement that "everyone" uses DNS. And I would guess that the great majority of Internet applications indeed do use DNS, even if there are a few exceptions along the way. Are there any numbers as to how many Internet uses (not just *types* of uses, but *instances* of uses) use DNS as opposed to others that do not? You suggest that "it might go away in a decade" -- but what do we do in the meantime for the decade upon us now? In the meantime, it remains important, here and now. Nope, I still don't agree that DNS is a molehill. Just because certain things are possible in principle doesn't mean that they are likely in practice. Even in a "free market"... ;-) If you don't incorporate transaction costs into your equations, you get the wrong answers when you calculate the results. Bottom line: DNS remains ineliminably a broadly political issue, that deserves political representation and systematic public accountability in addressing that public policy. Dan At 7:08 PM +0300 11/26/07, McTim wrote: >Hello all, > >I have been away for the last 10 days, so just catching up now. > >On Nov 17, 2007 12:13 AM, Dan Krimm wrote: >> Whatever, Veni. This is just rhetorical jousting. >> > >Or a firmly held opinion that's opposed to yours. > > > >> >> And excuse me, how is ICANN "responsible for" only a "small segment of the >> Internet"?? > >Because, via IANA it only has a very narrow role to play. > > Isn't ICANN responsible for the *entire DNS* over the *entire >> Internet*? > >Not at all. DNS is a distributed hierarchy. Most DNS administration >is done near the edge of the network. ICANN is responsible for a very >small fraction of it! > >Let's say I want to visit your website, and I have never been there >before (and neither has any other customers of my ISP). Let's also >say for the purposes of this discussion that no other customers of my >ISP have been to a .com site either (or the cache of my DNS server has >just been flushed.) > >I put http://www.musicunbound.com/ in my url window, and my cranky old >box (called sentry.bushnet.net) makes a query for the Address record >for the above URL. > >Well, since the cache has just been flushed it doesn't "know" how to >reach this site (even if it ever has had it in cache). But sentry >"knows" how to reach the rootservers, so it asks one of these. It >gets a response saying basically "dunno that, but I DO know how to >find the NS for .com, heres the address of that one, go ask it", so >sentry, armed with the address of .com's NS, asks the same question to >.com's NS (say d.gtld-servers.net). at 192.31.80.30, which says >"dunno, but go see ns2.dreamhost.com. at 66.33.206.206, he can tell >you", so sentry troops down the pipe again to 66.33.206.206 asking >ns2.dreamhost.com what the adress of www.musicunbound.com/ is, and >because it's an authoritative server for the zone, ns2.dreamhost.com >says, you need the webserver at 208.113.195.100, and my browser can >fetch it. > >The point of that long story is just to illustrate that ICANN via IANA >has helped to populate the rootzone, and signed various deals with >Verisign to admin the .com zone (this example), and a rootserver (or >2). However, it is certainly possible that my query went thru a >non-ICANN/non Versiign administered rootserver(there are 10 of them). >My local recursive caching, forwarding NS did much of the heavy >lifting, and the bulk of the work is in setting up and maintaining the >NSs at the edges, (your edge and mine). > >ICANN has nowt to do with the various routers, switches and servers >between my browser and your website, those are owned by ISPs large and >small. Of course, these run on IP, but ICANN really has very little >to do with IP address distribution either, since that is done by the >RIRs and LIRs. Of course IANA distributes to the RIRs, but that's >purely an administrative function. > > >> Everyone and everything on the Internet uses the DNS, > >Who told you this? Some things things don't. > >because >> DNS is in effect the main gatekeeper to any content or applications on the >> net > >It's not. DNS is a layer of misdirection allowing humans to type in >things they can recall, a handy "phone book" if you will. It might go >away in a decade, and we would have something better in place. > > > >> >> But if we are to resolve this, we can't avoid dealing with the political >> elephant. Better to look straight at it and deal with it on its own terms, >> however inconvenient it may be to those in power for everyone else to >> actually see it. But be realistic: elephants are too big to sweep under >> the rug. > >My opinion, oft-stated in this forum is that it's a molehill, that >some see as a mountain. > >-- >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 lists at privaterra.info Mon Nov 26 16:50:44 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:50:44 -0500 Subject: ALAC issues (was: Re: [governance] Innovation) In-Reply-To: <20071126211212.912F92BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <20071126200215.A48322BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <72F97FD3-9263-4720-B85C-CF7A900409B9@privaterra.info> <20071126211212.912F92BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: Veni: On 26-Nov-07, at 4:11 PM, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 15:17 11/26/2007 -0500, you wrote: >> that being said - I hope your comments don't imply that ICANN staff >> (which you are) have passed judgement on the existing At-Large >> public >> list. > > Robert, from time to time I publish this signature at the end of my > e-mails. My understanding has always been, that unless I send > something from @icann.org e-mail, and signed properly, it represents > my personal opinion. It is much easier on this list (as well as on > others) not to include the signature, as it is additional traffic, > and because I've always been participating here as an individual, > and very rarely as ISOC-Bulgaria board. Even when I was on the > Board, I've been writing here, and I think on several occasions I > had to explain to people that the board members can not talk on > behalf of the organization, unless authorized. > > Same here - if you ever see me signing an e-mail with something, > then, and only then, you can assume it is really signed on behalf of > the organization I represent for that particular message. And of > course, it has to come with my digital signature as per the EU > directives, if you want to consider it an official document. > Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated. Responding to an earlier comment of yours - let me just say that I think there's room for bringing new people and new voices to the discussion. Outreach efforts and effective use of collaboration tools and facilitation techniques could , i think, could be of great help. I would be keen to work with you and others on this. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Nov 26 17:12:29 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:12:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Why IPv4 address depletion matters (was Re: Reinstate...) In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:10:41 +0300) References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C26F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> <20071126132020.3BC4C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20071126221229.A17802202B6@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007 4:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Veni Markovski wrote: > > > > > Of the many issues around the Internet, the DNS and esp. the IP > > > addresses are not on the priority list of anyone except people with > > > some commercial interest, scientific researchers, professionals. The > > > end user does not care about them. > > > > Possibly because they are not informed about how any mismanagement of > > these resources contributes, or is likely to contribute in the future, > > to problems that are truly painful for them. > > Are you saying that there is mismanagement currently, or are you > referring to the classfull allocation era? I think that mismanagement exists right now with regard to preparing for the transition to IPv6. For example although Switzerland has an "IPv6 Task Force" website with a wonderfully comprehensive supposed organigram of that "IPv6 Task Force", that "IPv6 Task Force" doesn't really exist anymore in reality. There are no activities and no-one is in charge. This kind of situation is IMO a clear indication of mismanagement, and while I don't know anything definitive about other countries, I'd be very surprised if this kind of problem exists only in Switzerland. > > > That actually is the big pain of some people here - that regardless > > > of what they say, and how loud, the users still don't care about > > > ICANN, but about how much they pay for what kind of service. > > > > In my opinion, price of internet access cannot really be discussed > > independently of the question of economics of how having internet > > access will result in sufficient economic value creation that the > > infrastructure costs can thereby get paid for. > > > > Now the problem with IP address depletion is that unless progress is > > made with the transition to IPv6, there will in a few years be two > > fundamentally different types of internet access. "Consumer" internet > > access will be behind several layers of NAT, which allows to "surf > > the web", use email, etc, but which does not make it possible for > > businesses to allow customers to interact with their IT systems. > > Unless they use a web interface. I must be missing smt, why do you > need a public address for this? How do you set up even a simple HTTP-based web interface if the entire geographic area where your company happens to be located is behind several layers of NAT each designed to facilitate only "consumer" web access, without any support for accepting remotely-initiated connections? Things get even more difficult when you start thinking about security and the only "secure communications tool" that the company's customers know to use is their web browser's built-in HTTPS support... > In > > economically underdeveloped areas, only this kind of internet access > > will be available at all, making the already now difficult problem of > > economic development in such areas even worse. > > Again, I'm not getting you. Are you talking about economically > underdeveloped areas in developed countries or economically > underdeveloped regions of the world. Primarily the latter, although I'm not totally sure that the kind of danger which I think exists in so-called developing countries cannot also affect some of the more remote parts of industrialized nations. > If the former, well a market may develop in IP addresses at some > point, IMO, if we reach that kind of scarcity of IPv4 addresses, the transition to IPv6 has been severely mismanaged. BTW, if that occurs, I'm also concerned about routing table growth. > so that there may be tiered accounts offered by ISPs (with the > cheaper NAT accounts likely being taken up by customers with less > disposable income). Yes, exactly. In geographic areas that are inhabited almost exclusively by such "customers with less disposable income", only the NAT accounts will be available. > This market is not likely to last very long, as IPv6 deployment will > surge as address space declines Can you explain the precise economic machanism which will (in your opinion) make IPv6 deployment surge? In my opinion it is the worst aspect of the mismanagement of the transition to IPv6 that the economic aspect of the problem has generally not been thought through carefully enough. > If the latter, as I have mentioned before, the 2 youngest RIRs have > the slowest rate of address "usage", so Africa and Latin America may > have IP addresses to give away long after the USA and EU run out. Isn't it much more likely that the decision-makers in Africa and Latin America would agree, due to pressure and/or by some form of bribery, to a policy proposal like the following? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-09.html > Another complicating factor is that when the IANA runs out of IPs, the > RIRs will still have them for a period, When the RIRs run out, LIRs > will still have them for a period. This period could be days months > or even years. I agree that this extra time exists, but that doesn't change my concern that's really high time now to fix the problems with the IPv4->IPv6 transition. Iljitsch van Beijnum has a proposal which I think goes in the right direction: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt However considering that it will take significant time to discuss the remaining technical details, reach consensus, implement and deploy, IMO we're really uncomfortably close to IPv4 address space exhaustion already. > By contrast, there > > are enough IPv4 address numbers that businesses in economic centres > > and in the rich countries will always be able to get fixed IP addresses > > for their webservers. > > If a market develops, probably. But why do you need a public IP > address per serever? That's very old school thinking, You can run > many many webservers using 1 IP. Except perhaps when someone gets enough traffic to a single site that they host the site on multiple machines with load-balancing, I cannot imagine anyone running multiple webservers (I mean, several physical machines, not "domains" or "sites") without giving these hosts at least one public IP address each. Then there is the issue that HTTPS needs a separate public IP address for each site. (The reason is that HTTPS is simply HTTP over TLS, so the server presents its certificate when the connection is established, when it knows only the IP address and port number used to contact it, but it hasn't yet seen the Host: header.) > > I believe that in principle, the internet could help a lot to create a > > "digital opportunity" in those regions of the world which are currently > > suffering from lack of economic development. > > very true! > > > However, I think that it is quite possible that this digital > > opportunity may be lost to a significant extent due to not paying > > enough attention to the IPv4 address depletion issue. > > What do you propose? 1. We should do what we can to move specification and implementation of "Modified NAT-PT" (the Internet-Draft that I mentioned above) forward as quickly as possible. 2. Governments should check whether their national "IPv6 Task Force" or equivalent is alive and well and preparing responsibly for facilitating an orderly transition to IPv6. 3. They should also make significant funds available as developmental aid for poor countries in the form of investment incentives to create good dual-stack IPv4+IPv6 infrastructure. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Nov 26 17:24:50 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:24:50 -0500 Subject: ALAC issues (was: Re: [governance] Innovation) In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <20071126200215.A48322BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <72F97FD3-9263-4720-B85C-CF7A900409B9@privaterra.info> <20071126211212.912F92BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <20071126222714.D7D612BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> At 16:50 11/26/2007 -0500, you wrote: >Veni: > >Outreach efforts and effective use of collaboration tools and >facilitation techniques could , i think, could be of great help. I >would be keen to work with you and others on this. Great, let's focus on that, and see what we can come with in 2008 with regards to bringing new people and use new technologies to make sure they are not frustrated, and contribute positively. 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 karl at cavebear.com Mon Nov 26 18:36:47 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:36:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <473B0CE8.9060407@mdpi.net> <5487C0DE-2826-41A8-91F5-EE62FF165A4F@ras.eu.org> <00b201c8277a$9dd478e0$d97d6aa0$@net> <49254759-6504-4023-A8AE-F3739BA8D221@ras.eu.org> <20071115232936.GA21483@hserus.net> <28D80666-4612-45DA-A563-5B7AD2FD3488@ras.eu.org> <2aa69fe40711160249o63a47a47kef011a8b09790b71@mail.gmail.com> <20071116203250.B13222BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <474B588F.3080204@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > I do understand that ICANN's relationships with the RSOs are informal -- > there is no direct authority. The root server operators have been fairly consistent and unanimous in their rejection of oversight from any entity, especially ICANN. I have written about what ought to be the reciprocal obligations of root server oversight. IANA also put together a pretty good statement of requirements for TLD servers - but which is equally applicable to root servers. I don't have a handy pointer to that one, but it is something that deserves better visibility than it has obtained. Take a look at the tail end of something I wrote in 2005: "About Those Root Servers" at http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html Here's the bottom line from that note (the agreements it mentions are agreements between the oversight body and each root server operator.): ... what should be the terms in those agreements? My list is found below. Most of the obligations in that list are things that the root servers do already; most of the obligations have no affect on current operations. Rather most of the obligations ensure that the status quo remains the status quo into the future. I've listed these obligations in qualitative terms; in practice these obligations should be restated into quantitative service level agreements. * Servers must be operated to ensure high availability of individual servers, of anycast server clusters, and of network access paths. * Root zone changes should be propagated reasonably quickly as they become available. * User query packets should be answered with dispatch but without prejudice to the operator's ability to protect itself against ill formed queries or queries that are obviously intended to cause harm or overload. * User query packets should be answered accurately and without manipulation that interferes with the user's right to enjoy the end-to-end principle and to be free from the undesired introduction of intermediary proxies or man-in-the-middle systems. * Operators should coordinate with one another to ensure reasonably consistent responses to queries made to different root servers at approximately the same time. * There should be no discrimination either for or against any query source. * Queries should be given equal priority no matter what name the query is seeking to resolve. * There should be no ancillary data mining (e.g. using the queries to generate marketing data) except for purposes of root service capacity planning and protection. * The operator must operate its service to be reasonably robust against threats, both natural and human. * The operator must demonstrate at reasonable intervals that it has adequate backup and recovery plans. Part of this demonstration ought to require that the plans have been realistically tested. * The operator must demonstrate at reasonable intervals that it has adequate financial reserves and human resources so that should an ill event occur the operator has the capacity (and obligation) to recover. Obligations go two-ways. The oversight body should ensure that there is wide and free dissemination of the root zone file so that people, entities, and local communities can cache the data and, when necessary, create local temporary DNS roots during times of emergency when those local communities are cut-off from the larger part of the internet. --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 Mon Nov 26 20:00:52 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:00:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Karl, I know you feel very passionately about this, but I was hoping that this list might be able to have a calm and reasoned discussion about the voting issue and so make some progress. Unfortunately, your response makes that nigh on impossible. The wording and the tone of your post mean it is not possible to respond except to have an argument or to join in on criticising ICANN. If people don't want to discuss this issue, that's fine, but it was my understanding that they did. My email was not an effort to outline the answer, or the problems, or give an official history, or even give an ICANN line. It was no more than an effort to start off and encourage discussion. I hope we can find a way to have that discussion without loading responses with extremely negative language. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation Kieren McCarthy wrote: > So as an interesting historical review, the concern with the voting last > time was the fact that anyone could get an email address and so it was open > to manipulation. This boggyman argument that the election could be "manipulated" is an argument that is being used not to find the errors and fix them but rather to prevent any attempt to hold elections at all. Every election process can be manipulated - I work in the area of open voting for really high stakes political elections and I never ceased to be amazed at all the methods that can be used to coerce voters or affect results. In other words, ICANN is using the demand for perfection in voting as an enemy of any adequate system. It is odd that ICANN has substituted the ALAC, a system that is far more manipulable, indeed it comes pre-manipulated. > The idea was anyone who was a domain name holder could vote. But then people > felt this was power in the hand of landowners. You have to get your history right. There was a 100% distinct and separate move to form a "constituency" (just like those for intellectual property, registries, registrars, etc) within ICANN for those who own domain names, the IDNO. The petition can be seen at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm ICANN did, as ICANN does, simply ignored this rather valid petition to form a new constituency. This constituency was open to everyone who could demonstrate ownership of a domain name - even ibm.com or att.com could serve as the foundation for ownership if an individual person could be ascertained who had enough vested in himself/herself that it constituted ownership. The IDNO did use an election system. But the IDNO should not be at all confused with the ICANN election system. > What's interesting of course is that now if you based votes on domain names, > you would get possibly an even worse bias because of the recent arrival of > the domainer market. With some companies owning tens of thousands of domains > - and possessing the technology to use each one individually, an election > could be entirely dominated by which way one or two individuals heading > these domainer companies decided to vote. Well, since we are continuing to go down the road blazed by the IDNO, take a look at our system as described at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm - We allowed only one vote per person no matter how many domain names were owned. There is a very nice property about using domain name ownership as a foundation for *constituency* membership - and that property is that domain names tend to be purchased using credit mechanisms, thus there is an identity forged by a banking relationship that is a) paid for by the banks and b) tends to be of longer term or at least more trustable than a mere e-mail identity. That helped to solve the "on the internet nobody knows you are a dog" problem that seems send many of ICANN's anti-election people into convulsions. > It strikes me that this inability to pin down an individual to a single vote > is not something that is going to go away. There has to be some kind of > real-world verification so that multiple votes require people to physically > do something. Yes, as was demonstrated by the ICANN person registering and voting twice. That was the only known instance of such behaviour in the year 2000 election. ICANN spent a chunk of money (not nearly as much money as it has pumped into the ALAC life support system) to validate somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 for the year 2000 election. In its headlong panic to prevent any further elections ICANN simply abandoned that investment. One ICANNnite even went so far as to encrypt the data and kept the key to himself (and he is no longer with ICANN) so that it could not be opened for any subsequent use, including a subsequent round of elections. (Such a commitment to privacy is admirable - too bad it is not equally found in the context of "whois".) Had ICANN built upon that investment we would today have had three more rounds of elections, each one would have built a better identified and more robust electorate and user-built information/conversation systems. Instead we have ICANN funded playpens. And are these immune to capture. No. In fact they are even more easily captured than elections. For example, as soon as the intellectual property industry feels a need to do so, the ALAC will become filled and run by intellectual property lawyers, paralegals, and clients who are cajoled into joining. The reason that the IP has not done this is that they can see that the ALAC is a poor vehicle for exerting any pressure on ICANN's decisions and that they already have a much better vehicle, a polished Rolls-Royce formal constituency deep within ICANN as compared to the broken down bicycle that is the ALAC. > But to get back to the ALAC/RALO/ALS system. I'm surprised that Wolfgang is > so damning of it as a "stupid superstructure". I know the history is torrid, > but as I explained in another email, I see the structure itself as a pretty > good construct (Vittorio had some interesting real-world observations about > it). It is a good construct. That is if the purpose is to create isolation between the community of internet users and ICANN. As I have mentioned previously, the ALAC system bears an uncanny resemblance to the hierarchy of soviet committees that formed the "democratic" system of the old USSR. Isolation of ICANN-central from internet users is but one of the two foundation stones of the ALAC. The other is a very paternalistic view that internet users are mere children who are incapable of organizing themselves or informing themselves. So ICANN provides, and even funds, safe warm places, well supplied with milk and cookies, so that internet users can play with toy steering wheels that provide no real control, no means of holding ICANN's inner circle accountable. The ALAC's failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves. Internet users recognize the futility of accepting a powerless position in a contrived and paternalistic system. Even after years of ICANN money pumped directly into its veins and ICANN hired cheerleaders waving their pom poms to create excitement, the ALAC doesn't even rate a faint shadow of the vitality that was achieved by internet users in just a few months in year 2000. > I have a serious question about this. Is there anything in the structure > that actually prevents or restricts ideas from the wider community from > going through review and ending up as firm statements or policies? In nearly every deliberative body a well known technique for killing a proposal is to send it through a sequence of committees. So to answer your question, yes there is "a chance", but practical experience with deliberative systems has demonstrated time and time again that the ALAC method, a hierarchy of committees, is an effective means of reducing that chance. > [As an aside - is this the right list/forum for this sort of discussion? I > am more than happy to set up a forum on ICANN's public participation site if > people would prefer this conversation taken off this list.] This is a good place for this because it is important that no new body of internet governance repeat ICANN's mistakes. ICANN has defined itself to be a regulator of domain name business practices for the protection of a few incumbent TLD registries and the intellectual property business. We can thank the internet gods that ICANN has abandoned its intended job of making sure that the actual knobs and levers of DNS are operated so that DNS query packets are efficiently turned into DNS reply packets without bias against any query source or query subject. That job is open and we will have to form another body of internet governance to do that job - it is an important job that is presently being untended. And that body, along with bodies to help deal with the provision of adequate end-to-end service levels and the like, are yet to be formed. In the interest of learning and improving, ICANN provides a bright red sign that says "Proceed at your own risk: This way has been tried and found wanting." > I also think there is an important and interesting discussion to be had > over: what is the role and what should be the role of the individual within > ICANN's processes? The individual is the atomic unit of internet governance. We should not stray from principle that governance arises from the collective opinion and consent of the people. The question should not be "what role for individuals" - the answer to that is obvious. Rather the question should be "what role for legal fictions such as corporations and governments?" See my note "Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road for Internet Governance" at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Mon Nov 26 21:21:06 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (=?utf-8?B?SnVkaXRoIE9wcGVuaGVpbWVy?=) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:21:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Kieren, please stop dismissing peoples' posts for their "semantics" and "tone" every time you disagree with them. Its disruptive. I think Karl knows a great deal about this and I'd like to hear more. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Kieren McCarthy Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:00:52 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Innovation Karl, I know you feel very passionately about this, but I was hoping that this list might be able to have a calm and reasoned discussion about the voting issue and so make some progress. Unfortunately, your response makes that nigh on impossible. The wording and the tone of your post mean it is not possible to respond except to have an argument or to join in on criticising ICANN. If people don't want to discuss this issue, that's fine, but it was my understanding that they did. My email was not an effort to outline the answer, or the problems, or give an official history, or even give an ICANN line. It was no more than an effort to start off and encourage discussion. I hope we can find a way to have that discussion without loading responses with extremely negative language. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation Kieren McCarthy wrote: > So as an interesting historical review, the concern with the voting last > time was the fact that anyone could get an email address and so it was open > to manipulation. This boggyman argument that the election could be "manipulated" is an argument that is being used not to find the errors and fix them but rather to prevent any attempt to hold elections at all. Every election process can be manipulated - I work in the area of open voting for really high stakes political elections and I never ceased to be amazed at all the methods that can be used to coerce voters or affect results. In other words, ICANN is using the demand for perfection in voting as an enemy of any adequate system. It is odd that ICANN has substituted the ALAC, a system that is far more manipulable, indeed it comes pre-manipulated. > The idea was anyone who was a domain name holder could vote. But then people > felt this was power in the hand of landowners. You have to get your history right. There was a 100% distinct and separate move to form a "constituency" (just like those for intellectual property, registries, registrars, etc) within ICANN for those who own domain names, the IDNO. The petition can be seen at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm ICANN did, as ICANN does, simply ignored this rather valid petition to form a new constituency. This constituency was open to everyone who could demonstrate ownership of a domain name - even ibm.com or att.com could serve as the foundation for ownership if an individual person could be ascertained who had enough vested in himself/herself that it constituted ownership. The IDNO did use an election system. But the IDNO should not be at all confused with the ICANN election system. > What's interesting of course is that now if you based votes on domain names, > you would get possibly an even worse bias because of the recent arrival of > the domainer market. With some companies owning tens of thousands of domains > - and possessing the technology to use each one individually, an election > could be entirely dominated by which way one or two individuals heading > these domainer companies decided to vote. Well, since we are continuing to go down the road blazed by the IDNO, take a look at our system as described at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm - We allowed only one vote per person no matter how many domain names were owned. There is a very nice property about using domain name ownership as a foundation for *constituency* membership - and that property is that domain names tend to be purchased using credit mechanisms, thus there is an identity forged by a banking relationship that is a) paid for by the banks and b) tends to be of longer term or at least more trustable than a mere e-mail identity. That helped to solve the "on the internet nobody knows you are a dog" problem that seems send many of ICANN's anti-election people into convulsions. > It strikes me that this inability to pin down an individual to a single vote > is not something that is going to go away. There has to be some kind of > real-world verification so that multiple votes require people to physically > do something. Yes, as was demonstrated by the ICANN person registering and voting twice. That was the only known instance of such behaviour in the year 2000 election. ICANN spent a chunk of money (not nearly as much money as it has pumped into the ALAC life support system) to validate somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 for the year 2000 election. In its headlong panic to prevent any further elections ICANN simply abandoned that investment. One ICANNnite even went so far as to encrypt the data and kept the key to himself (and he is no longer with ICANN) so that it could not be opened for any subsequent use, including a subsequent round of elections. (Such a commitment to privacy is admirable - too bad it is not equally found in the context of "whois".) Had ICANN built upon that investment we would today have had three more rounds of elections, each one would have built a better identified and more robust electorate and user-built information/conversation systems. Instead we have ICANN funded playpens. And are these immune to capture. No. In fact they are even more easily captured than elections. For example, as soon as the intellectual property industry feels a need to do so, the ALAC will become filled and run by intellectual property lawyers, paralegals, and clients who are cajoled into joining. The reason that the IP has not done this is that they can see that the ALAC is a poor vehicle for exerting any pressure on ICANN's decisions and that they already have a much better vehicle, a polished Rolls-Royce formal constituency deep within ICANN as compared to the broken down bicycle that is the ALAC. > But to get back to the ALAC/RALO/ALS system. I'm surprised that Wolfgang is > so damning of it as a "stupid superstructure". I know the history is torrid, > but as I explained in another email, I see the structure itself as a pretty > good construct (Vittorio had some interesting real-world observations about > it). It is a good construct. That is if the purpose is to create isolation between the community of internet users and ICANN. As I have mentioned previously, the ALAC system bears an uncanny resemblance to the hierarchy of soviet committees that formed the "democratic" system of the old USSR. Isolation of ICANN-central from internet users is but one of the two foundation stones of the ALAC. The other is a very paternalistic view that internet users are mere children who are incapable of organizing themselves or informing themselves. So ICANN provides, and even funds, safe warm places, well supplied with milk and cookies, so that internet users can play with toy steering wheels that provide no real control, no means of holding ICANN's inner circle accountable. The ALAC's failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves. Internet users recognize the futility of accepting a powerless position in a contrived and paternalistic system. Even after years of ICANN money pumped directly into its veins and ICANN hired cheerleaders waving their pom poms to create excitement, the ALAC doesn't even rate a faint shadow of the vitality that was achieved by internet users in just a few months in year 2000. > I have a serious question about this. Is there anything in the structure > that actually prevents or restricts ideas from the wider community from > going through review and ending up as firm statements or policies? In nearly every deliberative body a well known technique for killing a proposal is to send it through a sequence of committees. So to answer your question, yes there is "a chance", but practical experience with deliberative systems has demonstrated time and time again that the ALAC method, a hierarchy of committees, is an effective means of reducing that chance. > [As an aside - is this the right list/forum for this sort of discussion? I > am more than happy to set up a forum on ICANN's public participation site if > people would prefer this conversation taken off this list.] This is a good place for this because it is important that no new body of internet governance repeat ICANN's mistakes. ICANN has defined itself to be a regulator of domain name business practices for the protection of a few incumbent TLD registries and the intellectual property business. We can thank the internet gods that ICANN has abandoned its intended job of making sure that the actual knobs and levers of DNS are operated so that DNS query packets are efficiently turned into DNS reply packets without bias against any query source or query subject. That job is open and we will have to form another body of internet governance to do that job - it is an important job that is presently being untended. And that body, along with bodies to help deal with the provision of adequate end-to-end service levels and the like, are yet to be formed. In the interest of learning and improving, ICANN provides a bright red sign that says "Proceed at your own risk: This way has been tried and found wanting." > I also think there is an important and interesting discussion to be had > over: what is the role and what should be the role of the individual within > ICANN's processes? The individual is the atomic unit of internet governance. We should not stray from principle that governance arises from the collective opinion and consent of the people. The question should not be "what role for individuals" - the answer to that is obvious. Rather the question should be "what role for legal fictions such as corporations and governments?" See my note "Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road for Internet Governance" at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 21:42:23 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:42:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > please stop dismissing peoples' posts for their "semantics" and > "tone" every time you disagree with them. Hi Judith It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of trying to hold a conversation. It is impossible for me to reply to this post without taking issue with huge chunks of what's in it. Just as a quick example. These two sentences, stated as facts: "The ALAC's failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves." This simply isn't true. But what's more problematic is that it has very little to do with the issue of voting. Either people want a conversation or they want to shout at one another. You simply can't have both. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Judith Oppenheimer [mailto:joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 6:21 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation Kieren, please stop dismissing peoples' posts for their "semantics" and "tone" every time you disagree with them. Its disruptive. I think Karl knows a great deal about this and I'd like to hear more. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Kieren McCarthy Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:00:52 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Innovation Karl, I know you feel very passionately about this, but I was hoping that this list might be able to have a calm and reasoned discussion about the voting issue and so make some progress. Unfortunately, your response makes that nigh on impossible. The wording and the tone of your post mean it is not possible to respond except to have an argument or to join in on criticising ICANN. If people don't want to discuss this issue, that's fine, but it was my understanding that they did. My email was not an effort to outline the answer, or the problems, or give an official history, or even give an ICANN line. It was no more than an effort to start off and encourage discussion. I hope we can find a way to have that discussion without loading responses with extremely negative language. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation Kieren McCarthy wrote: > So as an interesting historical review, the concern with the voting last > time was the fact that anyone could get an email address and so it was open > to manipulation. This boggyman argument that the election could be "manipulated" is an argument that is being used not to find the errors and fix them but rather to prevent any attempt to hold elections at all. Every election process can be manipulated - I work in the area of open voting for really high stakes political elections and I never ceased to be amazed at all the methods that can be used to coerce voters or affect results. In other words, ICANN is using the demand for perfection in voting as an enemy of any adequate system. It is odd that ICANN has substituted the ALAC, a system that is far more manipulable, indeed it comes pre-manipulated. > The idea was anyone who was a domain name holder could vote. But then people > felt this was power in the hand of landowners. You have to get your history right. There was a 100% distinct and separate move to form a "constituency" (just like those for intellectual property, registries, registrars, etc) within ICANN for those who own domain names, the IDNO. The petition can be seen at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm ICANN did, as ICANN does, simply ignored this rather valid petition to form a new constituency. This constituency was open to everyone who could demonstrate ownership of a domain name - even ibm.com or att.com could serve as the foundation for ownership if an individual person could be ascertained who had enough vested in himself/herself that it constituted ownership. The IDNO did use an election system. But the IDNO should not be at all confused with the ICANN election system. > What's interesting of course is that now if you based votes on domain names, > you would get possibly an even worse bias because of the recent arrival of > the domainer market. With some companies owning tens of thousands of domains > - and possessing the technology to use each one individually, an election > could be entirely dominated by which way one or two individuals heading > these domainer companies decided to vote. Well, since we are continuing to go down the road blazed by the IDNO, take a look at our system as described at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm - We allowed only one vote per person no matter how many domain names were owned. There is a very nice property about using domain name ownership as a foundation for *constituency* membership - and that property is that domain names tend to be purchased using credit mechanisms, thus there is an identity forged by a banking relationship that is a) paid for by the banks and b) tends to be of longer term or at least more trustable than a mere e-mail identity. That helped to solve the "on the internet nobody knows you are a dog" problem that seems send many of ICANN's anti-election people into convulsions. > It strikes me that this inability to pin down an individual to a single vote > is not something that is going to go away. There has to be some kind of > real-world verification so that multiple votes require people to physically > do something. Yes, as was demonstrated by the ICANN person registering and voting twice. That was the only known instance of such behaviour in the year 2000 election. ICANN spent a chunk of money (not nearly as much money as it has pumped into the ALAC life support system) to validate somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 for the year 2000 election. In its headlong panic to prevent any further elections ICANN simply abandoned that investment. One ICANNnite even went so far as to encrypt the data and kept the key to himself (and he is no longer with ICANN) so that it could not be opened for any subsequent use, including a subsequent round of elections. (Such a commitment to privacy is admirable - too bad it is not equally found in the context of "whois".) Had ICANN built upon that investment we would today have had three more rounds of elections, each one would have built a better identified and more robust electorate and user-built information/conversation systems. Instead we have ICANN funded playpens. And are these immune to capture. No. In fact they are even more easily captured than elections. For example, as soon as the intellectual property industry feels a need to do so, the ALAC will become filled and run by intellectual property lawyers, paralegals, and clients who are cajoled into joining. The reason that the IP has not done this is that they can see that the ALAC is a poor vehicle for exerting any pressure on ICANN's decisions and that they already have a much better vehicle, a polished Rolls-Royce formal constituency deep within ICANN as compared to the broken down bicycle that is the ALAC. > But to get back to the ALAC/RALO/ALS system. I'm surprised that Wolfgang is > so damning of it as a "stupid superstructure". I know the history is torrid, > but as I explained in another email, I see the structure itself as a pretty > good construct (Vittorio had some interesting real-world observations about > it). It is a good construct. That is if the purpose is to create isolation between the community of internet users and ICANN. As I have mentioned previously, the ALAC system bears an uncanny resemblance to the hierarchy of soviet committees that formed the "democratic" system of the old USSR. Isolation of ICANN-central from internet users is but one of the two foundation stones of the ALAC. The other is a very paternalistic view that internet users are mere children who are incapable of organizing themselves or informing themselves. So ICANN provides, and even funds, safe warm places, well supplied with milk and cookies, so that internet users can play with toy steering wheels that provide no real control, no means of holding ICANN's inner circle accountable. The ALAC's failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves. Internet users recognize the futility of accepting a powerless position in a contrived and paternalistic system. Even after years of ICANN money pumped directly into its veins and ICANN hired cheerleaders waving their pom poms to create excitement, the ALAC doesn't even rate a faint shadow of the vitality that was achieved by internet users in just a few months in year 2000. > I have a serious question about this. Is there anything in the structure > that actually prevents or restricts ideas from the wider community from > going through review and ending up as firm statements or policies? In nearly every deliberative body a well known technique for killing a proposal is to send it through a sequence of committees. So to answer your question, yes there is "a chance", but practical experience with deliberative systems has demonstrated time and time again that the ALAC method, a hierarchy of committees, is an effective means of reducing that chance. > [As an aside - is this the right list/forum for this sort of discussion? I > am more than happy to set up a forum on ICANN's public participation site if > people would prefer this conversation taken off this list.] This is a good place for this because it is important that no new body of internet governance repeat ICANN's mistakes. ICANN has defined itself to be a regulator of domain name business practices for the protection of a few incumbent TLD registries and the intellectual property business. We can thank the internet gods that ICANN has abandoned its intended job of making sure that the actual knobs and levers of DNS are operated so that DNS query packets are efficiently turned into DNS reply packets without bias against any query source or query subject. That job is open and we will have to form another body of internet governance to do that job - it is an important job that is presently being untended. And that body, along with bodies to help deal with the provision of adequate end-to-end service levels and the like, are yet to be formed. In the interest of learning and improving, ICANN provides a bright red sign that says "Proceed at your own risk: This way has been tried and found wanting." > I also think there is an important and interesting discussion to be had > over: what is the role and what should be the role of the individual within > ICANN's processes? The individual is the atomic unit of internet governance. We should not stray from principle that governance arises from the collective opinion and consent of the people. The question should not be "what role for individuals" - the answer to that is obvious. Rather the question should be "what role for legal fictions such as corporations and governments?" See my note "Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road for Internet Governance" at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 26 22:56:03 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:56:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > It is impossible for me to reply to this post without taking issue with huge > chunks of what's in it. > > Just as a quick example. These two sentences, stated as facts: "The ALAC's > failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves." > > This simply isn't true. But what's more problematic is that it has very > little to do with the issue of voting. You were a writer, a good one, I've seen you confront bad ideas. I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. Show how masses of people are running to it and that its processes actually form a force that can hold ICANN accountable for its actions. Show how it is a better vehicle for the formation of ideas and a seed for the formation of consensus than any group of people who might happen to gather in a non-ALAC, such as this one. I claim (and firmly believe) that people are shunning the ALAC in droves. Disprove me. Show how, even after years of existence, ICANN staff support, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of life support that, the number of people who are actually involved in the ALAC would fill more than the smallest of small rooms - as compared to the nearly 200,000 people who tried to sign up for ICANN's year 2000 elections. You claim that the ALAC has "little to do with voting". If so, then how does one answer the fact that ICANN created the ALAC explicitly as a means to end the election of directors? On the other hand, ICANN holds the ALAC out as a reason why members of the internet community should be satisfied and not ask for voting. Thus, to my mind, the conclusion is quite the opposite, that, in fact, the ALAC has everything to do with voting, or rather, to be more precise, it has everything to do with non-voting. --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 Mon Nov 26 23:35:52 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:35:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: That's odd you should say that, since I would have said that the ALAC was a failure, and internet users had almost unanimously shunned it. Now, perhaps that makes me a very horrible and uncivil person, a dirty hippie name-caller, and a person generally deserving of censure and abuse rather than, say, some shred of counter-evidence. Or, it could be a considered opinion, based on years of involvement with ICANN, including service for the ALAC itself. Yours, A. Michael Froomkin Professor of Law On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >> It is impossible for me to reply to this post without taking issue with >> huge >> chunks of what's in it. >> Just as a quick example. These two sentences, stated as facts: "The ALAC's >> failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves." >> >> This simply isn't true. But what's more problematic is that it has very >> little to do with the issue of voting. > > You were a writer, a good one, I've seen you confront bad ideas. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. Show > how masses of people are running to it and that its processes actually form a > force that can hold ICANN accountable for its actions. Show how it is a > better vehicle for the formation of ideas and a seed for the formation of > consensus than any group of people who might happen to gather in a non-ALAC, > such as this one. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that people are shunning the ALAC in droves. > Disprove me. Show how, even after years of existence, ICANN staff support, > and hundreds of thousands of dollars of life support that, the number of > people who are actually involved in the ALAC would fill more than the > smallest of small rooms - as compared to the nearly 200,000 people who tried > to sign up for ICANN's year 2000 elections. > > You claim that the ALAC has "little to do with voting". If so, then how does > one answer the fact that ICANN created the ALAC explicitly as a means to end > the election of directors? > > On the other hand, ICANN holds the ALAC out as a reason why members of the > internet community should be satisfied and not ask for voting. > > Thus, to my mind, the conclusion is quite the opposite, that, in fact, the > ALAC has everything to do with voting, or rather, to be more precise, it has > everything to do with non-voting. > > --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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Mon Nov 26 23:52:17 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, I do not see why Kieren should prove you wrong by disproving your statements here, because they are the wrong metrics. If Internet users' interest in the issues under ICANN's purview were indeed massive, not only the ALAC would be massive, but also the Boston Working Group (anybody remember that construct? it evaporated to the point that it could not even dissolve itself) would have been massive, and you would have a massive followership. You would have to hold the ALAC and these previous efforts to the same measure, wouldn't you? The ALAC grows by informed interest, by an outreach process which has been de necessario painstaking and slow. An increasing number of Internet users, and their existing organizations, are joining the ALAC, building up its discourse, and consolidating the foundations of its influence. This, and the influence, can be proven in the way considerations from the At-Large have marked numerous ICANN processes and decisions. It does take some unprejudiced recollection and study - there are far more than the shreds of evidence Prof. Froomkin asks for in an email parallel to this one. And again, massive numbers are not its metric. And for many of us, who took up the ALAC concept in the ICANN reform and have tried to assist its growth and gain in influence, it is not about causing people to not vote, it is an alternative to make sure that a diverse number of informed, reasoned Internet user voices come through without being drowned by bullying and shrillness when these make communication difficult because of culture, language, and other differences. Better political scientists than me in this list have already made clear that the concept itself of this global vote has more challenges than would allow a renewed cycle of simplistic implementations like the one you propugnate, and which also proved to be extremely problematic. As much as you can't judge an election as flawed if you lose it, there is much subjectiveness in considering it good if you won it. The absolute-truth appearance of your measures of success is easier to grasp for people who communicate across cultures. That, BTW, is one of the reasons why the ALAC is built upon local and regional bases, so its members interact with others in similar languages and cultures you can trust. It is the same reason why ICANN meetings are conducted in a diverse range of places and cultures and local languages. I will address you more than your ideas in abstract in the following couple paragraphs: You have repeatedly challenged Kieren's authority to speak because you challenge the honesty of his motives and the independence of his thougt. You have allowed yourself to expand your opinions around untested - and to my mind, contrary to fact - assumptions about the motives of most people who have painstakingly built ICANN and made it operate. You have tried to impose your views of success and failure without much listening to opposite or alternative views. And you have defended your doing so by painting it as "mildly provocative." Now let me ask you if you would take as mildly provocative the question whether your insistence on voting and your lack of recognition of what others are achieving in the ALAC could be connected to a lack of recognition of how people feel, think, work, and achieve success in other cultures, and that this may be associated with the fact that in your period as an ICANN Board member you never attended a meeting outside North America. You could have witnessed first-hand what otherwise quite disenfranchised people were doing when conditions other than governments' opposition or benign neglect to the development of the Internet obtained. This could be a disqualifying statement in your asymmetric-rules book but could I appeal to you to ponder on it as a possible cause to just temper your statements and open your mind to alternative views of others? And, why discuss this on this list? Because hopefully someone somewhere is grappling with the difficulties of building up a multi-stakeholder organization that works, and needs to have a more rounded picture not only of what has been done, but what forward-looking lessons can be extracted from that history. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:56:03 -0800 > From: Karl Auerbach > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Karl Auerbach > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy > Cc: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >> It is impossible for me to reply to this post without taking issue with >> huge >> chunks of what's in it. >> Just as a quick example. These two sentences, stated as facts: "The ALAC's >> failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves." >> >> This simply isn't true. But what's more problematic is that it has very >> little to do with the issue of voting. > > You were a writer, a good one, I've seen you confront bad ideas. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. Show > how masses of people are running to it and that its processes actually form a > force that can hold ICANN accountable for its actions. Show how it is a > better vehicle for the formation of ideas and a seed for the formation of > consensus than any group of people who might happen to gather in a non-ALAC, > such as this one. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that people are shunning the ALAC in droves. > Disprove me. Show how, even after years of existence, ICANN staff support, > and hundreds of thousands of dollars of life support that, the number of > people who are actually involved in the ALAC would fill more than the > smallest of small rooms - as compared to the nearly 200,000 people who tried > to sign up for ICANN's year 2000 elections. > > You claim that the ALAC has "little to do with voting". If so, then how does > one answer the fact that ICANN created the ALAC explicitly as a means to end > the election of directors? > > On the other hand, ICANN holds the ALAC out as a reason why members of the > internet community should be satisfied and not ask for voting. > > Thus, to my mind, the conclusion is quite the opposite, that, in fact, the > ALAC has everything to do with voting, or rather, to be more precise, it has > everything to do with non-voting. > > --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 bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Nov 27 00:50:45 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:50:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Karl Auerbach wrote: > I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. This is a fair question. If I had to answer it, I'd say that two significant contributions of the ALAC are: (1) the ALAC appointments to the Nominating Committee. The ALAC appoints 5 members of the NomComm, and the Directors and SO appointees from the NomComm have been, by and large, quite good for ICANN, and, (2) involvement of new organizations and individuals in ICANN via the ALS and RALO structures. The recent outreach efforts over the last 18 months have been quite good and resulted in an infusion of new blood into the ICANN community. Is that enough to say it's been a "success"? I don't think so, but it may keep it out of "failure" territory. Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Nov 27 01:08:46 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:08:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <474BB46E.9080907@internet.law.pro> Bret Fausett wrote: > (1) the ALAC appointments to the Nominating Committee. > > (2) involvement of new organizations and individuals in ICANN oh, and I'll add: (3) the contributions of the ALAC Liaison to the Board. I think ICANN has been a better organization because of the contributions of Roberto Gaetano, Vittorio Bertola and Wendy Seltzer. Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Tue Nov 27 01:21:40 2007 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:21:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Innovation - ALEC Review? References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <0a4c01c830bd$c65d3ad0$6501a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Bret's post again raises the question of the ALAC Review Process, first raised by Wolfgang in his most excellent post on November 24. What is the status of the proposed ALAC review? Will we be getting a review from a qualified and unbiased entity? This information would be quite helpful as this important conversation continues. Tom Lowenhaupt ------------------------------------------ Wolfgang, Thanks for the excellent post. You put some hope in the proposed ALAC Review Process. Are you aware of its status and the reasons behind the delayed selection process? Will we be getting a review from a qualified and unbiased entity? I'd appreciate it if you (or anyone else here) would shed some light on this. Tom Lowenhaupt ------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Fausett" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > Karl Auerbach wrote: >> I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. > > This is a fair question. If I had to answer it, I'd say that two > significant contributions of the ALAC are: > > (1) the ALAC appointments to the Nominating Committee. The ALAC appoints 5 > members of the NomComm, and the Directors and SO appointees from the > NomComm have been, by and large, quite good for ICANN, and, > > (2) involvement of new organizations and individuals in ICANN via the ALS > and RALO structures. The recent outreach efforts over the last 18 months > have been quite good and resulted in an infusion of new blood into the > ICANN community. > > Is that enough to say it's been a "success"? I don't think so, but it may > keep it out of "failure" territory. > > Bret > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Tue Nov 27 01:29:27 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474BB46E.9080907@internet.law.pro> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> <474BB46E.9080907@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: Bret, I am in no position to judge Wendy's contribution, but I sure will vouch for Roberto's and Vittorio's, in their different ways. And, before their involvement at Board level, At Large contributions shaped many ICANN decisions indelibly. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Bret Fausett wrote: > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:08:46 -0800 > From: Bret Fausett > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Bret Fausett > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > > Bret Fausett wrote: >> (1) the ALAC appointments to the Nominating Committee. >> (2) involvement of new organizations and individuals in ICANN > > oh, and I'll add: > > (3) the contributions of the ALAC Liaison to the Board. I think ICANN has > been a better organization because of the contributions of Roberto Gaetano, > Vittorio Bertola and Wendy Seltzer. > > Bret > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 27 01:31:04 2007 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:31:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474BB46E.9080907@internet.law.pro> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> <474BB46E.9080907@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <004a01c830bf$18465b50$48d311f0$@net> Bret Fausett wrote: > > (3) the contributions of the ALAC Liaison to the Board. I think ICANN > has been a better organization because of the contributions of Roberto > Gaetano, Vittorio Bertola and Wendy Seltzer. > Seconded. And these contributions have been overwhelmingly positive. And whatever criticism - and there has been a lot there - has been without rancor. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 27 01:55:24 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:55:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN and the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <000001c8297e$18532760$48f97620$@net> <000501c82983$4c2273c0$e4675b40$@net> <41570655-885C-40DD-8F6C-CE4931D48561@ras.eu.org> <474051BD.6070206@bertola.eu> Message-ID: On Nov 18, 2007 9:46 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > And where is this "enhanced cooperation" program? It's a process, not a program: 71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. As Wolfie said on this list: "In Meissen at the end of the Summer School on Internet Governance, we developed recently a formula for enhanced cooperation (Sigma EC3) which means that "enhanced cooperation" as "undefined" in the Tunis Agenda can be seen as a bottom up management process where elements of enhanced communication among players, enhanced coordination among instiutions and enhanced informal and formal cooperation among involved institutions are creatively interlinked. New forms like joint committees, liaisons, dynamic coalitions are emerging on a multistakeholder basis. The only thing which is still underdeveloped is the intergovernmental component of EC3" So it's not an entity with a secretariat, meetings, travel, etc. I see the process in many places actually, it is happening, it's increasing, and it's helpful. Here are some examples from places familiar to me: http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2007/35.html So the ITU is enhancing cooperation with ICANN http://nro.net/archive/news/continuing-cooperation.html http://nro.net/governance/index.html http://nro.net/governance/itu-exhibition-info.html The NRO is is continuing/enhancing cooperation with IGF, ITU and the many thousands of other organisations that are interested in numbering. http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-15nov07.htm http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-14nov07.htm ICANN is continuing/enhancing cooperation with IGF, ITU, the AU, the NRO, etc, etc. http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/071114pr_fellowship.shtml http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/071112pr_ampassadors.shtml ISOC does liaison work with all of the above (plus others via new Regional Bureaus), plus reaches out to bring folk to IETF/IGF meetings that otherwise wouldn't (be able to) go. Giganet is part of it, according to this: http://www.igloo.org/giganet "(4) facilitate informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and Internet governance stakeholders (governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society)." and this: http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=835). "Since then, the discussion within the academic community has proposed to initiate an independent academic network for Internet Governance research. Such a network, according to Kleinwächter and Ang, should not be a single "coordinated project" but a platform for "enhanced communication" both among researchers themselves and between the academic community and non-academic stakeholder groups to encourage multiple research projects. Ralf Bendrath from the University of Bremen presented a paper where he outlined key elements for such a new network, including proposals for procedures, structures and substance, membership criteria and objectives. " Not to mention all these other sites/orgs that are new or newly speaking to each other. http://www.wsis-gov.org/igf-sites.html >Can we participate to it? Of course, but if one is determined that it doesn't exist, then participation will be more problematic I think. >We all know the answer. I submit that you only think you know the answer, not being rude, but it's very obvious to me that's EC is in the milieu, not a place/building/conference/separate program. If you are looking for some top down thing from the UN SG, well I doubt you will get it. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 04:19:14 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:19:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Why IPv4 address depletion matters (was Re: Reinstate...) In-Reply-To: <20071126221229.A17802202B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> <20071126132020.3BC4C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <20071126221229.A17802202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi, On Nov 27, 2007 1:12 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I think that mismanagement exists right now with regard to preparing > for the transition to IPv6. Who are you thinking is responsible for this? (management or mismanagement). In other words, is there some body org. supposed to have coordinated this? > > For example although Switzerland has an "IPv6 Task Force" website > with a wonderfully comprehensive supposed organigram of that "IPv6 Task > Force", that "IPv6 Task Force" doesn't really exist anymore in reality. > There are no activities and no-one is in charge. > Should it be a top-down process? If you want to look at just CH networks, you can. Some networks in CH have allocations already, which is the first step: http://v6metric.inetcore.com/en/html/st1/08.html Some are being announced (2nd step) slide 9 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/doering-ipv6-routing.pdf In fact, CH seems to be in the top 10: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/ > This kind of situation is IMO a clear indication of mismanagement, and > while I don't know anything definitive about other countries, I'd be > very surprised if this kind of problem exists only in Switzerland. > I just don't understand why the emphasis is on national deployments. Countries don't get ready for a change like this, networks do. Countries CAN help networks tho, as I have said before. > > > Now the problem with IP address depletion is that unless progress is > > > made with the transition to IPv6, there will in a few years be two > > > fundamentally different types of internet access. "Consumer" internet > > > access will be behind several layers of NAT, which allows to "surf > > > the web", use email, etc, but which does not make it possible for > > > businesses to allow customers to interact with their IT systems. > > > > Unless they use a web interface. I must be missing smt, why do you > > need a public address for this? > > How do you set up even a simple HTTP-based web interface if the entire > geographic area where your company happens to be located is behind > several layers of NAT each designed to facilitate only "consumer" web > access, without any support for accepting remotely-initiated connections? Why does it have to be in the area where your company is located? Many if not most corporate web sites are hosted offsite. > > > If the former, well a market may develop in IP addresses at some > > point, > > IMO, if we reach that kind of scarcity of IPv4 addresses, the > transition to IPv6 has been severely mismanaged. > > BTW, if that occurs, I'm also concerned about routing table growth. IPv4 routing table or IPv6? Ipv6 routing table explosion is the potentially scarier monster. > Can you explain the precise economic machanism which will (in your > opinion) make IPv6 deployment surge? supply and demand I reckon. Supply of v4 decreases while demand continues to increase, market develops, costs of v4 rise, eventually to a point where folk will take up cheap plentiful v6 instead, v4 market collapses. Of course, that's just a guess. > > In my opinion it is the worst aspect of the mismanagement of the > transition to IPv6 that the economic aspect of the problem has > generally not been thought through carefully enough. > Again, who was supposed to do this "thinking through"? Many folk have been talking/warning about this for many years, In English, there is a saying; "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" I think that's an apt phrase for this situation. > > If the latter, as I have mentioned before, the 2 youngest RIRs have > > the slowest rate of address "usage", so Africa and Latin America may > > have IP addresses to give away long after the USA and EU run out. > > Isn't it much more likely that the decision-makers in Africa and > Latin America would agree, due to pressure and/or by some form of > bribery, to a policy proposal like the following? > It would have to be a global agreement amongst all RIR communities, which is difficult to get. I am on the mailing lists of the "decision-makers" (in Africa), my sense of previous discussions is that the AfriNIC community might not want to give up any perceived advantage in this area. However, since the consensus is that they want to lead in IPv6 deployment as well, they might agree. In any case, IIRC, it hasn't (yet) been introduced in the AfriNIC region as a policy proposal. > > Iljitsch van Beijnum has a proposal which I think goes in the right > direction: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt > > However considering that it will take significant time to discuss the > remaining technical details, reach consensus, implement and deploy, > IMO we're really uncomfortably close to IPv4 address space exhaustion > already. While NAT-PT will probably be useful, there are already many other transitions mechanisms to choose from. > > What do you propose? > > 1. We should do what we can to move specification and implementation > of "Modified NAT-PT" (the Internet-Draft that I mentioned above) > forward as quickly as possible. > "We" as in the IETF? > 2. Governments should check whether their national "IPv6 Task Force" > or equivalent is alive and well and preparing responsibly for > facilitating an orderly transition to IPv6. > sure > 3. They should also make significant funds available as developmental > aid for poor countries in the form of investment incentives to > create good dual-stack IPv4+IPv6 infrastructure. Unlikely methinks. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Nov 27 05:00:25 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:00:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 Message-ID: Hi, A stocktaking session will be held in Geneva, hopefully on 25 February for open consultations and an expected meeting of the advisory group (AG) on February 26-27. A second open consultation in planned for May 13, again likely followed by a meeting of the advisory group. These dates aren't yet firm enough for the secretariat to announce publicly, however I think they are 99% certain... Some tasks: When secretary general renewed the AG on August 20 he asked the group to suggest means for rotating its membership ("based on recommendations from the various interested groups"). Thoughts? Current list of members here . I hope the "pain" will be shared equally among stakeholders. This would also be an opportunity to suggest better balance among stakeholders. We should also be considering means to enhance transparency and flow of information. AG's immediate reaction to the secretary general's request was to publish notes of its closed meeting. Was this adequate? Given the pretty rough and ready reaction at the time, if these notes were improved --for example the ICANN board's doing a good job of reporting -- would such information be adequate? Observers are another possibility, but there are costs/problems. My main concern with observers is the AG already works too slowly, I think it would do less in a larger setting. And it makes Chatham house rule essentially meaningless (like it or not, Chatham house rule is important for governments in particular.) What worked well in Rio, what worked less well, what went badly? Badly: funding for participation. People mentioned the schedule was too crammed with activities, no time to stop and talk. How can we take open call for workshops etc, and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard process.) Were the best practise sessions useful? Were the open sessions useful? Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have been well received. We need to be realistic about what can be changed (in my opinion.) I think there's a feeling the main sessions were generally flat compared to Athens -- very few requests to make comments/ask question, very little remote participation, the main session room half empty while the workshops quite well attended (perhaps if there had been 2000 people things might have been different, the problem might not have been content but about announcing the content early enough so people could plan to attend.) Might be possible to keep main sessions to the first and last days, with workshops in the middle and have workshops report back and discuss substantively on the final day? If we can agree on themes early next year (February?) a call for workshops could go out early (March), we could start thinking about speakers early (and finding funds for those that need), publish a meaningful programme early (June?) so people decide if they want to attend. etc. Funding - can we help? I'm sure there's more. If we want the 2008 process to go better than 2007 we should begin discussing now. 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 avri at psg.com Tue Nov 27 05:21:07 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:21:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <060509F1-9591-4B8B-A995-D2688BB9DF30@psg.com> Hi, With a certain amount of trepidation (though my skin is already rather thick) I think i will weigh in with a few personal observations. Note, I am making to claims of fact, except maybe about my own perceptions. I was an active IETF participant when ICANN was being formed and was one of those who was excited about the voting basis of this new organization. What a wonderful experiment i thought. So i signed up as a voter, and duly voted. I think I even voted for Karl, but my memory isn't that good. I like him and respect him, so I probably did. When voting was abolished, I was outraged. I understood that there had been flaws in the election process and felt that they should have been fixed. anyway, I was so outraged that I decided that I would have nothing further to do with ICANN. And for years, i didn't. I remained active in the IETF, got involved in ICT4D software development, found myself involved in civil society and ended up in WGIG. There i took part in the analysis of ICANN and while I was a supporter of the IETF way of doing things, did not consider myself a particular ally of ICANN - in fact outside of a few governments I was probably one of the the most strident voices for the "ICANN out from US domination" movement (I support the no governments approach to oversight) and for demands that ICANN get its act in gear and make new gTLDs available to the world in massive quantities. As a result I too got the 'put your action where your mouth is' speech we are all hearing and passing judgement on, and decided that yes, as a critic I should get involved and spend a few years seeing if i could do something. the jury is still out on that - we still don't have gTLDs for the people, whois still plagues the world and governments are getting closer to dominating the Internet with every day that passes). Anyway, in getting involved, i had to subject myself to the Nomcom, and while it is a vile experience, and i say this as one of the 'successful candidates', i see how hard it works to get balance. Is it better then elections? i don't know but it is different and I believe it is a form of democracy. Coming from a country where elections are regularly stolen, I am not sure I am that much of a fan of global (or national) elections anymore. Perhaps there are more local ways to build democracy from the bottom-up. And perhaps we are seeing some worthwhile experiments in that. Another thing on which i think the jury is still out. And i have spent a bit of time watching and interacting with ALAC. At first I agreed with Karl, it was a pampered pet, with little real substance acting under the directions of a dominant staffer. But over the last years it has begun finding its own way. It is around a year since it stopped being an interim ALAC and began its real existence. And it is starting to find way to make its voice heard. It is also composed of many earnest concerned people (not flocks or hordes, but many individuals). And though they still are under the thumb of a dominant staffer, they are fighting back. And this is a good thing. I tend to think that the ALAC now is not the interim ALAC of the past and we need to stop looking at it as if it was. It is something new that should be given time to prove itself. Yes, the structure is complicated (gothic even), but that is what you get when you try to build democracy from the ground up as opposed to using elections that rely on sound bites with little substance. And yes, we still need to learn how to structure this bottom up democracy more effectively so that it can be an effective voice and so that it can throw off the control of a domineering staff. I personally advocate an ALAC that asserts itself enough as a civil society voice that it becomes the real counter balance to the GAC and whose voice the Board must listen too, or else. I believe this is possible, but again, the jury is still out. What is clear to me, is that this is a valid experiment in democratic action and that the nomcom and ALAC are viable parts of that structure. Will it work better then elections where we elect the prettiest and most charming fellow out there (see, i really am fond of Karl), remains to be seen, but I for one hope so. Are massive numbers of people joining the organzations that make up ALAC? I don't know and it might be good to have an idea of how big some of these ALSes and RALOs are and what sort of growth rates they experience over the next few years. Then again what I think we we need are committed local internet users who self organize to make local, regional and global improvement to the Internet, and that is what i think we have. For now, I think ALAC deserves a chance to show what it can evolve into and whether it can do the job. a. On 27 nov 2007, at 04.56, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >> It is impossible for me to reply to this post without taking issue >> with huge >> chunks of what's in it. Just as a quick example. These two >> sentences, stated as facts: "The ALAC's >> failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves." >> This simply isn't true. But what's more problematic is that it has >> very >> little to do with the issue of voting. > > You were a writer, a good one, I've seen you confront bad ideas. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove > me. Show how masses of people are running to it and that its > processes actually form a force that can hold ICANN accountable for > its actions. Show how it is a better vehicle for the formation of > ideas and a seed for the formation of consensus than any group of > people who might happen to gather in a non-ALAC, such as this one. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that people are shunning the ALAC in > droves. Disprove me. Show how, even after years of existence, > ICANN staff support, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of life > support that, the number of people who are actually involved in the > ALAC would fill more than the smallest of small rooms - as compared > to the nearly 200,000 people who tried to sign up for ICANN's year > 2000 elections. > > You claim that the ALAC has "little to do with voting". If so, > then how does one answer the fact that ICANN created the ALAC > explicitly as a means to end the election of directors? > > On the other hand, ICANN holds the ALAC out as a reason why members > of the internet community should be satisfied and not ask for voting. > > Thus, to my mind, the conclusion is quite the opposite, that, in > fact, the ALAC has everything to do with voting, or rather, to be > more precise, it has everything to do with non-voting. > > --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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 05:59:12 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:59:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0711270259s1e3ea300n2f61ecd6c31060a@mail.gmail.com> Dear Kieren, dear Karl, Your debate is passionate. It's normal. It deals with essential things : political legitimacy, accountability, with basically the invention of a new, more inclusive system at the international level. No small feat. No surprise the solution is not obvious. The way forward can only be found through identification of higher principles (or lower agreed protocols) and learning from past mistakes. Don't be upset by written words more than you would with spoken ones : you could have this heated exchange in a face to face meeting and still be able to move the discussion forward a bit. Actually we miss a good physical exchange on this topic. In that perspective, Karl, why don't you take Kieren's offer seriously regarding the idea of a User Summit in Paris ? Why don't you work together to set the stage for a good debate on that ? Different viewpoints are not a problem but a richness, given the experience of people on this list. On substance, as Salman Rushdie is supposed to have said : "Only he who steps out of the frame can see the whole picture". The frame here is whether the original voting mechanism was better than the present ALAC. We can discuss it endlessly. The whole picture is : how to ensure the particpation of individuals. I have written in the past separately to Karl (or on the list, I do not remember) regarding the role of individuals in a multi-stakeholder process. I believe individuals have a fundamental role to play, but that organizations do as well. The traditional model to address issues at the global level is the intergovernmental one, where individuals are represented by their government (via their ambassador, or more and more often through lower-ranking civil servants) : the United Nations is conceived as a democracy of nation-states, not individuals. People who (legitimately) consider this approach insufficiently democratic and inclusive, have a natural tendency to turn towards the mechanism of elections and to extend it at the global level. But is this really innovative ? Aren't we applying old models to a new, larger scale problem ? Worse, aren't we equating a bit too fast democracy with representative democracy; and representative democracy with elections ? This is what many politicians have succeeded in making electors believe. But elections is only one component and they can be manipulated. Here again, I'm afraid that the question : how to hold elections at the global level is the frame, not the whole picture. The whole picture is : what is democracy at the scale of the globe or for a global issue ? What are the institutional mechanisms that must be combined to produce participation and accountability ? And in this respect, I fully agree, as often, with Avri : we need to play with different building blocks (constituencies, SOs, ALAC, NomCom ....) and find, through progressive refining, the proper balance. And innovation is the key word : we are collectively trying to invent something a bit different. Let's not jump too fast towards one single, proven mechanism as if it were the only solution. It's about participation, not only representation. Voting is delegation, and representation. I care about participation. does not exclude voting, but it's not what it's all about. Finally, I understand the argument about land owners and the historical reference to people having to pay a certain amount to be able to vote, thereby excluding some. But, and this is a big but, if a few euros is the price to pay for a domain name, it seems a bit more acceptable than the high levels instituted in the early days of representative democracy (even if a few dollars can be more important in some countries than others). Second, if large domainers are given the same vote as small domain owners, the risk of capture is less important. Anyway, here again, the larger picture is : how to identify individuals reliably and for what kind of voting procedures ? An idea that could be tested : why not a new special gTLD for public participation, the equivalent of an electoral list ? Or what about a social networking site for ICANN's activities, with individual profiles ? Let's keep the minds open and the discussion going. It's worth it. Best Bertrand On 11/27/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > > It is impossible for me to reply to this post without taking issue with > huge > > chunks of what's in it. > > > > Just as a quick example. These two sentences, stated as facts: "The > ALAC's > > failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves." > > > > This simply isn't true. But what's more problematic is that it has very > > little to do with the issue of voting. > > You were a writer, a good one, I've seen you confront bad ideas. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. > Show how masses of people are running to it and that its processes > actually form a force that can hold ICANN accountable for its actions. > Show how it is a better vehicle for the formation of ideas and a seed > for the formation of consensus than any group of people who might happen > to gather in a non-ALAC, such as this one. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that people are shunning the ALAC in > droves. Disprove me. Show how, even after years of existence, ICANN > staff support, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of life support > that, the number of people who are actually involved in the ALAC would > fill more than the smallest of small rooms - as compared to the nearly > 200,000 people who tried to sign up for ICANN's year 2000 elections. > > You claim that the ALAC has "little to do with voting". If so, then how > does one answer the fact that ICANN created the ALAC explicitly as a > means to end the election of directors? > > On the other hand, ICANN holds the ALAC out as a reason why members of > the internet community should be satisfied and not ask for voting. > > Thus, to my mind, the conclusion is quite the opposite, that, in fact, > the ALAC has everything to do with voting, or rather, to be more > precise, it has everything to do with non-voting. > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle 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 maxsenges at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 07:01:27 2007 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:01:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d976d8e0711270401l5190167er7e2d1c7a5431ec03@mail.gmail.com> Dear Adam, and all Thank you for initiating this review and suggestion process. Some comments and questions: > How can we take open call for workshops etc, > and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard > process.) As I raised before, the most important criteria for admittance should be the proven relation and focus on INTERNET GOVERNANCE. There were workshops on education, and access to knowledge that could have had a connection and could have discussed GOVERNANCE of their causes on the INTERNET but didn't. Panelists gave interesting but 'very general' talks about intellectual property etc. Another key point in making the sessions more productive is to setup a standardized and obligatory Report of Results, which again should be geared towards - What does this workshop contribute to the IG debate? In general I argue that all IGF activities - and especially DCs - should have RESULTS (minutes, statements, requests for comments, - a variety of standardized formats) and that these results are somehow gathered, catalouged and made available. One initiative were DCs can contribute and aggregate their work is the Internet Bill of Rights initiative, which means to develop a framework for defining, promoting and watching the enforcement of Human Rights and other Principles on the Internet. > ...very little remote participation... > ...the problem might not have been content but about announcing the content early > enough so people could plan to attend. I agree 100%. The ONLINE PLATFORM and REMOTE PARTICIPATION possibilities of the IGF are 1) too distributed - everything should be in one integrated environment or at least one portal 2) online participation was almost not offered - except for individual efforts In my understanding this is a major strategic point for two reasons: Firstly it will improve participation, and esp. multi-stakeholderism (participation from the south) and thereby representativeness and legitimity. On a more historic perspective, the IGF is an experiment that could be a blueprint for global governance in other areas, so the second, meta-relevance of deploying excellent online info and collaboration tools is the IGF's pioneering role. Critiques in other thematic areas will righfully say: "If the Internet Governance community didn's manage to deploy and exploit effective online tools how should we?" There is a Dynamic Coalition on Online Collaboration which has provided the IGF-Community site. This groups is however not sufficiently integrated in the IGF structure. The the IGF online information environment and tools should IMHO be developed in close collaboration between the Secretariate, the host country and a multi-stakeholder service coalition. Does anyone know how and where to engage to work and push for better online collaboration and information environments? > Might be possible to keep > main sessions to the first and last days, with workshops in the > middle and have workshops report back and discuss substantively on > the final day? I like that proposal! Best, Max -------------------------------------------------------- "I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not the plains, and it seemeth I cannot long sit still. And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering will be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end one experienceth only oneself." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke Zarathustra) ------------------------------------------------------------ Max Senges Research Associate Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3 08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN PhD Candidate Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) Programme on the Information Society Tel: Spain +34-627193395 Germany +49-17660855358 @: maxsenges at gmail.com www.maxsenges.com http://entrepreneur.jot.com https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/ ------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Nov 27 08:03:02 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:03:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <474C1586.9090303@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Adam Peake schrieb: > Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? To my understanding, there was a general feeling that the first "main themes" have been discussed enough, and that we need to focus on new ones. The emerging issues session for example showed that there is an increasing need to discuss anonymity, identification and privacy on the internet - I guess this would be a good new theme. Or the whole human rights theme, which as Max has emphazised could even be linked to tangible outcomes integrated by the Bill of Rights DC. I also have the feeling that people are getting sick of just sitting in a room and passively listening to powerpoint presentations for hours. This is not what you call "workshop" in natural language. Of all the events I was involved in, the Privacy Coalition meeting got the best feedback by far, because we had no presentations whatsoever, but instead asked people about their ideas and where they were willing to contribute and work with us. The result was a very engaged mix of discussing, brainstorming and volunteering - and this at 8:30 in the morning on the last day! Maybe this is my general sentiment: The IGF must focus on outcomes now (not necessarily stuff adopted in the plenary, but outcomes of workshops, coalitions, best practice collections, etc.), otherwise it will turn into just another conference. And I have the feeling that most people trust each other enough after two IGF meetings and numerous consultations that they really want to collaborate. 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 08:04:09 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:04:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music Message-ID: Personally, I can't fault that in principle - unto Caesar what is Caesar's - but it remains to be seen how it is accomplished. Regards, Rui From: Intellectual Property Watch Date: 27 Nov 2007 12:21 Subject: IP-Watch: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music To: correia.rui at gmail.com A new entry has been posted to the Intellectual Property Watch website. ******************************************************************************************************** November 27, 2007. France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music French record labels and Internet service providers have agreed on a ground-breaking plan to fight online music piracy. Among other things, the new memorandum of understanding requires Internet access providers to experiment with filters to block infringing files. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=842 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Une sélection d'articles est traduite en français; pour être notifié(e) à propos de ces traductions, veuillez modifier vos préférences en cliquant sur le lien suivant: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/subscribe_edit.php?addr=correia.rui at gmail.com Para recibir notificaciones sobre las traducciones al francés o al español de una selección de historias de IP-Watch, sírvase modificar sus preferencias haciendo click en el enlace siguiente: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/subscribe_edit.php?addr=correia.rui at gmail.com ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 27 08:35:20 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:35:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Why IPv4 address depletion matters (was Re: Reinstate...) In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:19:14 +0300) References: <028401c82d11$da20dd60$8e629820$@com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C300@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> <20071126132020.3BC4C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <20071126221229.A17802202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20071127133520.71D392202B6@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On Nov 27, 2007 1:12 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > I think that mismanagement exists right now with regard to preparing > > for the transition to IPv6. > > Who are you thinking is responsible for this? (management or > mismanagement). In other words, is there some body org. supposed to > have coordinated this? Ideally it would be taken care of by the relevant industry stakeholders (primarily ISPs and equipment and systems vendors) with governments and civil society simply observing to convince themselves that things are getting done properly. When not everything that needs to be done gets done properly, it's IMO the responsibility of governments to do as much as necessary (and not more) to get things back on track. IMO governments have responsibility for doing this with regard to all important matters of the public interest which are not taken care of culturally or as the effect of indiustry action and market forces without government intervention. What then is the Swiss government doing? They say they're "following attentively" the "discussions and work" at GAC (www.gac.icann.org) and ICANN and "study group 2" of ITU-T. I think they ought to in addition hire someone who understands the issues and who would be able to revive the "IPv6 Task Force" in the sense of inviting ISPs to send someone to a meeting every few months where the relevant issues are discussed. Alas I don't have the kind of influence that I could reasonably expect them to do this just on the basis my saying that. > > For example although Switzerland has an "IPv6 Task Force" website > > with a wonderfully comprehensive supposed organigram of that "IPv6 Task > > Force", that "IPv6 Task Force" doesn't really exist anymore in reality. > > There are no activities and no-one is in charge. > > Should it be a top-down process? I don't think so. But right now, we have no process and AFAIK no progress at all. IMO something should be done to get us moving again. > If you want to look at just CH networks, you can. Thank you for these links! > In fact, CH seems to be in the top 10: Do you know if historic data is available somewhere, so that I can check whether there has been any movement forward recently, or whether perhaps (as I fear) all that is from several years ago back when the "Swiss IPv6 Task Force" was active? > > This kind of situation is IMO a clear indication of mismanagement, and > > while I don't know anything definitive about other countries, I'd be > > very surprised if this kind of problem exists only in Switzerland. > > I just don't understand why the emphasis is on national deployments. IMO, this is about using national pride as a motivating factor where objective business reasons for deployment are lacking. > Countries don't get ready for a change like this, networks do. > Countries CAN help networks tho, as I have said before. I agree wholeheartedly. > > > > Now the problem with IP address depletion is that unless progress is > > > > made with the transition to IPv6, there will in a few years be two > > > > fundamentally different types of internet access. "Consumer" internet > > > > access will be behind several layers of NAT, which allows to "surf > > > > the web", use email, etc, but which does not make it possible for > > > > businesses to allow customers to interact with their IT systems. > > > > > > Unless they use a web interface. I must be missing smt, why do you > > > need a public address for this? > > > > How do you set up even a simple HTTP-based web interface if the entire > > geographic area where your company happens to be located is behind > > several layers of NAT each designed to facilitate only "consumer" web > > access, without any support for accepting remotely-initiated connections? > > Why does it have to be in the area where your company is located? Many > if not most corporate web sites are hosted offsite. For most corporate web sites existing today this is indeed not a problem, since they're typically just "dumb" websites, like a kind of electronic brochure, not an integrated part of a true e-business process. However I think that creating genuinely integrated e-business processes in key for truly making use to that "digital opportunity". Removing the option of doing that locally will IMO make it more difficult to make use of that opportunity. Not impossibly difficult, but more difficult, with the effect that there will be less successful start-ups truly making use of that "digital opportunity", and therefore a smaller overall positive effect on the economies of those regions, which will be perhaps most visible in the effect of higher prices for internet access. > > > If the former, well a market may develop in IP addresses at some > > > point, > > > > IMO, if we reach that kind of scarcity of IPv4 addresses, the > > transition to IPv6 has been severely mismanaged. > > > > BTW, if that occurs, I'm also concerned about routing table growth. > > IPv4 routing table or IPv6? Ipv6 routing table explosion is the > potentially scarier monster. What I'm concerned about right now is what it will do to the IPv4 routing table if no real transition to IPv6 gets underway and a market for IPv4 addresses develops instead. You are of course right that if there's mismanagement with regard to the IPv6 routing table, that'd be another way in which a potentially scary monster of a routing table could get created, but I'm not currently aware of any reason to be concerned about that kind of mismanagement being likely to happen. > > Can you explain the precise economic machanism which will (in your > > opinion) make IPv6 deployment surge? > > supply and demand I reckon. Supply of v4 decreases while demand > continues to increase, market develops, costs of v4 rise, eventually > to a point where folk will take up cheap plentiful v6 instead, v4 > market collapses. Of course, that's just a guess. The problem is that this will only happen when IPv6 addresses are able to serve as substitutes for IPv4 addresses. How do we get to that point? > > Iljitsch van Beijnum has a proposal which I think goes in the right > > direction: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt > > > > However considering that it will take significant time to discuss the > > remaining technical details, reach consensus, implement and deploy, > > IMO we're really uncomfortably close to IPv4 address space exhaustion > > already. > > While NAT-PT will probably be useful, there are already many other > transitions mechanisms to choose from. I think they're all lacking in some important respects. One of my next steps will be to write a paper comparing them and explaining why I think that they're not quite good enough. > > > What do you propose? > > > > 1. We should do what we can to move specification and implementation > > of "Modified NAT-PT" (the Internet-Draft that I mentioned above) > > forward as quickly as possible. > > > > "We" as in the IETF? As in the author of that Internet-Draft, plus myself, plus everyone else whom we can convince that this work is important and urgent, which should hopefully include enough people at the IETF as well as among IT systems vendors, ISPs and IT departments of other companies to get an RFC published and implemented and to get the resulting technology deployed reasonably quickly. > > 3. They should also make significant funds available as developmental > > aid for poor countries in the form of investment incentives to > > create good dual-stack IPv4+IPv6 infrastructure. > > Unlikely methinks. I agree that it doesn't look this would be likely to happen anytime soon, but that isn't going to stop me from talking about this need when someone asks me for proposals for what should be done. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Nov 27 08:43:53 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:43:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: 0a4c01c830bd$c65d3ad0$6501a8c0@powuseren2ihcx Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 08:53:56 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:53:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rui, On Nov 27, 2007 4:04 PM, Rui Correia wrote: > Personally, I can't fault that in principle - unto Caesar what is Caesar's - > but it remains to be seen how it is accomplished. > What I have seen is much more alarming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7110024.stm http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-982011,0.html http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000331.html extrajudicial processes, possible "banning from Internet access" etc. Bertrand? any truth to this? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Nov 27 08:55:16 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:55:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Innovation Message-ID: Wendy Seltzer addressed this rather well, back in April 30th 2007. 'The Proof' is in the system, were these comments addressed? [Implemented? or Not-Implemented?] I feel the most affinity with her comments here: ... By contrast, these TOR therefore seem too closely restricted to study of the efficacy of the existing ALAC structures. The reviewers should not conclude from the weakness of these structures that individual participation is unworkable, but rather should evaluate alternative structural mechanisms for representation of individual Internet users in ICANN's work and policy processes. The independent review provides a valuable opportunity for restoring the voice of the individual Internet user to ICANN. ... - Ref.: http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-review-tor/msg00007.html Seltzer_Comments_on_ALAC_Review_Terms_of_Reference_.pdf To: alac-review-tor at xxxxxxxxx Subject: Comments on Terms of Reference for Independent Review of ALAC From: Wendy Seltzer Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:23:53 +0100 Comments on Terms of Reference for Independent Review of ALAC In response to ICANN's call for comment on the Proposed Terms of Reference for Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee, I submit these comments in my individual capacity. While they are based on my experience as a member of the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee, I do not speak for the Committee. It is critical to the secure and stable operation of ICANN's technical functions that it provide a channel for input from and maintain the support of the Internet-using public. ICANN's international legitimacy depends on its effective responsiveness to input from all stakeholders. Review of ALAC's structure and operation should thus be framed within that overall purpose. ALAC must be evaluated not only as to how effectively it has functioned within the structures it has been set, but how effectively even optimal performance of those structures could serve the representation needs of the at-large body of individual Internet users. By contrast, these TOR therefore seem too closely restricted to study of the efficacy of the existing ALAC structures. The reviewers should not conclude from the weakness of these structures that individual participation is unworkable, but rather should evaluate alternative structural mechanisms for representation of individual Internet users in ICANN's work and policy processes. The independent review provides a valuable opportunity for restoring the voice of the individual Internet user to ICANN. The rationale for the ALAC, as described in Article XI, Section 2, 4(a) of the Bylaws, is "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users." The ALAC is intended to provide voice for individual Internet users, replacing an initial structure in which at-large Internet users were to elect half of ICANN's Board. Key questions for the review, therefore, are whether individual Internet users have in fact achieved voice through the activities of ALAC, and whether that voice substitutes adequately for voting representation at the Board level and in Policy Development Processes. Specific additional questions and recommendations follow: PART I. Does the ALAC have a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure? Is the bylaws-stated purpose of ALAC too minimal to provide for public representation and participation within ICANN? Are the ALAC-enabled modes of participation insufficient for individual Internet users to contribute to ICANN? Do individual Internet users suffer from inadequate means by which to make their concerns heard and to receive timely responses to their concerns? Does the complexity of the ALAC structure turn away willing and valuable Internet user participation? Would greater participation, through voting at the GNSO and Board level, increase the incentives to individual Internet user participation and the quality of that participation? Does ICANN need ALAC or a replacement for it? Would individual Internet users be better served by reinstating direct elections? Do individual Internet users feel inadequately represented by ALAC? Have years of delay in achieving real representation frustrated an important part of the at-large Internet-using public? I recommend emphasizing Questions 2,3, and 8-12 in the existing Part I inquiry. PART II. Is there any change in structure or operations that could improve the ALAC's effectiveness? Question 17: Should any of these three structural levels be changed and, if so, how? I recommend specifically that the review consider flattening the layers of the ALAC to reduce both bureaucratic overhead and disincentives to participate through the dilution of opportunities. Does adherence to the ICANN regional configuration unnecessarily fragment and constrain input and participation? Are ALAC's ministerial tasks unduly left to volunteers when they should be delegable to staff at the direction of ALAC? Has ALAC's service to the individual Internet users been hindered by staffers' conflicting interests and responsibilities? Would individuals be better served if ALAC staff operated at the direction of the Committee? How could ALAC and individual Internet users more effectively obtain resources and staff support? Question 31 asks, To what extent have the recommendations of the Ombudsman been followed? Given the intrusive nature of the Ombudsman's inquiry, we should add To what extent have the Ombudsman's processes and recommendations been appropriate? To what extent have tools used and introduced by ALAC served as a model for other ICANN bodies? How often have the Board or GNSO followed ALAC recommendations? How often have they demurred? How often have ALAC contributions had a visible impact on ICANN policymaking? I look forward to assisting in answering these questions as part of the review. Wendy Seltzer Member, Interim At-Large Advisory Committee Attachment: Seltzer_Comments_on_ALAC_Review_Terms_of_Reference_.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 27 09:22:21 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:22:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 04:53:56PM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 32 lines which said: > extrajudicial processes, possible "banning from Internet access" etc. And law-like text (it defines penalties) but not voted by the Parliament. > any truth to this? All true, unfortunately (even if Lauren's text is... more aesthetical than informative). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 27 09:55:37 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:55:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] Why IPv4 address depletion matters (was Re: Reinstate...) In-Reply-To: <20071127133520.71D392202B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> <20071126132020.3BC4C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <20071126221229.A17802202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <20071127133520.71D392202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Nov 27, 2007 4:35 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Do you know if historic data is available somewhere, so that I can > check whether there has been any movement forward recently, or > whether perhaps (as I fear) all that is from several years ago > back when the "Swiss IPv6 Task Force" was active? Yes, good records are publicly available: http://www.ripe.net/rs/ipv6/stats/ripencc.html or ftp ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc -- 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Nov 27 10:03:21 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:03:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> Message-ID: <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Le 27 nov. 07 à 15:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 04:53:56PM +0300, > McTim wrote > a message of 32 lines which said: > >> extrajudicial processes, possible "banning from Internet access" etc. > > And law-like text (it defines penalties) but not voted by the > Parliament. As for now, this agreement is not applicable. It first requires that the regulation authority is created (or that the current authority created for the regulation of DRMs and other technical measures has its powers extended to meet this agreement). An this could only be done by law. And then, this law would probably be challenged before the constitutional council (at least, I hope so, since in France, currently, the constitutionality of a decision can only be tested right after a law is passed, and this could be done only by members of Parliament - well, also by the president, the prime minister, or the president of any of the two parliamentary chambers, but this normally doesn't happen). However, for some years now the French constitutional council has shown that its decisions are more influenced by political considerations than by true constitutional legality.. The other problem with this agreement is the use of filtering techniques, which are more an more used by e.g. video-sharing platforms (like the filters provided by the "Audible magic" company, which are based on blacklisting copyrighted works listed in a database). See e.g. http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3? id_article=187 Those of you who can read French may find the text of the agreement and other related documents on the Frenhc ministry of culture website at: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/index- olivennes231107.htm Finally, one may note that, already in 2004, another "charter" against "digital piracy" was signed between the governement (minister of economy, finance and industry, Sarkozy, now our beloved president; minister of culture and communication; minister delegate to industry), ISPs and IP rightholders and music majors representatives. It's not clear to which extent it has been implemented.. In any case, I'm also interested in Bertrand's comments, as he's a representative of the French government (Stephane and myself being simple citizens...). Best, Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 27 10:26:41 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Innovation - Kiss and Make-Up In-Reply-To: sympa.1196171138.51371.732@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: With all respect to Wolfgang original post and ensuing comments, We have 'Been-there Done-that', Wendy proved that. We need to take it up with the IGF and have the backing of the UN in order to put this right. Why you ask? The primary reason is simply the Internet has out grown ICANN's abilites to adequetly represent the AtLarge. Icann is not designed to handle that. -- On the Far Side: You can Kiss a Frog all you want ... and it will still be a Frog. P.S.: (Bertrand) tried a French-Kiss, still Le Frog. (Veni) tried the Bulgarian-Lip-Lock, still a Frog. (Vittorio) tried the Italian-Tounge-Twister, Mama Mia! its still a Frog. (IGF) tried the Eskimo-Kiss, frostbite but still a Frog. Oh well, what can we do ... rrrribbit ;-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 27 10:27:37 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:27:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Science, Technology,Innovation and ICTs for Development: UNCTAD XII pre-event (6 december, Geneva) In-Reply-To: <200711262047.lAQKlfFR026178@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200711271527.lARFRMfx018788@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, As a matter of clarification, note that the UNCTAD preparatory meeting I mentioned here taking place on 6 December 2007 will be organised in Geneva. Accra is only the venue of the UNCTAD XII Ministerial Conference in April 2008. Best, Philippe _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO - Philippe Dam Envoyé : lundi 26 novembre 2007 21:48 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; 'Renate Bloem' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Science, Technology,Innovation and ICTs for Development: UNCTAD XII pre-event (6december, Geneva) Dear all, Note as well this up coming UNCTAD meeting addressing the overall theme: “Science, Technology, Innovation and ICTs for Development”. This event is organised in preparation to the 12th UNCTAD quadrennial ministerial Conference, taking place in Accra, Ghana in April 2008. See more information at http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942 &lang=1&m=14561&info=not. My understanding is that while closely related to WSIS issue, this meeting is not part of UNCTAD follow up to WSIS. Therefore, only NGOs in consultative status with UNCTAD might be able to participate... We were however informed that other relevant CS representatives could ask for an ad hoc “invitation” to the division organising the event, so that they could be put in the list of participants as invited persons. CONGO would be ready to compile a list of individuals requesting such an invitation. Is there anybody willing to take part in this meeting? Best regards, Ph 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Nov 27 11:00:15 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:00:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <060509F1-9591-4B8B-A995-D2688BB9DF30@psg.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <060509F1-9591-4B8B-A995-D2688BB9DF30@psg.com> Message-ID: <474C3F0F.9040703@wzb.eu> Hi, actually I don't understand the trepidation. It is good to consider the respective pros and con's of nomination committees and elections. I also agree with Wolfgang that we cannot forever assess ALAC on the grounds of its past. What I mind about ALAC is that it doesn't allow for full participation of individuals. ALAC was once regarded as the channels for individual participation in ICANN. Now individual participation is associated with the risk of capture. Is individual participation indeed that dangerous? Most of the people I have seen participating in ALAC do so in their individual capacity. They don't speak on behalf an organization. Isn't it a bit of a sham to restrict participation to organizational members? Regarding the number of ALAC members, the number of actively participating people is pretty low from what I can see. The number of formally accredited ALSs and their members don't reflect the overall acceptance of ALAC. THE LSE report recommended to create one membership organization that would combine NCUC and ALAC. I wholeheartedly agree. Such a membership organization could elect board members without having to wait for a global democracy. jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > With a certain amount of trepidation (though my skin is already rather > thick) I think i will weigh in with a few personal observations. Note, > I am making to claims of fact, except maybe about my own perceptions. > > I was an active IETF participant when ICANN was being formed and was one > of those who was excited about the voting basis of this new > organization. What a wonderful experiment i thought. So i signed up as > a voter, and duly voted. I think I even voted for Karl, but my memory > isn't that good. I like him and respect him, so I probably did. When > voting was abolished, I was outraged. I understood that there had been > flaws in the election process and felt that they should have been > fixed. anyway, I was so outraged that I decided that I would have > nothing further to do with ICANN. > > And for years, i didn't. I remained active in the IETF, got involved in > ICT4D software development, found myself involved in civil society and > ended up in WGIG. > > There i took part in the analysis of ICANN and while I was a supporter > of the IETF way of doing things, did not consider myself a particular > ally of ICANN - in fact outside of a few governments I was probably one > of the the most strident voices for the "ICANN out from US domination" > movement (I support the no governments approach to oversight) and for > demands that ICANN get its act in gear and make new gTLDs available to > the world in massive quantities. As a result I too got the 'put your > action where your mouth is' speech we are all hearing and passing > judgement on, and decided that yes, as a critic I should get involved > and spend a few years seeing if i could do something. the jury is still > out on that - we still don't have gTLDs for the people, whois still > plagues the world and governments are getting closer to dominating the > Internet with every day that passes). > > Anyway, in getting involved, i had to subject myself to the Nomcom, and > while it is a vile experience, and i say this as one of the 'successful > candidates', i see how hard it works to get balance. Is it better then > elections? i don't know but it is different and I believe it is a form > of democracy. Coming from a country where elections are regularly > stolen, I am not sure I am that much of a fan of global (or national) > elections anymore. Perhaps there are more local ways to build democracy > from the bottom-up. And perhaps we are seeing some worthwhile > experiments in that. Another thing on which i think the jury is still out. > > And i have spent a bit of time watching and interacting with ALAC. > > At first I agreed with Karl, it was a pampered pet, with little real > substance acting under the directions of a dominant staffer. But over > the last years it has begun finding its own way. It is around a year > since it stopped being an interim ALAC and began its real existence. And > it is starting to find way to make its voice heard. It is also composed > of many earnest concerned people (not flocks or hordes, but many > individuals). And though they still are under the thumb of a dominant > staffer, they are fighting back. And this is a good thing. > > I tend to think that the ALAC now is not the interim ALAC of the past > and we need to stop looking at it as if it was. It is something new > that should be given time to prove itself. Yes, the structure is > complicated (gothic even), but that is what you get when you try to > build democracy from the ground up as opposed to using elections that > rely on sound bites with little substance. And yes, we still need to > learn how to structure this bottom up democracy more effectively so that > it can be an effective voice and so that it can throw off the control of > a domineering staff. I personally advocate an ALAC that asserts itself > enough as a civil society voice that it becomes the real counter balance > to the GAC and whose voice the Board must listen too, or else. I > believe this is possible, but again, the jury is still out. > > What is clear to me, is that this is a valid experiment in democratic > action and that the nomcom and ALAC are viable parts of that > structure. Will it work better then elections where we elect the > prettiest and most charming fellow out there (see, i really am fond of > Karl), remains to be seen, but I for one hope so. > > Are massive numbers of people joining the organzations that make up > ALAC? I don't know and it might be good to have an idea of how big some > of these ALSes and RALOs are and what sort of growth rates they > experience over the next few years. Then again what I think we we need > are committed local internet users who self organize to make local, > regional and global improvement to the Internet, and that is what i > think we have. For now, I think ALAC deserves a chance to show what it > can evolve into and whether it can do the job. > > a. > > > On 27 nov 2007, at 04.56, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> >>> It is impossible for me to reply to this post without taking issue >>> with huge >>> chunks of what's in it. Just as a quick example. These two sentences, >>> stated as facts: "The ALAC's >>> failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves." >>> This simply isn't true. But what's more problematic is that it has very >>> little to do with the issue of voting. >> >> You were a writer, a good one, I've seen you confront bad ideas. >> >> I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. >> Show how masses of people are running to it and that its processes >> actually form a force that can hold ICANN accountable for its actions. >> Show how it is a better vehicle for the formation of ideas and a seed >> for the formation of consensus than any group of people who might >> happen to gather in a non-ALAC, such as this one. >> >> I claim (and firmly believe) that people are shunning the ALAC in >> droves. Disprove me. Show how, even after years of existence, ICANN >> staff support, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of life support >> that, the number of people who are actually involved in the ALAC would >> fill more than the smallest of small rooms - as compared to the nearly >> 200,000 people who tried to sign up for ICANN's year 2000 elections. >> >> You claim that the ALAC has "little to do with voting". If so, then >> how does one answer the fact that ICANN created the ALAC explicitly as >> a means to end the election of directors? >> >> On the other hand, ICANN holds the ALAC out as a reason why members of >> the internet community should be satisfied and not ask for voting. >> >> Thus, to my mind, the conclusion is quite the opposite, that, in fact, >> the ALAC has everything to do with voting, or rather, to be more >> precise, it has everything to do with non-voting. >> >> --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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Nov 27 11:30:35 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:30:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: Pretty much agree with Bret and Avri. It's taken along time to get all the ALAC structures in place, now's time to see if they work. Right now they are not working, information's not flowing down (from ICANN, ALAC etc) and generally there's no mechanism for users to contribute back. These's no means for "bottom-up" to happen. But that might be fixed (I know there are people trying to fix it...) (Jacqueline, if you read this... I know a few of the 100+ ALS do distribute information, 90% or more do not.) Anyway, ALAC's not dead yet. The elections did not work. North America was OK (if we ignore the massive imbalance in voting pool. Likely permanent US seat, Canada and a few other disenfranchised.) Asia Pacific was a a nationalistic mess. It was not a fair election in the AP region. Latin America dominated by a national campaign in the country with the largest population (significantly largest population). Others didn't stand a chance. Europe, the person elected seems to have been strongly supported by a special interest campaign. Africa, the voting pool was so small as to make the election almost irrelevant. And I mean no disrespect to those elected, some left a good legacy, most seemed to work hard at their tasks. Karl, you were a Director, but you had no constituency and you didn't make any attempt to communicate with the "at large". Or perhaps I'm wrong and you'll show a set of mailing lists archives where you and the other 4 at large directors solicited comments on the issues you were discussing and voting on. We had a vote and no voice, not your fault, you weren't given the right tools. ALAC might do better, *might*. Had ICANN listened to At-Large Study Committee (Chuck Costello was right) and tried elections again following an improved process --pretty much the conclusion of both the ICANN at large study and NAIS group (I was also a member)-- then things might have worked out. I believe elections were worth trying to get right. But that was then, suspect over time annual elections would have been too much of a drain on ICANN resources and on the community. Only have to look at how any group (this caucus, ALAC) obsesses over selecting people and as a result doesn't get any real work done. Also perhaps too expensive for ICANN to do properly. Also very much agree with Avri -- ALAC should look to the GAC as a model for its power. Worry less about having a couple of board members, instead have the bylaws say your opinions must be taken into account, see h through k. Shame this discussion's not happening on the ALAC mailing list, subscribe: , Adam >Karl Auerbach wrote: >>I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. > >This is a fair question. If I had to answer it, I'd say that two >significant contributions of the ALAC are: > >(1) the ALAC appointments to the Nominating Committee. The ALAC >appoints 5 members of the NomComm, and the Directors and SO >appointees from the NomComm have been, by and large, quite good for >ICANN, and, > >(2) involvement of new organizations and individuals in ICANN via >the ALS and RALO structures. The recent outreach efforts over the >last 18 months have been quite good and resulted in an infusion of >new blood into the ICANN community. > >Is that enough to say it's been a "success"? I don't think so, but >it may keep it out of "failure" territory. > > Bret > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 11:12:14 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:12:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] web: Ten things holding back tech Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071127081140.03433008@peoplewho.org> http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,39291080,00.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Tue Nov 27 12:32:51 2007 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:32:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: <474C1586.9090303@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <474C1586.9090303@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <713F981A147C48A290BD460A2BAF7AD8@RaquelPC> Although it was my first IGF and this is my first post here: I believe that a "theme per day" would be a good start to organize the multiple activities during IGF3.0. For example, the Day 1 can be CRITICAL INTERNET RESOURCES, divided by a main session first, then the workshop, best practice, etc.. And: The important thing is that each one can not be at the same time!!! So it is possible to attend all meetings or select those that you like!! I was very frustrated because more than once I had to choose between 2 meetings at the same time. And: During the selection, if there is more than one proposal identical or similar, you should get them together. I also believe this schedule will give each meeting more time and participation, etc.and above all, I hope this procedure can avoid us from hearing the same subject over and over again. At last: the remote participation and reports are very welcome... Thanks! Raquel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralf Bendrath" To: ; "Adam Peake" Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 > Adam Peake schrieb: >> Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? > To my understanding, there was a general feeling that the first "main > themes" have been discussed enough, and that we need to focus on new ones. > The emerging issues session for example showed that there is an increasing > need to discuss anonymity, identification and privacy on the internet - I > guess this would be a good new theme. Or the whole human rights theme, > which as Max has emphazised could even be linked to tangible outcomes > integrated by the Bill of Rights DC. > > I also have the feeling that people are getting sick of just sitting in a > room and passively listening to powerpoint presentations for hours. This > is not what you call "workshop" in natural language. Of all the events I > was involved in, the Privacy Coalition meeting got the best feedback by > far, because we had no presentations whatsoever, but instead asked people > about their ideas and where they were willing to contribute and work with > us. The result was a very engaged mix of discussing, brainstorming and > volunteering - and this at 8:30 in the morning on the last day! > > Maybe this is my general sentiment: The IGF must focus on outcomes now > (not necessarily stuff adopted in the plenary, but outcomes of workshops, > coalitions, best practice collections, etc.), otherwise it will turn into > just another conference. And I have the feeling that most people trust > each other enough after two IGF meetings and numerous consultations that > they really want to collaborate. > > 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 bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Nov 27 13:11:30 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:11:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Shame this discussion's not happening on the ALAC mailing list Another problem with the ALAC is the fact that too many discussions among the ALAC's members happen on the ALAC's internal, non-public mailing list. (This was a problem too when I was the ALAC's GNSO Liaison and privy to the internal list.) I don't think it's malicious or a sign that anyone is trying to hide anything, just a bad habit that needs to be broken. I have the same criticism of the ICANN Board, btw, but I'd love to see the ALAC be a model for how to have policy conversations in public, much like the way the GNSO showed how to have meetings recorded and disseminated by mp3. -- Bret -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html ------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2974 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Nov 27 13:40:59 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:40:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: Hi Adam, Le 27 nov. 07 à 17:30, Adam Peake a écrit : > [...] It's taken along time to get all the ALAC structures in > place, now's time to see if they work. So, ICANN and supporters set up this with no single clue of whether this could work or not? > Right now they are not working, [...] > > The elections did not work. [...] So, neither ALAC nor the elections have worked. Isn't it time to think that the reasons for which they haven't worked is linked to ICANN global failure, and to really start considering some other construction?! > ALAC should look to the GAC as a model for its power. Worry less > about having a couple of board members, instead have the bylaws say > your opinions must be taken into account [...] It's not working, in particular it's not representative, and on top of this it should have more power? I'm wondering why people on this list spend their time explaining how and why things are not working, and still don't want to give up on ICANN as it is. Too much investment already? Other interests? Fear that things get worse? What exactly? (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently benefit from ICANN in one way or another want to keep their privileges. What about others?) Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Tue Nov 27 14:13:02 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: Meryem, this: > (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently benefit from > ICANN in one way or another want to keep their privileges. What about > others?) is really the core of your argument, isn't it? You do not see a benefit in increased competition, gradual introduction of new gTLDs, increased coordination between the gTLD and the ccTLD space, a framework for a level of cooperation among RIRs not provided by the NRO, and between the different subsystems for the subset of critical Internet resources in this specific mandate, operation of the IANA function with respect to gTLDs, ccTLDs, protocol parameters, IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, gTLD data escrow to protect consumers from registry/ar breakdown's fallout, IDNs in the root, presence of technical, business, academic and civil society from the developing world which is not mediated or impeded by their governments, etc. etc. etc. Right? Then your argument is that the hard-working Vittorios, Avris, Brets, Jacquelines, and so many others involved in the ALAC, and all others who actually make the system run, are only doing it to defend "privileges"? Or do you include among "those who benefit from ICANN" the many businesses, social organizations, and individuals who benefit from what is described three paragraphs above? What are their "privileges"? A stable, expanding DNS, IP allocation system, IANA, protocol-parameter space, etc., are "privileges"? I guess this point will benefit from your clarification in order for each participant to decide what is actually the substance of the debate. Alejandro Pisanty > > Best, > Meryem > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 27 14:23:39 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:23:39 +1100 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <098101c8312b$0b512080$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hi Adam, a few thoughts I think each theme chosen could have a continual running thread throughout the conference up until closing sessions - indeed for a lot of people specializing in say security or access this would allow more in depth analysis in their chosen areas. If this was done with plenary updates on specific subjects staggered, people could chose to stay with themes or go back to overview sessions - or of course chop and change (may not have explained that well but I could draw it out if necessary) I also recommend a common break time at lunch for essential networking (in Rio it was hard to find time for lunch or between sessions). I don't think there were too many sessions - rather too many clashes between sessions with similar themes because of the way all sessions on a theme were to be completed in a time frame before a plenary on the same subject 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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 27 November 2007 21:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 Hi, A stocktaking session will be held in Geneva, hopefully on 25 February for open consultations and an expected meeting of the advisory group (AG) on February 26-27. A second open consultation in planned for May 13, again likely followed by a meeting of the advisory group. These dates aren't yet firm enough for the secretariat to announce publicly, however I think they are 99% certain... Some tasks: When secretary general renewed the AG on August 20 he asked the group to suggest means for rotating its membership ("based on recommendations from the various interested groups"). Thoughts? Current list of members here . I hope the "pain" will be shared equally among stakeholders. This would also be an opportunity to suggest better balance among stakeholders. We should also be considering means to enhance transparency and flow of information. AG's immediate reaction to the secretary general's request was to publish notes of its closed meeting. Was this adequate? Given the pretty rough and ready reaction at the time, if these notes were improved --for example the ICANN board's doing a good job of reporting -- would such information be adequate? Observers are another possibility, but there are costs/problems. My main concern with observers is the AG already works too slowly, I think it would do less in a larger setting. And it makes Chatham house rule essentially meaningless (like it or not, Chatham house rule is important for governments in particular.) What worked well in Rio, what worked less well, what went badly? Badly: funding for participation. People mentioned the schedule was too crammed with activities, no time to stop and talk. How can we take open call for workshops etc, and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard process.) Were the best practise sessions useful? Were the open sessions useful? Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have been well received. We need to be realistic about what can be changed (in my opinion.) I think there's a feeling the main sessions were generally flat compared to Athens -- very few requests to make comments/ask question, very little remote participation, the main session room half empty while the workshops quite well attended (perhaps if there had been 2000 people things might have been different, the problem might not have been content but about announcing the content early enough so people could plan to attend.) Might be possible to keep main sessions to the first and last days, with workshops in the middle and have workshops report back and discuss substantively on the final day? If we can agree on themes early next year (February?) a call for workshops could go out early (March), we could start thinking about speakers early (and finding funds for those that need), publish a meaningful programme early (June?) so people decide if they want to attend. etc. Funding - can we help? I'm sure there's more. If we want the 2008 process to go better than 2007 we should begin discussing now. 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: 26/11/2007 10:50 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: 26/11/2007 10:50 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Nov 27 15:07:49 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:07:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> Hi Karl You indicarte that Internet users have "shunned At Large in droves" But as soon as there was information about At Large and ICANN being published in the English speaking Caribbean, there was a great interest and a lot of the people who are interested in ICT have joined and are quite enthusiastic. Groups to which I belong get emails every day on different lists asking - what is this thing I just heard about and how do I get involved... SO maybe the users to whom you refer are different kinds of users from the ones I know? Or maybe they aren't shunning it as much as not yet knowing about it? I can say that there is a lot more interest and excitement about it now in Trinidad than there was in 2000 - there was nothing at all about ICANN nor the elections that I can find in the newspaper archives, but there's loads of information now, since the LAC RALO formation. The structure to me doesn't seem to be isolating us from ICANN, but rather I feel that the RALO structure has invited us into the ICANN space. So I think that the absolute terms that you use should be tempered, as there are other internet users who do not feel as you do. So maybe you can start saying "many internet users", or " Internet users in North America" rather than indicating that you speak for all internet users. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 16:31 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation Kieren McCarthy wrote: > So as an interesting historical review, the concern with the voting last > time was the fact that anyone could get an email address and so it was open > to manipulation. This boggyman argument that the election could be "manipulated" is an argument that is being used not to find the errors and fix them but rather to prevent any attempt to hold elections at all. Every election process can be manipulated - I work in the area of open voting for really high stakes political elections and I never ceased to be amazed at all the methods that can be used to coerce voters or affect results. In other words, ICANN is using the demand for perfection in voting as an enemy of any adequate system. It is odd that ICANN has substituted the ALAC, a system that is far more manipulable, indeed it comes pre-manipulated. > The idea was anyone who was a domain name holder could vote. But then people > felt this was power in the hand of landowners. You have to get your history right. There was a 100% distinct and separate move to form a "constituency" (just like those for intellectual property, registries, registrars, etc) within ICANN for those who own domain names, the IDNO. The petition can be seen at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm ICANN did, as ICANN does, simply ignored this rather valid petition to form a new constituency. This constituency was open to everyone who could demonstrate ownership of a domain name - even ibm.com or att.com could serve as the foundation for ownership if an individual person could be ascertained who had enough vested in himself/herself that it constituted ownership. The IDNO did use an election system. But the IDNO should not be at all confused with the ICANN election system. > What's interesting of course is that now if you based votes on domain names, > you would get possibly an even worse bias because of the recent arrival of > the domainer market. With some companies owning tens of thousands of domains > - and possessing the technology to use each one individually, an election > could be entirely dominated by which way one or two individuals heading > these domainer companies decided to vote. Well, since we are continuing to go down the road blazed by the IDNO, take a look at our system as described at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htm - We allowed only one vote per person no matter how many domain names were owned. There is a very nice property about using domain name ownership as a foundation for *constituency* membership - and that property is that domain names tend to be purchased using credit mechanisms, thus there is an identity forged by a banking relationship that is a) paid for by the banks and b) tends to be of longer term or at least more trustable than a mere e-mail identity. That helped to solve the "on the internet nobody knows you are a dog" problem that seems send many of ICANN's anti-election people into convulsions. > It strikes me that this inability to pin down an individual to a single vote > is not something that is going to go away. There has to be some kind of > real-world verification so that multiple votes require people to physically > do something. Yes, as was demonstrated by the ICANN person registering and voting twice. That was the only known instance of such behaviour in the year 2000 election. ICANN spent a chunk of money (not nearly as much money as it has pumped into the ALAC life support system) to validate somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 for the year 2000 election. In its headlong panic to prevent any further elections ICANN simply abandoned that investment. One ICANNnite even went so far as to encrypt the data and kept the key to himself (and he is no longer with ICANN) so that it could not be opened for any subsequent use, including a subsequent round of elections. (Such a commitment to privacy is admirable - too bad it is not equally found in the context of "whois".) Had ICANN built upon that investment we would today have had three more rounds of elections, each one would have built a better identified and more robust electorate and user-built information/conversation systems. Instead we have ICANN funded playpens. And are these immune to capture. No. In fact they are even more easily captured than elections. For example, as soon as the intellectual property industry feels a need to do so, the ALAC will become filled and run by intellectual property lawyers, paralegals, and clients who are cajoled into joining. The reason that the IP has not done this is that they can see that the ALAC is a poor vehicle for exerting any pressure on ICANN's decisions and that they already have a much better vehicle, a polished Rolls-Royce formal constituency deep within ICANN as compared to the broken down bicycle that is the ALAC. > But to get back to the ALAC/RALO/ALS system. I'm surprised that Wolfgang is > so damning of it as a "stupid superstructure". I know the history is torrid, > but as I explained in another email, I see the structure itself as a pretty > good construct (Vittorio had some interesting real-world observations about > it). It is a good construct. That is if the purpose is to create isolation between the community of internet users and ICANN. As I have mentioned previously, the ALAC system bears an uncanny resemblance to the hierarchy of soviet committees that formed the "democratic" system of the old USSR. Isolation of ICANN-central from internet users is but one of the two foundation stones of the ALAC. The other is a very paternalistic view that internet users are mere children who are incapable of organizing themselves or informing themselves. So ICANN provides, and even funds, safe warm places, well supplied with milk and cookies, so that internet users can play with toy steering wheels that provide no real control, no means of holding ICANN's inner circle accountable. The ALAC's failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves. Internet users recognize the futility of accepting a powerless position in a contrived and paternalistic system. Even after years of ICANN money pumped directly into its veins and ICANN hired cheerleaders waving their pom poms to create excitement, the ALAC doesn't even rate a faint shadow of the vitality that was achieved by internet users in just a few months in year 2000. > I have a serious question about this. Is there anything in the structure > that actually prevents or restricts ideas from the wider community from > going through review and ending up as firm statements or policies? In nearly every deliberative body a well known technique for killing a proposal is to send it through a sequence of committees. So to answer your question, yes there is "a chance", but practical experience with deliberative systems has demonstrated time and time again that the ALAC method, a hierarchy of committees, is an effective means of reducing that chance. > [As an aside - is this the right list/forum for this sort of discussion? I > am more than happy to set up a forum on ICANN's public participation site if > people would prefer this conversation taken off this list.] This is a good place for this because it is important that no new body of internet governance repeat ICANN's mistakes. ICANN has defined itself to be a regulator of domain name business practices for the protection of a few incumbent TLD registries and the intellectual property business. We can thank the internet gods that ICANN has abandoned its intended job of making sure that the actual knobs and levers of DNS are operated so that DNS query packets are efficiently turned into DNS reply packets without bias against any query source or query subject. That job is open and we will have to form another body of internet governance to do that job - it is an important job that is presently being untended. And that body, along with bodies to help deal with the provision of adequate end-to-end service levels and the like, are yet to be formed. In the interest of learning and improving, ICANN provides a bright red sign that says "Proceed at your own risk: This way has been tried and found wanting." > I also think there is an important and interesting discussion to be had > over: what is the role and what should be the role of the individual within > ICANN's processes? The individual is the atomic unit of internet governance. We should not stray from principle that governance arises from the collective opinion and consent of the people. The question should not be "what role for individuals" - the answer to that is obvious. Rather the question should be "what role for legal fictions such as corporations and governments?" See my note "Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road for Internet Governance" at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Nov 27 15:20:27 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:20:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <060509F1-9591-4B8B-A995-D2688BB9DF30@psg.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <060509F1-9591-4B8B-A995-D2688BB9DF30@psg.com> Message-ID: <01ee01c83132$f4cdc130$de694390$@com> Hi Avri Thanks This was very well said. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 06:21 To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation Hi, With a certain amount of trepidation (though my skin is already rather thick) I think i will weigh in with a few personal observations. Note, I am making to claims of fact, except maybe about my own perceptions. I was an active IETF participant when ICANN was being formed and was one of those who was excited about the voting basis of this new organization. What a wonderful experiment i thought. So i signed up as a voter, and duly voted. I think I even voted for Karl, but my memory isn't that good. I like him and respect him, so I probably did. When voting was abolished, I was outraged. I understood that there had been flaws in the election process and felt that they should have been fixed. anyway, I was so outraged that I decided that I would have nothing further to do with ICANN. And for years, i didn't. I remained active in the IETF, got involved in ICT4D software development, found myself involved in civil society and ended up in WGIG. There i took part in the analysis of ICANN and while I was a supporter of the IETF way of doing things, did not consider myself a particular ally of ICANN - in fact outside of a few governments I was probably one of the the most strident voices for the "ICANN out from US domination" movement (I support the no governments approach to oversight) and for demands that ICANN get its act in gear and make new gTLDs available to the world in massive quantities. As a result I too got the 'put your action where your mouth is' speech we are all hearing and passing judgement on, and decided that yes, as a critic I should get involved and spend a few years seeing if i could do something. the jury is still out on that - we still don't have gTLDs for the people, whois still plagues the world and governments are getting closer to dominating the Internet with every day that passes). Anyway, in getting involved, i had to subject myself to the Nomcom, and while it is a vile experience, and i say this as one of the 'successful candidates', i see how hard it works to get balance. Is it better then elections? i don't know but it is different and I believe it is a form of democracy. Coming from a country where elections are regularly stolen, I am not sure I am that much of a fan of global (or national) elections anymore. Perhaps there are more local ways to build democracy from the bottom-up. And perhaps we are seeing some worthwhile experiments in that. Another thing on which i think the jury is still out. And i have spent a bit of time watching and interacting with ALAC. At first I agreed with Karl, it was a pampered pet, with little real substance acting under the directions of a dominant staffer. But over the last years it has begun finding its own way. It is around a year since it stopped being an interim ALAC and began its real existence. And it is starting to find way to make its voice heard. It is also composed of many earnest concerned people (not flocks or hordes, but many individuals). And though they still are under the thumb of a dominant staffer, they are fighting back. And this is a good thing. I tend to think that the ALAC now is not the interim ALAC of the past and we need to stop looking at it as if it was. It is something new that should be given time to prove itself. Yes, the structure is complicated (gothic even), but that is what you get when you try to build democracy from the ground up as opposed to using elections that rely on sound bites with little substance. And yes, we still need to learn how to structure this bottom up democracy more effectively so that it can be an effective voice and so that it can throw off the control of a domineering staff. I personally advocate an ALAC that asserts itself enough as a civil society voice that it becomes the real counter balance to the GAC and whose voice the Board must listen too, or else. I believe this is possible, but again, the jury is still out. What is clear to me, is that this is a valid experiment in democratic action and that the nomcom and ALAC are viable parts of that structure. Will it work better then elections where we elect the prettiest and most charming fellow out there (see, i really am fond of Karl), remains to be seen, but I for one hope so. Are massive numbers of people joining the organzations that make up ALAC? I don't know and it might be good to have an idea of how big some of these ALSes and RALOs are and what sort of growth rates they experience over the next few years. Then again what I think we we need are committed local internet users who self organize to make local, regional and global improvement to the Internet, and that is what i think we have. For now, I think ALAC deserves a chance to show what it can evolve into and whether it can do the job. a. On 27 nov 2007, at 04.56, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >> It is impossible for me to reply to this post without taking issue >> with huge >> chunks of what's in it. Just as a quick example. These two >> sentences, stated as facts: "The ALAC's >> failure is obvious. Internet users have shunned it in droves." >> This simply isn't true. But what's more problematic is that it has >> very >> little to do with the issue of voting. > > You were a writer, a good one, I've seen you confront bad ideas. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove > me. Show how masses of people are running to it and that its > processes actually form a force that can hold ICANN accountable for > its actions. Show how it is a better vehicle for the formation of > ideas and a seed for the formation of consensus than any group of > people who might happen to gather in a non-ALAC, such as this one. > > I claim (and firmly believe) that people are shunning the ALAC in > droves. Disprove me. Show how, even after years of existence, > ICANN staff support, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of life > support that, the number of people who are actually involved in the > ALAC would fill more than the smallest of small rooms - as compared > to the nearly 200,000 people who tried to sign up for ICANN's year > 2000 elections. > > You claim that the ALAC has "little to do with voting". If so, > then how does one answer the fact that ICANN created the ALAC > explicitly as a means to end the election of directors? > > On the other hand, ICANN holds the ALAC out as a reason why members > of the internet community should be satisfied and not ask for voting. > > Thus, to my mind, the conclusion is quite the opposite, that, in > fact, the ALAC has everything to do with voting, or rather, to be > more precise, it has everything to do with non-voting. > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Nov 27 15:35:38 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:35:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <01f801c83135$143d5290$3cb7f7b0$@com> Karl, you wrote: > I claim (and firmly believe) that the ALAC is a failure. Disprove me. Well, first we need to agree on the parameters that constitute success and failure, and I think that we won't agree on this, based on your next line: > Show how masses of people are running to it and that its processes > actually form a force that can hold ICANN accountable for its actions. Cause I don't agree that that's one criterion to judge success. > Show how it is a better vehicle for the formation of ideas and a seed > for the formation of consensus than any group of people who might > happen > to gather in a non-ALAC, such as this one. > Well, I've seen this happen in the regional groupings and sub-regional groupings. Honestly, before LACRALO formed, we had one venue for discussion, but it was rather moribund. ALAC activity has got more and more people involved and the discussions are very lively and very energetic, and from those discussions we have got a lot of ideas and agreement on Caribbean issues. > I claim (and firmly believe) that people are shunning the ALAC in > droves. Disprove me. Show how, even after years of existence, ICANN > staff support, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of life support > that, the number of people who are actually involved in the ALAC would > fill more than the smallest of small rooms - as compared to the nearly > 200,000 people who tried to sign up for ICANN's year 2000 elections. > Signing up for an election is easy and takes very little effort. Getting involved on a volunteer basis takes much more effort. This comparison is mangoes and oranges. So I wouldn't use this as a criterion for the success or failure either. > > On the other hand, ICANN holds the ALAC out as a reason why members of > the internet community should be satisfied and not ask for voting. Does it? And obviously if that is really so, it isn't working - see this long and intense discussion... Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Nov 27 16:25:00 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:25:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Thanks for this, I had heard elsewhere that it was not necessarily a done deal yet. (Association of Audionauts hasn't yet weighed in... Are you familiar with Jean-Baptiste Soufron?) Another question I heard elsewhere is: does the deep packet inspection violate EU privacy laws? Would love to get an answer to that. Perhaps Wolfgang might know? Bottom line, yes this is distinctly alarming. Then again, it could simply lead to P2P developers designing encrypted distributed-P2P applications to foil the DPI. Would France then interfere with the application whole-hog, ala Comcast and BitTorrent? Dan At 4:03 PM +0100 11/27/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Le 27 nov. 07 à 15:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit : > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 04:53:56PM +0300, >> McTim wrote >> a message of 32 lines which said: >> >>> extrajudicial processes, possible "banning from Internet access" etc. >> >> And law-like text (it defines penalties) but not voted by the >> Parliament. > >As for now, this agreement is not applicable. It first requires that >the regulation authority is created (or that the current authority >created for the regulation of DRMs and other technical measures has >its powers extended to meet this agreement). An this could only be >done by law. >And then, this law would probably be challenged before the >constitutional council (at least, I hope so, since in France, >currently, the constitutionality of a decision can only be tested >right after a law is passed, and this could be done only by members >of Parliament - well, also by the president, the prime minister, or >the president of any of the two parliamentary chambers, but this >normally doesn't happen). >However, for some years now the French constitutional council has >shown that its decisions are more influenced by political >considerations than by true constitutional legality.. > >The other problem with this agreement is the use of filtering >techniques, which are more an more used by e.g. video-sharing >platforms (like the filters provided by the "Audible magic" company, >which are based on blacklisting copyrighted works listed in a >database). See e.g. http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3? >id_article=187 > >Those of you who can read French may find the text of the agreement >and other related documents on the Frenhc ministry of culture website >at: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/index- >olivennes231107.htm > >Finally, one may note that, already in 2004, another "charter" >against "digital piracy" was signed between the governement (minister >of economy, finance and industry, Sarkozy, now our beloved president; >minister of culture and communication; minister delegate to >industry), ISPs and IP rightholders and music majors representatives. >It's not clear to which extent it has been implemented.. > >In any case, I'm also interested in Bertrand's comments, as he's a >representative of the French government (Stephane and myself being >simple citizens...). > >Best, >Meryem > >-- >Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org >IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire >40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Nov 27 18:29:56 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: Le 27 nov. 07 à 20:13, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : > Meryem, > > this: > >> (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently >> benefit from ICANN in one way or another want to keep their >> privileges. What about others?) > > is really the core of your argument, isn't it? No. I was not making an argument in this message actually. I was asking a question. > You do not see a benefit in increased competition, gradual > introduction of new gTLDs, increased coordination between the gTLD > and the ccTLD space, a framework for a level of cooperation among > RIRs not provided by the NRO, and between the different subsystems > for the subset of critical Internet resources in this specific > mandate, operation of the IANA function with respect to gTLDs, > ccTLDs, protocol parameters, IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, gTLD data > escrow to protect consumers from registry/ar breakdown's fallout, > IDNs in the root, presence of technical, business, academic and > civil society from the developing world which is not mediated or > impeded by their governments, etc. etc. etc. Wow! God bless ICANN. Without it, we cannot have all this, then? And before it was set up, we couldn't even dream of all this, right? I wont even comment on your last sentence, and what it reveals ("developing world governments can only *impede* the presence of their technical, business, academic and civil society"). Simply agree with you that the introduction of new gTLDs is *very* gradual.. > Then your argument is that the hard-working Vittorios, Avris, > Brets, Jacquelines, and so many others involved in the ALAC, and > all others who actually make the system run, are only doing it to > defend "privileges"? Et voila.. I ask "what about others?", and that's the only way you've found to answer? It would probably better if you don't answer instead of the concerned persons, BTW. > Or do you include among "those who benefit from ICANN" the many > businesses, social organizations, and individuals who benefit from > what is described three paragraphs above? What are their > "privileges"? A stable, expanding DNS, IP allocation system, IANA, > protocol-parameter space, etc., are "privileges"? God bless ICANN, once again. Since everything's perfect, why are we having such discussions? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Tue Nov 27 18:48:48 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: Meryem, at this level of discourse it is proper that you go back to your Minitel. A nice, closed, government-controlled/guaranteed environment in which you do not need to be confronted with an opinion that varies from the one you hold, no need for open standards, no need for people of diverse views to come together and actually build something that works; just wait for the providers to do it for you. A neat, Cartesian, "clean, well-lighted place" (horrible things happened outside it but never mind.) Having vented off: We now know the many flaws you recognize in ICANN. To the best of what I can gather, many of the flaws you see derive from a lack of working knowledge of the organization and its evolution and are strongly tinted by prejudice. It is your privilege to say they aren't. So, exercise: What do you recognize in ICANN that is positive? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:56 +0100 > From: Meryem Marzouki > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > > > Le 27 nov. 07 à 20:13, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : > >> Meryem, >> >> this: >> >>> (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently benefit from >>> ICANN in one way or another want to keep their privileges. What about >>> others?) >> >> is really the core of your argument, isn't it? > > No. I was not making an argument in this message actually. I was asking a > question. > >> You do not see a benefit in increased competition, gradual introduction of >> new gTLDs, increased coordination between the gTLD and the ccTLD space, a >> framework for a level of cooperation among RIRs not provided by the NRO, >> and between the different subsystems for the subset of critical Internet >> resources in this specific mandate, operation of the IANA function with >> respect to gTLDs, ccTLDs, protocol parameters, IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, >> gTLD data escrow to protect consumers from registry/ar breakdown's fallout, >> IDNs in the root, presence of technical, business, academic and civil >> society from the developing world which is not mediated or impeded by their >> governments, etc. etc. etc. > > Wow! God bless ICANN. Without it, we cannot have all this, then? And before > it was set up, we couldn't even dream of all this, right? I wont even comment > on your last sentence, and what it reveals ("developing world governments can > only *impede* the presence of their technical, business, academic and civil > society"). Simply agree with you that the introduction of new gTLDs is *very* > gradual.. > >> Then your argument is that the hard-working Vittorios, Avris, Brets, >> Jacquelines, and so many others involved in the ALAC, and all others who >> actually make the system run, are only doing it to defend "privileges"? > > Et voila.. I ask "what about others?", and that's the only way you've found > to answer? It would probably better if you don't answer instead of the > concerned persons, BTW. > >> Or do you include among "those who benefit from ICANN" the many businesses, >> social organizations, and individuals who benefit from what is described >> three paragraphs above? What are their "privileges"? A stable, expanding >> DNS, IP allocation system, IANA, protocol-parameter space, etc., are >> "privileges"? > > God bless ICANN, once again. Since everything's perfect, why are we having > such discussions? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Nov 27 19:17:06 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:17:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] 29 Nov. Bilan et perspectives du Forum de la Gouvernance de l'Internet de Rio, Message-ID: <474CB382.70001@mdpi.net> /Local event in Paris, France/ *Forum de la Gouvernance de l'Internet de Rio * * Une Semaine Après * *Bilan, Perspectives * *_Réunion d'information_ * *Jeudi 29 novembre 2007 17h30 * dans les locaux de l'* ENSTA* (amphi Ferber) * * - Faits marquants - Retour sur les sessions organisées par Eurolinc - Coulisses carioca - Actions Eurolinc en 2008 - Préparation de l'IGF 2008 (New Delhi) * * *Réunion ouverte à tous, merci de diffuser largement cette invitation * Un pot de l'amitié clôturera nos débats. / Comment venir : /*ENSTA * /32 Boulevard Victor, 75739 Paris 15 - se trouve à égale distance des stations *Porte de Versailles *(ligne 12 direction Mairie d'Issy), et *Balard *(terminus de la ligne 8). Le tramway T3 (Pont du Garigliano - porte d'Ivry) s'arrête devant l'ENSTA (station *Desnouettes*). Pas de parking sauf ceux de la Porte de Versailles situés juste à côté mais une station Vélib juste en face. Je suis perdu : 06 83 69 54 60 www.eurolinc.eu /Invitation en attachée ( PDF ) / / *PROGRAMME * - *INSCRIPTIONS * * * -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 31128 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 5929 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 199692 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF-Rio-ensta.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56802 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: file:///home/muguet/tmp/nsmail-2.asc URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Nov 27 19:18:34 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:18:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Le 27 nov. 07 à 22:25, Dan Krimm a écrit : > Another question I heard elsewhere is: does the deep packet inspection > violate EU privacy laws? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "deep packet inspection" here? What I can tell you is that French data protection law, when it has been revised in 2004, has granted new powers to IP right holders: it has allowed collecting societies to create private records of rights infringers through the collection of their IP addresses in P2P networks. This has not been found unconstitutional.. because there is still the need for a legal order to get the personal details corresponding to these IP addresses from ISPs. To my knowledge, what IP collecting societies has been doing is: mark some bait files, share them on P2P networks, and trace them as well as IP addresses of users who download or upload them in their turn. In case you're interested in more details (in English), you may refer to the 'French Republic' chapter of the annual EPIC "Privacy and Human Rights" worldwide survey: as I'm the one updating this chapter yearly, you'll find there most of what I can tell on this issue. The real issue here is the status of the IP address: is it a personal data? It seems that it is not anymore, at least in France (see http:// www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=188 for quick comments on latest developments). > Bottom line, yes this is distinctly alarming. Then again, it could > simply > lead to P2P developers designing encrypted distributed-P2P > applications to > foil the DPI. Frankly, I don't think that this race is a solution (further encryption then further criminalization, etc.). The only solution would be an adapted economic model to the online distribution of music and videos (a la 'legal licence' or flatfee), but there is still a long way to go.. Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Nov 27 19:47:19 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <40EAAED2-34ED-411D-A9BF-5C76BF3B2735@ras.eu.org> A la Kieren: "Ad hominem attack". But nevermind: I'm not impressed, and I shut up when I decide to, not when coarse intimidation is tried. I'm wondering why such anger? Why the mere critic of ICANN is provoking such extreme and insulting reactions? Meryem PS. When you'll run short of French caricatures, just let me know. I'll tell you know what's my other citizenship/culture/origin, so that you'll be able to find in another folklore some hopefully more original insults. Le 28 nov. 07 à 00:48, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : > Meryem, > > at this level of discourse it is proper that you go back to your > Minitel. A nice, closed, government-controlled/guaranteed > environment in which you do not need to be confronted with an > opinion that varies from the one you hold, no need for open > standards, no need for people of diverse views to come together and > actually build something that works; just wait for the providers to > do it for you. A neat, Cartesian, "clean, well-lighted > place" (horrible things happened outside it but never mind.) Having > vented off: > > We now know the many flaws you recognize in ICANN. To the best of > what I can gather, many of the flaws you see derive from a lack of > working knowledge of the organization and its evolution and are > strongly tinted by prejudice. It is your privilege to say they > aren't. So, exercise: > > What do you recognize in ICANN that is positive? > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico > UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 > http://www.dgsca.unam.mx > * > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:56 +0100 >> From: Meryem Marzouki >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki >> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >> >> Le 27 nov. 07 à 20:13, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : >> >>> Meryem, >>> this: >>>> (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently >>>> benefit from ICANN in one way or another want to keep their >>>> privileges. What about others?) >>> is really the core of your argument, isn't it? >> >> No. I was not making an argument in this message actually. I was >> asking a question. >> >>> You do not see a benefit in increased competition, gradual >>> introduction of new gTLDs, increased coordination between the >>> gTLD and the ccTLD space, a framework for a level of cooperation >>> among RIRs not provided by the NRO, and between the different >>> subsystems for the subset of critical Internet resources in this >>> specific mandate, operation of the IANA function with respect to >>> gTLDs, ccTLDs, protocol parameters, IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, gTLD >>> data escrow to protect consumers from registry/ar breakdown's >>> fallout, IDNs in the root, presence of technical, business, >>> academic and civil society from the developing world which is not >>> mediated or impeded by their governments, etc. etc. etc. >> >> Wow! God bless ICANN. Without it, we cannot have all this, then? >> And before it was set up, we couldn't even dream of all this, >> right? I wont even comment on your last sentence, and what it >> reveals ("developing world governments can only *impede* the >> presence of their technical, business, academic and civil >> society"). Simply agree with you that the introduction of new >> gTLDs is *very* gradual.. >> >>> Then your argument is that the hard-working Vittorios, Avris, >>> Brets, Jacquelines, and so many others involved in the ALAC, and >>> all others who actually make the system run, are only doing it to >>> defend "privileges"? >> >> Et voila.. I ask "what about others?", and that's the only way >> you've found to answer? It would probably better if you don't >> answer instead of the concerned persons, BTW. >> >>> Or do you include among "those who benefit from ICANN" the many >>> businesses, social organizations, and individuals who benefit >>> from what is described three paragraphs above? What are their >>> "privileges"? A stable, expanding DNS, IP allocation system, >>> IANA, protocol-parameter space, etc., are "privileges"? >> >> God bless ICANN, once again. Since everything's perfect, why are >> we having such discussions? >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Nov 27 20:05:30 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:05:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: At 1:18 AM +0100 11/28/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Le 27 nov. 07 à 22:25, Dan Krimm a écrit : > >> Another question I heard elsewhere is: does the deep packet inspection >> violate EU privacy laws? > >I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "deep packet inspection" >here? In order to detect infringement, the content must be identified as it is passed through the net. In your earlier message you referred to it as "filtering techniques" such as provided by Audible Magic (also referenced in the title of this email thread). Perhaps, as you noted, this must be in conjunction with IP addresses, etc., to identify the supposed infringers. I guess it comes down to the status of the "legal order" to get the identifying info in the case of claimed infringement. Would this proposed system create some sort of "blanket legal order" to allow bulk access to identifying info in case of flagging of infringing content in the filtering system? Even if the IP address "is not personal data" anymore in France, at some point they do have to get some personal data to prosecute the claim, so at some point there are personal data involved, and one would assume that at that point the privacy laws would kick in somehow, unless the identifying path is so "spread out" that the law cannot catch it at any specific point in the path. >> Bottom line, yes this is distinctly alarming. Then again, it could >> simply >> lead to P2P developers designing encrypted distributed-P2P >> applications to >> foil the DPI. > >Frankly, I don't think that this race is a solution (further >encryption then further criminalization, etc.). The only solution >would be an adapted economic model to the online distribution of >music and videos (a la 'legal licence' or flatfee), but there is >still a long way to go.. Absolutely agree -- I've been a big fan of collective licensing for a long time (I tend to prefer licensing fully interactive music subscription services that can tally their own in-system use, rather than trying to monitor content transferred on the entire Internet to allocate fees collected at ISPs, but there are a number of varieties to discuss, and I'm happy to consider the pros and cons of them all). IFPI and RIAA have not come around to this way of thinking yet, though. It's really a shame. But not surprising, since a truly merit-based legal system would undermine major labels' gatekeeper control over the music market, and it seems they still just can't stomach that. These are some of the worst bad boys of the copyright-maximalist camp, and it is disappointing (but perhaps not surprising) that Sarkozy has thrown his lot in with them. Dan PS -- Note: I am not a copyright minimalist or abolitionist. I believe there is balance still possible, in an "optimalist" stance, as long as we abandon the idea of trying to control fixations as leverage for payment, and concentrate simply on anonymously monitoring use and compensating on that basis from royalty pools collected at points of bulk access. There is a potential for a win-win solution where information can move freely (unfettered) without being unpaid, by charging at the gates to the full catalog instead of charging for individual works (but royalty allocation is still on the basis of popularity of use, thus creating a real differentiated-value marketplace). But it seems that it will be still quite some time before the major labels can stomach this model, if ever. They may really have to completely crumble before we can move forward. It's disappointing that they are so stubborn, but it is their own undoing in the end, unless they can convince governments to take the Draconian steps to lock down control of information. I hope the Parliament does not create the law to establish this new authority, and if it does I hope that there will be a stiff legal challenge to bring it down. This idea is really, really scary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Tue Nov 27 20:36:01 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:36:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <40EAAED2-34ED-411D-A9BF-5C76BF3B2735@ras.eu.org> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> <40EAAED2-34ED-411D-A9BF-5C76BF3B2735@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Meryem, thin skin problem and no substantive response. I apologize that you felt cased personally. I have no problem with your French or any other belonging. I did use a caricature of your view, not of your person or any group you identify with or others do. IMO in your overreaction - you qualify as anger my question - you are skirting the substance. Now, question, exercise, no anger, just trying to quantify the problem you want solved: do you acknowledge anything positive in ICANN? I will not escalate this dialogue any further to a flame war. I will take with me the lesson of the asymmetric definition of civil discourse. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:19 +0100 > From: Meryem Marzouki > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > > A la Kieren: "Ad hominem attack". > But nevermind: I'm not impressed, and I shut up when I decide to, not when > coarse intimidation is tried. > I'm wondering why such anger? Why the mere critic of ICANN is provoking such > extreme and insulting reactions? > Meryem > PS. When you'll run short of French caricatures, just let me know. I'll tell > you know what's my other citizenship/culture/origin, so that you'll be able > to find in another folklore some hopefully more original insults. > > Le 28 nov. 07 à 00:48, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : > >> Meryem, >> >> at this level of discourse it is proper that you go back to your Minitel. A >> nice, closed, government-controlled/guaranteed environment in which you do >> not need to be confronted with an opinion that varies from the one you >> hold, no need for open standards, no need for people of diverse views to >> come together and actually build something that works; just wait for the >> providers to do it for you. A neat, Cartesian, "clean, well-lighted place" >> (horrible things happened outside it but never mind.) Having vented off: >> >> We now know the many flaws you recognize in ICANN. To the best of what I >> can gather, many of the flaws you see derive from a lack of working >> knowledge of the organization and its evolution and are strongly tinted by >> prejudice. It is your privilege to say they aren't. So, exercise: >> >> What do you recognize in ICANN that is positive? >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico >> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 >> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx >> * >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org >> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> . >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:56 +0100 >>> From: Meryem Marzouki >>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >>> >>> Le 27 nov. 07 à 20:13, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : >>> >>>> Meryem, >>>> this: >>>>> (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently benefit >>>>> from ICANN in one way or another want to keep their privileges. What >>>>> about others?) >>>> is really the core of your argument, isn't it? >>> >>> No. I was not making an argument in this message actually. I was asking a >>> question. >>> >>>> You do not see a benefit in increased competition, gradual introduction >>>> of new gTLDs, increased coordination between the gTLD and the ccTLD >>>> space, a framework for a level of cooperation among RIRs not provided by >>>> the NRO, and between the different subsystems for the subset of critical >>>> Internet resources in this specific mandate, operation of the IANA >>>> function with respect to gTLDs, ccTLDs, protocol parameters, IPv4 and >>>> IPv6 addresses, gTLD data escrow to protect consumers from registry/ar >>>> breakdown's fallout, IDNs in the root, presence of technical, business, >>>> academic and civil society from the developing world which is not >>>> mediated or impeded by their governments, etc. etc. etc. >>> >>> Wow! God bless ICANN. Without it, we cannot have all this, then? And >>> before it was set up, we couldn't even dream of all this, right? I wont >>> even comment on your last sentence, and what it reveals ("developing world >>> governments can only *impede* the presence of their technical, business, >>> academic and civil society"). Simply agree with you that the introduction >>> of new gTLDs is *very* gradual.. >>> >>>> Then your argument is that the hard-working Vittorios, Avris, Brets, >>>> Jacquelines, and so many others involved in the ALAC, and all others who >>>> actually make the system run, are only doing it to defend "privileges"? >>> >>> Et voila.. I ask "what about others?", and that's the only way you've >>> found to answer? It would probably better if you don't answer instead of >>> the concerned persons, BTW. >>> >>>> Or do you include among "those who benefit from ICANN" the many >>>> businesses, social organizations, and individuals who benefit from what >>>> is described three paragraphs above? What are their "privileges"? A >>>> stable, expanding DNS, IP allocation system, IANA, protocol-parameter >>>> space, etc., are "privileges"? >>> >>> God bless ICANN, once again. Since everything's perfect, why are we having >>> such discussions? >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Tue Nov 27 21:08:15 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:08:15 +0900 Subject: ALAC issues (was: Re: [governance] Innovation) In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: Bret, almost jumping in, and first of all, as being a long time incumbent member of ALAC, I am sorry for not taking proper action in time for your excellent comment on transparency and accountability. I have no good excuse. I also appreciate your observation and simple but seemingly effective suggestion. In fact, most, if not all, of ALSs are not directly dealing with the ICANN's core policy areas, and thus may have difficulty in responding timely to the often complex ICANN issues. I don't have an easy solution at hand, but I think the issue presented here is quite important and AtLarge community (and larger civil society interested in ICANN issues) should think hard to come up with better solutions. In a way, a hybrid model of a) and b) may work. I mean, expand membership of AtLarge, more open to active individual members so that their inputs would make good impacts. izumi 2007/11/27, Bret Fausett : > On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >If there is a bottleneck, or a procedural problem, or a structural > issue? > > I've given this a fair amount of thought recently, in large part > because the ALAC proved itself incapable of reacting to an ICANN call > for comments on a fairly important issue, in spite of the fact that > the work was done for it by a long time ALAC supporter (me). You can > see my comment to the ALAC here: > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/ > 2007q4/002359.html > > I think one part of the ALAC's problem is that it is composed of > organizations, but the people involved are not authorized to speak on > behalf of those organizations in all instances. Most organizations > need some formal approval process before they sign their names to a > policy document, and they are usually and understandably unwilling to > attach their names to something that is not core to their mission and/ > or is poorly understood by their leadership. ICANN matters are rarely > core to anyone's missions and almost always poorly understood by > those not involved on a daily basis. > > To solve this, the ALAC could (a) abandon the organizational model > and move to an individual membership model; or (b) asks organizations > to appoint one member from the ALS to serve as liaison to the RALO, > but free him or her to act in a personal capacity, not as a > representative of the organization. I'm sure there are more > possibilities as well. > > -- > Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") > smime.p7s is a digital signature > http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.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 Tue Nov 27 21:55:53 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:55:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: On Nov 28, 2007 3:18 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Le 27 nov. 07 à 22:25, Dan Krimm a écrit : > > > Another question I heard elsewhere is: does the deep packet inspection > > violate EU privacy laws? > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "deep packet inspection" > here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection#DPI_as_a_tool_to_control_P2P -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Nov 27 22:20:05 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:20:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: Meryem, Hello. >Hi Adam, > >Le 27 nov. 07 à 17:30, Adam Peake a écrit : > >>[...] It's taken along time to get all the ALAC >>structures in place, now's time to see if they >>work. > >So, ICANN and supporters set up this with no >single clue of whether this could work or not? "no single clue", no. A lot of thought and effort went into the ALAC structure. But like the elections before, it's an experiment in global representation/participation. So no one could be sure if it would work or not. Can only try to make a go of it, and I think it's getting close/has a chance. >>Right now they are not working, >[...] >> >>The elections did not work. >[...] > >So, neither ALAC nor the elections have worked. No, I didn't say that (others also.) The ALAC might work, just needs to be tried. The elections were far from perfect, but I think they should have been tried again, see if a few obvious improvements made them work OK. Though with hindsight I doubt they would have been sustainable (or sensible). >Isn't it time to think that the reasons for >which they haven't worked is linked to ICANN >global failure, and to really start considering >some other construction?! I don't agree ICANN has been a global failure. But if ALAC proves ineffective then of course time to think of a new structure. >> ALAC should look to the GAC as a model for its >>power. Worry less about having a couple of >>board members, instead have the bylaws say your >>opinions must be taken into account >[...] > >It's not working, in particular it's not >representative, and on top of this it should >have more power? I didn't say it's not working. If it does work then I agree with Avri it should look to the GAC model as the way to go forward. >I'm wondering why people on this list spend >their time explaining how and why things are not >working, and still don't want to give up on >ICANN as it is. Too much investment already? >Other interests? Fear that things get worse? >What exactly? I was trying to say it (ALAC) might work. Just needs people to try and make it work, it's not done yet. >(NB. I do understand why people/organizations >that currently benefit from ICANN in one way or >another want to keep their privileges. What >about others?) Others -- I guess we also want to maximize our privileges... Best, Adam >Best, >Meryem > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Nov 27 22:40:14 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:40:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Innovation Message-ID: Meryem, Alejandro, Can I try to redirect as the lawyers say? One can look at ICANN as half full: a stunningly successful model of global governance of critical resources, an exemplar of multistakeholder inclusion in decsionmaking processes. One can also look at ICANN as half empty: unbelievably arcane, complex procedures, multiple fiefdoms controlled by special interests, absence of due process, etc. And oh yeah that detail of its country/state of origin. I suspect the 2 of you won't agree on which view is accurate. Which is fine. ICANN is a regulatory/governing entity, and people from time immemorial have critiqued governors and governance processes. ICANN is by definition fair game for critique, from the well informed, misinformed, and ill informed. if you're a regulator, your first priority must be your own internal processes for ensuring 'fair' outcomes. Whatever you do people will trash you, but you must try to have them be substantively wrong at least on procedural grounds, in that the outcomes achieved were done by fair processes, even if people still disagree on what the right answer might be. This is public policy 101. Which in the US is written up as the Administrative Procedures Act - look it up on wikipedia or google it; other nations have similar laws which I am not as familiar with. Why this is relevant is simple: IF ICANN had well-documented, transparent and objective processes for the awarding of gTLDs, that would be off the table/further along for comment and action; IF ICANN had straightforward processes for processing and maybe even occasionally acting on the views of individual Internet users (or legal fictions ie ngo's or corporation or governments), then all this string about the ALAC would have a quite different tone. So in other words while it is all well and good to invent new governance processes, it is also well and good to follow public policy 101 guidelines and procedures whenever and however possible, while doing so. That's 'good governance.' This would not replace the need for bottom-up participatory processes, would not replace elections as one possible way of making decisions, nor would it address the big idea of meryem's of an entirely new structure or structures. It would just make ICANN a better regulator of critical internet resources. Whether it might some day be replaced/transform into something else is unknowable at present, but maybe both Meryem and Alejandro and the rest of us can agree that whatever the model, whether of ALAC, ICANN more broadly, or Internet governance still more broadly, that fair, open, and transparent administrative procedures should be developed, and followed, whatever that might mean in a particular issue area? No small task in and of itself, and sure IETF, ICANN, and any number of other entities can be looked to for practical guiidance on what this might might mean for Internet governance. Again no need to tell me I have shortchanged ICANN, or given ICANN too much credit. You're both entitled to your opinions. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 11/27/07 8:36 PM >>> Meryem, thin skin problem and no substantive response. I apologize that you felt cased personally. I have no problem with your French or any other belonging. I did use a caricature of your view, not of your person or any group you identify with or others do. IMO in your overreaction - you qualify as anger my question - you are skirting the substance. Now, question, exercise, no anger, just trying to quantify the problem you want solved: do you acknowledge anything positive in ICANN? I will not escalate this dialogue any further to a flame war. I will take with me the lesson of the asymmetric definition of civil discourse. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:19 +0100 > From: Meryem Marzouki > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > > A la Kieren: "Ad hominem attack". > But nevermind: I'm not impressed, and I shut up when I decide to, not when > coarse intimidation is tried. > I'm wondering why such anger? Why the mere critic of ICANN is provoking such > extreme and insulting reactions? > Meryem > PS. When you'll run short of French caricatures, just let me know. I'll tell > you know what's my other citizenship/culture/origin, so that you'll be able > to find in another folklore some hopefully more original insults. > > Le 28 nov. 07 à 00:48, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : > >> Meryem, >> >> at this level of discourse it is proper that you go back to your Minitel. A >> nice, closed, government-controlled/guaranteed environment in which you do >> not need to be confronted with an opinion that varies from the one you >> hold, no need for open standards, no need for people of diverse views to >> come together and actually build something that works; just wait for the >> providers to do it for you. A neat, Cartesian, "clean, well-lighted place" >> (horrible things happened outside it but never mind.) Having vented off: >> >> We now know the many flaws you recognize in ICANN. To the best of what I >> can gather, many of the flaws you see derive from a lack of working >> knowledge of the organization and its evolution and are strongly tinted by >> prejudice. It is your privilege to say they aren't. So, exercise: >> >> What do you recognize in ICANN that is positive? >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico >> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 >> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx >> * >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org >> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> . >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:56 +0100 >>> From: Meryem Marzouki >>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >>> >>> Le 27 nov. 07 à 20:13, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : >>> >>>> Meryem, >>>> this: >>>>> (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently benefit >>>>> from ICANN in one way or another want to keep their privileges. What >>>>> about others?) >>>> is really the core of your argument, isn't it? >>> >>> No. I was not making an argument in this message actually. I was asking a >>> question. >>> >>>> You do not see a benefit in increased competition, gradual introduction >>>> of new gTLDs, increased coordination between the gTLD and the ccTLD >>>> space, a framework for a level of cooperation among RIRs not provided by >>>> the NRO, and between the different subsystems for the subset of critical >>>> Internet resources in this specific mandate, operation of the IANA >>>> function with respect to gTLDs, ccTLDs, protocol parameters, IPv4 and >>>> IPv6 addresses, gTLD data escrow to protect consumers from registry/ar >>>> breakdown's fallout, IDNs in the root, presence of technical, business, >>>> academic and civil society from the developing world which is not >>>> mediated or impeded by their governments, etc. etc. etc. >>> >>> Wow! God bless ICANN. Without it, we cannot have all this, then? And >>> before it was set up, we couldn't even dream of all this, right? I wont >>> even comment on your last sentence, and what it reveals ("developing world >>> governments can only *impede* the presence of their technical, business, >>> academic and civil society"). Simply agree with you that the introduction >>> of new gTLDs is *very* gradual.. >>> >>>> Then your argument is that the hard-working Vittorios, Avris, Brets, >>>> Jacquelines, and so many others involved in the ALAC, and all others who >>>> actually make the system run, are only doing it to defend "privileges"? >>> >>> Et voila.. I ask "what about others?", and that's the only way you've >>> found to answer? It would probably better if you don't answer instead of >>> the concerned persons, BTW. >>> >>>> Or do you include among "those who benefit from ICANN" the many >>>> businesses, social organizations, and individuals who benefit from what >>>> is described three paragraphs above? What are their "privileges"? A >>>> stable, expanding DNS, IP allocation system, IANA, protocol-parameter >>>> space, etc., are "privileges"? >>> >>> God bless ICANN, once again. Since everything's perfect, why are we having >>> such discussions? >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 27 23:25:12 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:25:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e0711270401l5190167er7e2d1c7a5431ec03@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d976d8e0711270401l5190167er7e2d1c7a5431ec03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C461@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] > > As I raised before, the most important criteria for admittance should > be the proven relation and focus on INTERNET GOVERNANCE. There were Let me weigh in to support what Max is saying here, and add some emphasis of my own. Too much of the energy of the Forum and its participants is being thrown away on issues that are not global in scope, and have nothing to do with global governance of the Internet. We all must pay closer attention to the distinction between issues that are best addressed at the national, local or regional levels and those that truly require global coordination and global institutions. IGF should be restricted to the global. If the truly global governance issues are actually quite narrow and specialized, and don't include the issues that turn you on, so be it. If you are not interested in those issues, find a more appropriate venue for your activities. (One of the reasons we keep coming back to ICANN or CIR issues in IGF and this list is that it is one of the only fully globalized institutional structures and the issues it deals with, for the most part, require transnational agreement. Of course, there are other transnational IG issues or issues that have potential to be transnational.) Just as we must carefully distinguish between global and lower-level issues, we ought to distinguish more carefully between what is actually an Internet governance issue and issues that are more generally about ICTs. True, the Internet has become the dominant platform for most ICT activity, but there are many, many ICT policy issues that global governance of the Internet cannot remotely affect -- including, by the way, the financing and construction of physical infrastructure. (This is not to say that policy entrepreneurs cannot devise new, innovative ways to use global governance mechanisms to support physical access, but let's not expect the tail to wag the dog.) The disappointing thing about IGF 2 was that the dialogue was so cluttered with things that do not require or will never get international coordination or agreement that it was impossible to focus on the things that do. Another key point looking forward has to do with workshops, and their relationship to plenary sessions. First, workshops should not be ghettoized. The free speech advocates should not all be in one room boosting each others' egos while the avid content regulators discuss how to control Internet publication in the next room, in complete isolation from each other. Both workshops that IGP organized made a point of trying to cover the relevant spectrum of views. I discovered, to my shock, that that was the exception rather than the rule. Workshops must be diverse, and diversity of _policy viewpoints_ is in my opinion far more critical to IGF's mission than the geographical or "stakeholder" diversity that seems to command so much support, and is often little more than tokenism. IGF's MAG and Secretariat should make sure that panels include representatives of the different, clashing views that are defining the parameters of Internet governance debate. Second, workshops and plenary sessions should not compete with each other for audience. Workshops should be satellites revolving around all-inclusive plenaries where ideas are synthesized and outcomes are deliberated and discussed. The more I think about the fact that IGF had tons of workshops going on at the same time as plenary sessions, the dumber it seems. But it's clear why the plenaries are withering. If they actually are intended to be more than TV talk shows and do something, they present an organizational and political problem of enormous magnitude. Who gets to speak, how are motions made, how is consensus or even rough agreement found? But as difficult as this sounds, it presents an opportunity for further structural innovation which the IGF should embrace. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1155 - Release Date: 11/27/2007 8:30 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Tue Nov 27 23:46:25 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:46:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee, too either/or to work and still prejudiced. So be it. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Lee McKnight wrote: > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:40:14 -0500 > From: Lee McKnight > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, marzouki at ras.eu.org, apisan at servidor.unam.mx > Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > > Meryem, Alejandro, > > Can I try to redirect as the lawyers say? > > One can look at ICANN as half full: a stunningly successful model of global governance of critical resources, an exemplar of multistakeholder inclusion in decsionmaking processes. > > One can also look at ICANN as half empty: unbelievably arcane, complex procedures, multiple fiefdoms controlled by special interests, absence of due process, etc. And oh yeah that detail of its country/state of origin. > > I suspect the 2 of you won't agree on which view is accurate. > > Which is fine. ICANN is a regulatory/governing entity, and people from time immemorial have critiqued governors and governance processes. ICANN is by definition fair game for critique, from the well informed, misinformed, and ill informed. > > if you're a regulator, your first priority must be your own internal processes for ensuring 'fair' outcomes. Whatever you do people will trash you, but you must try to have them be substantively wrong at least on procedural grounds, in that the outcomes achieved were done by fair processes, even if people still disagree on what the right answer might be. > > This is public policy 101. Which in the US is written up as the Administrative Procedures Act - look it up on wikipedia or google it; other nations have similar laws which I am not as familiar with. > > Why this is relevant is simple: IF ICANN had well-documented, transparent and objective processes for the awarding of gTLDs, that would be off the table/further along for comment and action; IF ICANN had straightforward processes for processing and maybe even occasionally acting on the views of individual Internet users (or legal fictions ie ngo's or corporation or governments), then all this string about the ALAC would have a quite different tone. > > So in other words while it is all well and good to invent new governance processes, it is also well and good to follow public policy 101 guidelines and procedures whenever and however possible, while doing so. That's 'good governance.' > > This would not replace the need for bottom-up participatory processes, would not replace elections as one possible way of making decisions, nor would it address the big idea of meryem's of an entirely new structure or structures. > > It would just make ICANN a better regulator of critical internet resources. > > Whether it might some day be replaced/transform into something else is unknowable at present, but maybe both Meryem and Alejandro and the rest of us can agree that whatever the model, whether of ALAC, ICANN more broadly, or Internet governance still more broadly, that fair, open, and transparent administrative procedures should be developed, and followed, whatever that might mean in a particular issue area? No small task in and of itself, and sure IETF, ICANN, and any number of other entities can be looked to for practical guiidance on what this might might mean for Internet governance. > > Again no need to tell me I have shortchanged ICANN, or given ICANN too much credit. You're both entitled to your opinions. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 11/27/07 8:36 PM >>> > Meryem, > > thin skin problem and no substantive response. I apologize that you felt > cased personally. I have no problem with your French or any other > belonging. I did use a caricature of your view, not of your person or any > group you identify with or others do. IMO in your overreaction - you > qualify as anger my question - you are skirting the substance. > > Now, question, exercise, no anger, just trying to quantify the problem you > want solved: do you acknowledge anything positive in ICANN? > > I will not escalate this dialogue any further to a flame war. I will take > with me the lesson of the asymmetric definition of civil discourse. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico > UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 > http://www.dgsca.unam.mx > * > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:19 +0100 >> From: Meryem Marzouki >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >> >> A la Kieren: "Ad hominem attack". >> But nevermind: I'm not impressed, and I shut up when I decide to, not when >> coarse intimidation is tried. >> I'm wondering why such anger? Why the mere critic of ICANN is provoking such >> extreme and insulting reactions? >> Meryem >> PS. When you'll run short of French caricatures, just let me know. I'll tell >> you know what's my other citizenship/culture/origin, so that you'll be able >> to find in another folklore some hopefully more original insults. >> >> Le 28 nov. 07 à 00:48, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : >> >>> Meryem, >>> >>> at this level of discourse it is proper that you go back to your Minitel. A >>> nice, closed, government-controlled/guaranteed environment in which you do >>> not need to be confronted with an opinion that varies from the one you >>> hold, no need for open standards, no need for people of diverse views to >>> come together and actually build something that works; just wait for the >>> providers to do it for you. A neat, Cartesian, "clean, well-lighted place" >>> (horrible things happened outside it but never mind.) Having vented off: >>> >>> We now know the many flaws you recognize in ICANN. To the best of what I >>> can gather, many of the flaws you see derive from a lack of working >>> knowledge of the organization and its evolution and are strongly tinted by >>> prejudice. It is your privilege to say they aren't. So, exercise: >>> >>> What do you recognize in ICANN that is positive? >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Alejandro Pisanty >>> >>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico >>> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico >>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >>> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 >>> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx >>> * >>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org >>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org >>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>> . >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:56 +0100 >>>> From: Meryem Marzouki >>>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >>>> >>>> Le 27 nov. 07 à 20:13, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Meryem, >>>>> this: >>>>>> (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently benefit >>>>>> from ICANN in one way or another want to keep their privileges. What >>>>>> about others?) >>>>> is really the core of your argument, isn't it? >>>> >>>> No. I was not making an argument in this message actually. I was asking a >>>> question. >>>> >>>>> You do not see a benefit in increased competition, gradual introduction >>>>> of new gTLDs, increased coordination between the gTLD and the ccTLD >>>>> space, a framework for a level of cooperation among RIRs not provided by >>>>> the NRO, and between the different subsystems for the subset of critical >>>>> Internet resources in this specific mandate, operation of the IANA >>>>> function with respect to gTLDs, ccTLDs, protocol parameters, IPv4 and >>>>> IPv6 addresses, gTLD data escrow to protect consumers from registry/ar >>>>> breakdown's fallout, IDNs in the root, presence of technical, business, >>>>> academic and civil society from the developing world which is not >>>>> mediated or impeded by their governments, etc. etc. etc. >>>> >>>> Wow! God bless ICANN. Without it, we cannot have all this, then? And >>>> before it was set up, we couldn't even dream of all this, right? I wont >>>> even comment on your last sentence, and what it reveals ("developing world >>>> governments can only *impede* the presence of their technical, business, >>>> academic and civil society"). Simply agree with you that the introduction >>>> of new gTLDs is *very* gradual.. >>>> >>>>> Then your argument is that the hard-working Vittorios, Avris, Brets, >>>>> Jacquelines, and so many others involved in the ALAC, and all others who >>>>> actually make the system run, are only doing it to defend "privileges"? >>>> >>>> Et voila.. I ask "what about others?", and that's the only way you've >>>> found to answer? It would probably better if you don't answer instead of >>>> the concerned persons, BTW. >>>> >>>>> Or do you include among "those who benefit from ICANN" the many >>>>> businesses, social organizations, and individuals who benefit from what >>>>> is described three paragraphs above? What are their "privileges"? A >>>>> stable, expanding DNS, IP allocation system, IANA, protocol-parameter >>>>> space, etc., are "privileges"? >>>> >>>> God bless ICANN, once again. Since everything's perfect, why are we having >>>> such discussions? >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 27 23:52:30 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:52:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C463@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > The ALAC grows by informed interest, by an outreach process which has been > de necessario painstaking and slow. An increasing number of Internet > users, and their existing organizations, are joining the ALAC, building up > its discourse, and consolidating the foundations of its influence. This, > and the influence, can be proven in the way considerations from the > At-Large have marked numerous ICANN processes and decisions. It does take There have been many good people involved in the ALAC; I think of Wendy Seltzer, Thomas Roessler, Brett Fausett, and Izumi, and I am in agreement with the spirit, if not the analysis, in Avri's post. But there are also severe problems. You could sum up my position by saying, "I am a big supporter of "At Large" participation, but an equally adamant opponent of the impossible structure into which Pisanty's Board forced them. Without detracting from the dedicated work of many key ALAC people, we must not lose sight of the degree to which ALAC as a whole is a Potemkin village propped up by ICANN's increasingly ample financial resources. This structure is bound to collapse under its own weight sooner or later, or, worse, turn into a patronage machine from which we would all recoil. I know first hand what a difference money makes. In the early days of the Noncommercial users constituency, which is the autonomous civil society entity within ICANN's GNSO, the Markle Foundation offered a large number of travel grants to NCDNHC members for attendance at ICANN meetings, and we charged no membership fees. During those days we had around 150 members and our meetings at ICANN conventions were packed with around 30-50 people. Despite the size, however, the constituency had no real coherence, too many of the people receiving the travel grants did not stick around for the hard, pre- and post-meeting work of policy development, and there was no incentive for different factions to work together. Ease of entry into membership also meant that some interest groups tried to stack the constituency and subordinate it to the policy interests of some other interest. After the withdrawal of Markle funding, membership plummeted, and so did attendance at meetings. Nevertheless, in rebuilding the NCUC we have over time succeeded in focusing on consistent core policy positions, raising enough money to scrape by independently, and so have avoided the "staff problems" alluded to in Avri's post; we have progressively added new member organizations; most importantly, we have developed a strong and respected voice in policy development in the GNSO. Consider: ICANN spends perhaps 3/4 of a million dollars a year on ALAC; it spends nothing on NCUC. For its ALAC expenditure, ICANN gets about 15-24 ALACers (airfares and hotels fully paid) at its meetings and the membership of about 100-120 "At Large Structures" i.e., organizations. For its NCUC non-expenditure, ICANN gets about 6-8 representatives of nonprofits at its meetings, and a membership of about 40 noncommercial organizations. Think about it. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1155 - Release Date: 11/27/2007 8:30 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Tue Nov 27 23:55:45 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C461@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <4d976d8e0711270401l5190167er7e2d1c7a5431ec03@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C461@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, something we agree upon and a proposal to move forward: Indeed as it turns out there are very few Internet governance issues that are truly global or at least transborder, transjurisdictional enough to merit the construction of global systems, or systems that can be scaled to global. A sobering exercise would be to make a list that excludes the coordination of the DNS, the coordination of policies for the allocation of IP addresses, and the coordination of registries of Internet protocol parameters. Then at least as an intellectual exercise freeze the discussion of the already much-trodden ICANN terrain and see what can be done to make any progress on those others. Nothing more than a moratorium on that discussion to force ourselves to focus on what else exists - spam, a number of forms of crime, interconnection costs, and so on. It may be that interconnection costs are dismissed once again as a purely telecoms issue, intellectual property issues remanded to a different forum, and so on. At that point one would have a stark picture. Either some non-CIR issues remain (and as for phishing, we may find some people with real stakes, knowledge, and capacity to act are already doing something that can work, and for others there is a task to be done) or none are left, and Internet Governance is indeed reduced to the CIR field. A lot of renaming and refocusing would ensue after that bifurcation. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:25:12 -0500 > From: Milton L Mueller > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Milton L Mueller > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 > >> From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] >> >> As I raised before, the most important criteria for admittance should >> be the proven relation and focus on INTERNET GOVERNANCE. There were > > Let me weigh in to support what Max is saying here, and add some emphasis of my own. > > Too much of the energy of the Forum and its participants is being thrown away on issues that are not global in scope, and have nothing to do with global governance of the Internet. We all must pay closer attention to the distinction between issues that are best addressed at the national, local or regional levels and those that truly require global coordination and global institutions. IGF should be restricted to the global. If the truly global governance issues are actually quite narrow and specialized, and don't include the issues that turn you on, so be it. If you are not interested in those issues, find a more appropriate venue for your activities. > > (One of the reasons we keep coming back to ICANN or CIR issues in IGF and this list is that it is one of the only fully globalized institutional structures and the issues it deals with, for the most part, require transnational agreement. Of course, there are other transnational IG issues or issues that have potential to be transnational.) > > Just as we must carefully distinguish between global and lower-level issues, we ought to distinguish more carefully between what is actually an Internet governance issue and issues that are more generally about ICTs. True, the Internet has become the dominant platform for most ICT activity, but there are many, many ICT policy issues that global governance of the Internet cannot remotely affect -- including, by the way, the financing and construction of physical infrastructure. (This is not to say that policy entrepreneurs cannot devise new, innovative ways to use global governance mechanisms to support physical access, but let's not expect the tail to wag the dog.) > > The disappointing thing about IGF 2 was that the dialogue was so cluttered with things that do not require or will never get international coordination or agreement that it was impossible to focus on the things that do. > > Another key point looking forward has to do with workshops, and their relationship to plenary sessions. > > First, workshops should not be ghettoized. The free speech advocates should not all be in one room boosting each others' egos while the avid content regulators discuss how to control Internet publication in the next room, in complete isolation from each other. Both workshops that IGP organized made a point of trying to cover the relevant spectrum of views. I discovered, to my shock, that that was the exception rather than the rule. Workshops must be diverse, and diversity of _policy viewpoints_ is in my opinion far more critical to IGF's mission than the geographical or "stakeholder" diversity that seems to command so much support, and is often little more than tokenism. IGF's MAG and Secretariat should make sure that panels include representatives of the different, clashing views that are defining the parameters of Internet governance debate. > > Second, workshops and plenary sessions should not compete with each other for audience. Workshops should be satellites revolving around all-inclusive plenaries where ideas are synthesized and outcomes are deliberated and discussed. The more I think about the fact that IGF had tons of workshops going on at the same time as plenary sessions, the dumber it seems. But it's clear why the plenaries are withering. If they actually are intended to be more than TV talk shows and do something, they present an organizational and political problem of enormous magnitude. Who gets to speak, how are motions made, how is consensus or even rough agreement found? But as difficult as this sounds, it presents an opportunity for further structural innovation which the IGF should embrace. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1155 - Release Date: 11/27/2007 8:30 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 01:18:13 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:18:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: I believe this is called entrapment? Meryem wrote: > To my knowledge, what IP collecting societies has been doing is: mark > some bait files, share them on P2P networks, and trace them as well > as IP addresses of users who download or upload them in their turn. In Brazil, there are a number of artists going about it in different way - working for a living! They sell their music for an affordable price, that way people won't feel the need to get pirated copies. It is after all greed and wanting to live in a Malibu mansion with a fleet of imported cars at the age of 27 that puts prices beyond the means of most. If artists would work for a living like everybody else and wait to be able to afford their mansion after a lifetime of hard work like everybody else, people wouldn't pirate so much. Also, today's youth do not have LP collections like most on this list probably did and do. They live in a acquire-and-dispose culture. So, it is a whole paradigm shift. Instead of selling music/ movies, the industry should be looking at 'leasing'/ 'hiring' for a fraction of the price - allowing to be played x number of times, after which it won't play anymore. Rui -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 01:50:27 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:50:27 -0500 Subject: [OCDC] Re: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: <444905.50554.qm@web50508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <4d976d8e0711270401l5190167er7e2d1c7a5431ec03@mail.gmail.com> <444905.50554.qm@web50508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050711272250l5638fc0cq1204425329381728@mail.gmail.com> This thread is quite enlightening, as to focus and otherwise. Query: what issues would properly be brought before an (Intl.) Internet (not ITC) Governance Court? (Over what issues would it have jurisdiction). Thanking you, and best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* On 11/28/07, Rose Gill wrote: > > Greetings Max and all! > > I would totally agree with friends who are more towards result-oriented > activities and plans for the future. IGF, in my opinion can be the ultimate > platform for influencing the international policies and can be a good > influence for countries that are still not part of the process. > There was no way of ensuring as to what extent representatives of > governments were attending the event particularly from developing countries. > > > The generalised approach of some of the speakers was also very much > evident in different sessions as pointed out by Max. There should be more > concrete criteria for the selection of the panelists and the selction of the > sub-themes so that the speakers give deeper insight on the topics in order > to lead to a more focused and productive debate on the IG issues. > > The thing that I strongly felt lacking was the contribution towards the > future of IG and how it is going to shape up. There must have been > collective results/suggestions from each workshop and on the last day, a > seperate session to discuss the results, new findings and suggestions that > are feasible/possible to implement leading to discussions on possible > responsible stakeholders/volunteers in future for the relevant task. > > Best wishes, > Ms. Rose Gill > Research Associate/Activist > Pakistan > > > *Max Senges * wrote: > > Dear Adam, and all > > Thank you for initiating this review and suggestion process. Some > comments and questions: > > > How can we take open call for workshops etc, > > and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard > > process.) > > As I raised before, the most important criteria for admittance should > be the proven relation and focus on INTERNET GOVERNANCE. There were > workshops on education, and access to knowledge that could have had a > connection and could have discussed GOVERNANCE of their causes on the > INTERNET but didn't. Panelists gave interesting but 'very general' > talks about intellectual property etc. > > Another key point in making the sessions more productive is to setup a > standardized and obligatory Report of Results, which again should be > geared towards - What does this workshop contribute to the IG debate? > > In general I argue that all IGF activities - and especially DCs - > should have RESULTS (minutes, statements, requests for comments, - a > variety of standardized formats) and that these results are somehow > gathered, catalouged and made available. > One initiative were DCs can contribute and aggregate their work is the > Internet Bill of Rights initiative, which means to develop a framework > for defining, promoting and watching the enforcement of Human Rights > and other Principles on the Internet. > > > ...very little remote participation... > > ...the problem might not have been content but about announcing the > content early > > enough so people could plan to attend. > > I agree 100%. The ONLINE PLATFORM and REMOTE PARTICIPATION > possibilities of the IGF are > > 1) too distributed - everything should be in one integrated > environment or at least one portal > 2) online participation was almost not offered - except for individual > efforts > > In my understanding this is a major strategic point for two reasons: > > Firstly it will improve participation, and esp. multi-stakeholderism > (participation from the south) and thereby representativeness and > legitimity. > On a more historic perspective, the IGF is an experiment that could be > a blueprint for global governance in other areas, so the second, > meta-relevance of deploying excellent online info and collaboration > tools is the IGF's pioneering role. Critiques in other thematic areas > will righfully say: "If the Internet Governance community didn's > manage to deploy and exploit effective online tools how should we?" > > There is a Dynamic Coalition on Online Collaboration which has > provided the IGF-Community site. This groups is however not > sufficiently integrated in the IGF structure. The the IGF online > information environment and tools should IMHO be developed in close > collaboration between the Secretariate, the host country and a > multi-stakeholder service coalition. > > Does anyone know how and where to engage to work and push for better > online collaboration and information environments? > > > Might be possible to keep > > main sessions to the first and last days, with workshops in the > > middle and have workshops report back and discuss substantively on > > the final day? > > I like that proposal! > > Best, > Max > -------------------------------------------------------- > "I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not > the > plains, and it seemeth I cannot long sit still. > > And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering > will > be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end one experienceth only > oneself." > > (Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke Zarathustra) > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Max Senges > Research Associate > Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) > Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3 > 08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN > > PhD Candidate > Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) > Programme on the Information Society > > Tel: > Spain +34-627193395 > Germany +49-17660855358 > @: maxsenges at gmail.com > > www.maxsenges.com > http://entrepreneur.jot.com > https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/ > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See > how. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Wed Nov 28 02:03:13 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:03:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Careful, now, Rui, I am a musician myself, who spent 15 years trying to become vocational at it (progressive jazz is not a huge popular market, especially in the current broken marketplace), and finally relented to become avocational. I have no sympathy for fame addicts (I never was one), but really, most of the really good musicians in the world are not (and most of the fame addicts are not musicians, or are not very good musicians). Please don't lump us all together in the same basket. I'm a "long tail" advocate, someone who would be happy to "work" for a decent middle class living if I could make my original music full time, recording and performing live, and pay my bills. This is the very issue that drew me into the ICT policy realm, in the first place. It hits very close to home. That said, I certainly have no sympathy whatsoever for the major record labels either, and they are the chief obstructions to creating a working marketplace for (recorded) music in the digital age. They turned the music business into something that ultimately had almost nothing to do with music anymore, and for that alone they deserve our disdain. The answer, IMHO, is indeed along the lines you suggest below: to abandon the market-rights model where sales of fixations are controlled, and move instead to a model where uses are (anonymously) tracked and a royalty pool is collected at bulk access points and allocated according to the distribution of use over time. Replace "copy" rights with *remuneration* rights (along the lines of radio licensing), and let the data flow without encryption and file timeouts, etc. Dan At 8:18 AM +0200 11/28/07, Rui Correia wrote: > I believe this is called entrapment? > > > >Meryem wrote: > >To my knowledge, what IP collecting societies has been doing is: mark >some bait files, share them on P2P networks, and trace them as well >as IP addresses of users who download or upload them in their turn. > > > >In Brazil, there are a number of artists going about it in different way >- working for a living! They sell their music for an affordable price, >that way people won't feel the need to get pirated copies. It is after all >greed and wanting to live in a Malibu mansion with a fleet of imported >cars at the age of 27 that puts prices beyond the means of most. If >artists would work for a living like everybody else and wait to be able to >afford their mansion after a lifetime of hard work like everybody else, >people wouldn't pirate so much. > >Also, today's youth do not have LP collections like most on this list >probably did and do. They live in a acquire-and-dispose culture. So, it is >a whole paradigm shift. Instead of selling music/ movies, the industry >should be looking at 'leasing'/ 'hiring' for a fraction of the price - >allowing to be played x number of times, after which it won't play anymore. > >Rui > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Nov 28 02:32:43 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:32:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Dan My apologies, no sooner had I sent off the email, I realised it had not come out quite the way I had intended. Yes, I was referring solely to the greedy bunch that aspire to the mansion after few years of mediocre music. And yes, it the record labels (red suits, who often couldn't care less wether the product is music or titanium) who leech off society through these revenue conduits. Unfortunately radio and tv are also to blame, playing (or paid to play) the mediocre fare that feeds the record labels, creating a vicious circle that ends up centrifuging all other genres out of the market. Even so-called "public service broadcasting") and I can speak only of South Africa) does the same thing, playing ad nauseum the same new releases of so-called 'commercial' music. I have to buy my music because jazz is not something you can just tune into. ;-) Rui On 28/11/2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > > Careful, now, Rui, I am a musician myself, who spent 15 years trying to > become vocational at it (progressive jazz is not a huge popular market, > especially in the current broken marketplace), and finally relented to > become avocational. > > I have no sympathy for fame addicts (I never was one), but really, most of > the really good musicians in the world are not (and most of the fame > addicts are not musicians, or are not very good musicians). > > Please don't lump us all together in the same basket. I'm a "long tail" > advocate, someone who would be happy to "work" for a decent middle class > living if I could make my original music full time, recording and > performing live, and pay my bills. > > This is the very issue that drew me into the ICT policy realm, in the > first > place. It hits very close to home. > > That said, I certainly have no sympathy whatsoever for the major record > labels either, and they are the chief obstructions to creating a working > marketplace for (recorded) music in the digital age. They turned the > music > business into something that ultimately had almost nothing to do with > music > anymore, and for that alone they deserve our disdain. > > The answer, IMHO, is indeed along the lines you suggest below: to abandon > the market-rights model where sales of fixations are controlled, and move > instead to a model where uses are (anonymously) tracked and a royalty pool > is collected at bulk access points and allocated according to the > distribution of use over time. Replace "copy" rights with *remuneration* > rights (along the lines of radio licensing), and let the data flow without > encryption and file timeouts, etc. > > Dan > > > > At 8:18 AM +0200 11/28/07, Rui Correia wrote: > > I believe this is called entrapment? > > > > > > > >Meryem wrote: > > > >To my knowledge, what IP collecting societies has been doing is: mark > >some bait files, share them on P2P networks, and trace them as well > >as IP addresses of users who download or upload them in their turn. > > > > > > > >In Brazil, there are a number of artists going about it in different way > >- working for a living! They sell their music for an affordable price, > >that way people won't feel the need to get pirated copies. It is after > all > >greed and wanting to live in a Malibu mansion with a fleet of imported > >cars at the age of 27 that puts prices beyond the means of most. If > >artists would work for a living like everybody else and wait to be able > to > >afford their mansion after a lifetime of hard work like everybody else, > >people wouldn't pirate so much. > > > >Also, today's youth do not have LP collections like most on this list > >probably did and do. They live in a acquire-and-dispose culture. So, it > is > >a whole paradigm shift. Instead of selling music/ movies, the industry > >should be looking at 'leasing'/ 'hiring' for a fraction of the price - > >allowing to be played x number of times, after which it won't play > anymore. > > > >Rui > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 28 04:05:37 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:05:37 +0900 Subject: [OCDC] Re: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: <45ed74050711272250l5638fc0cq1204425329381728@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d976d8e0711270401l5190167er7e2d1c7a5431ec03@mail.gmail.com> <444905.50554.qm@web50508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <45ed74050711272250l5638fc0cq1204425329381728@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 1:50 AM -0500 11/28/07, linda misek-falkoff wrote: >This thread is quite enlightening, as to focus and otherwise. > Yes -- and thanks for the comments so far! >Query: what issues would properly be brought >before an (Intl.) Internet (not ITC) Governance >Court? (Over what issues would it have >jurisdiction). > Is the thought I had after reading Max, Milton and Alejandro: what do we mean by Internet governance, and how does it differ from IT4D and themes that would be better discussed at GAID Any description needs to be easy to grasp so people can submit proposals for workshops appropriately, so sessions can be designed, speakers instructed etc. (I don't find the WGIG definition much help in this.) What should a general call for proposals for workshops and description of the 2008 IGF say in this regard? Thoughts? Thanks, Adam (I've trimmed the to list back to the governance list, I can post to the other.) > >Thanking you, and best wishes, LDMF. >Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff >*Respectful Interfaces*  > > >On 11/28/07, Rose Gill ><pdorganisation at yahoo.com> >wrote: > >Greetings Max and all! > >I would totally agree with friends who are more >towards result-oriented activities and plans for >the future. IGF, in my opinion can >be the ultimate platform for influencing the >international policies and can be a good >influence for countries that are still not part >of the process. >There was no way of ensuring as to what extent >representatives of governments were attending >the event particularly from developing countries. > >The generalised approach of some of the speakers >was also very much evident in different sessions >as pointed out by Max. There should be more >concrete criteria for the selection of the >panelists and the selction of the sub-themes so >that the speakers give deeper insight on the >topics in order to lead to a more focused and >productive debate on the IG issues. > >The thing that I strongly felt lacking was the >contribution towards the future of IG and how it >is going to shape up. There must have been >collective results/suggestions from each >workshop and on the last day, a seperate session >to discuss the results, new findings and >suggestions that are feasible/possible to >implement leading to discussions on possible >responsible stakeholders/volunteers in future >for the relevant task. > >Best wishes, >Ms. Rose Gill >Research Associate/Activist >Pakistan > > >Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote: > >Dear Adam, and all > >Thank you for initiating this review and suggestion process. Some >comments and questions: > >> How can we take open call for workshops etc, >> and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard >> process.) > >As I raised before, the most important criteria for admittance should >be the proven relation and focus on INTERNET GOVERNANCE. There were >workshops on education, and access to knowledge that could have had a >connection and could have discussed GOVERNANCE of their causes on the >INTERNET but didn't. Panelists gave interesting but 'very general' >talks about intellectual property etc. > >Another key point in making the sessions more productive is to setup a >standardized and obligatory Report of Results, which again should be >geared towards - What does this workshop contribute to the IG debate? > >In general I argue that all IGF activities - and especially DCs - >should have RESULTS (minutes, statements, requests for comments, - a >variety of standardized formats) and that these results are somehow >gathered, catalouged and made available. >One initiative were DCs can contribute and aggregate their work is the >Internet Bill of Rights initiative, which means to develop a framework >for defining, promoting and watching the enforcement of Human Rights >and other Principles on the Internet. > >> ...very little remote participation... >> ...the problem might not have been content but >>about announcing the content early > > enough so people could plan to attend. > >I agree 100%. The ONLINE PLATFORM and REMOTE PARTICIPATION >possibilities of the IGF are > >1) too distributed - everything should be in one integrated >environment or at least one portal >2) online participation was almost not offered - except for individual efforts > >In my understanding this is a major strategic point for two reasons: > >Firstly it will improve participation, and esp. multi-stakeholderism >(participation from the south) and thereby representativeness and >legitimity. >On a more historic perspective, the IGF is an experiment that could be >a blueprint for global governance in other areas, so the second, >meta-relevance of deploying excellent online info and collaboration >tools is the IGF's pioneering role. Critiques in other thematic areas >will righfully say: "If the Internet Governance community didn's >manage to deploy and exploit effective online tools how should we?" > >There is a Dynamic Coalition on Online Collaboration which has >provided the IGF-Community site. This groups is however not >sufficiently integrated in the IGF structure. The the IGF online >information environment and tools should IMHO be developed in close >collaboration between the Secretariate, the host country and a >multi-stakeholder service coalition. > >Does anyone know how and where to engage to work and push for better >online collaboration and information environments? > >> Might be possible to keep >> main sessions to the first and last days, with workshops in the >> middle and have workshops report back and discuss substantively on >> the final day? > >I like that proposal! > >Best, >Max >-------------------------------------------------------- >"I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not the >plains, and it seemeth I cannot long sit still. > >And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering will >be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end >one experienceth only oneself." > >(Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke Zarathustra) > >------------------------------------------------------------ >Max Senges >Research Associate >Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) >Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3 >08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN > >PhD Candidate >Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) >Programme on the Information Society > >Tel: >Spain +34-627193395 >Germany +49-17660855358 >@: maxsenges at gmail.com > >www.maxsenges.com > http://entrepreneur.jot.com >https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/ >------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends >inside Yahoo! Mail. >See >how. > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Wed Nov 28 05:31:55 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:31:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IPv6 transition problem to be discussed at IETF 70 Message-ID: <20071128103155.D94C62202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Looks like the problem with IPv6 transition is finally going to be seriously addressed by IETF. Greetings, Norbert. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- To: IETF V6OPS WG From: Fred Baker Subject: Agenda for IETF 70 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:44:55 -0800 IPv6 Operations will meet twice during IETF 70, once for our normal discussions, and once to discuss the status of the IPv4-IPv6 transition. This is the proposed agenda. IPv6 Operations "normal" meeting: Monday, 3 December, 3:20 PM 1. Opening 5 min - Agenda approval 2. Document status 30 mins - draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-04 - draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications-04 - draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-07 - draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02 - draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04 - draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-03 - draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 3. draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-00 20 mins 4. draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard-00 20 mins 5. draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-00.txt and 20 mins draft-ietf-v6ops-teredo-security-concerns-01 IPv6 Transition discussion: Thursday 6 December, 1:00 PM 1. Opening 10 mins - Agenda Bashing - Introductory remarks 2. Requirements - Jordi Palet 10 mins current IPv6 volume (RIPE talk redux) - Marcello Bagnulo 10 mins draft-bagnulo-v6ops-6man-nat64-pb-statement - Alain Durand 10 mins draft-durand-v6ops-natv4v6v4 - Elwyn Davies 10 mins requirements based on RFC 4966 3. Possible solutions - Iljitsch van Beijnum 20 mins draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt draft-carpenter-shanti-01.txt 4. Summary of discussion 10 mins Fred Baker 5. AD-led discussion of the problems and possible solutions Jari Arkko, Ron Bonica Objective: v6ops to produce combined document describing requirements for a solution. current documents: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-v6ops-6man-nat64-pb-statement "IPv6 - IPv4 Translators (NAT64) - Problem Statement and Analysis", Marcelo Bagnulo, 13-Nov-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement Problem Statement", Tim Chown, Stig Venaas, 12-Nov-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-durand-v6ops-natv4v6v4 "Non dual-stack IPv6 deployments for broadband providers", Alain Durand, 13-Nov-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon "IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations", Gunter Van de Velde, Chip Popoviciu, Tim Chown, Olaf Bonness, Christian Hahn, 7-Nov-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps "Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix Environment: Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules", Arifumi Matsumoto, 12-Oct-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req "Requirements for address selection mechanisms", Arifumi Matsumoto, 8-Nov-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6 "Special-Use IPv6 Addresses", Marc Blanchet, 5-Oct-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications "IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning", Tim Chown, 19-Nov-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-teredo-security-concerns "Teredo Security Concerns", James Hoagland, Suresh Krishnan, 16- Nov-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update "Teredo Security Updates", Suresh Krishnan, James Hoagland, 16- Nov-07, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard "IPv6 RA-Guard", Gunter Van de Velde, Eric Levy-Abegnoli, Chip Popoviciu, Janos Mohacsi, 12-Nov-07, Older documents: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arifumi-v6ops-addr-select-sol "Solution approaches for address-selection problems", Arifumi Matsumoto, 15-Jun-07, moved to 6man http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-v6ops-b2b-private-routing "Business to Business Private Routing", Fred Baker, 3-Jul-07, dead, at least for the moment http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-v6ops-tunnelbroker-tsp "IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP)", Florent Parent, Marc Blanchet, 2-Sep-05, transition http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoagland-v6ops-teredosecconcerns "Teredo Security Concerns Beyond What Is In RFC 4380", Suresh Krishnan, James Hoagland, 12-Jul-07, to be discussed http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios "IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks", Myung-Ki Shin, 27- Apr-07, Ron's in-box http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", James Woodyatt, 15- Jun-07, not clear what the state is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-massar-v6ops-heartbeat "SixXS Heartbeat Protocol", Jeroen Massar, 6-Jun-05, transition http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nward-v6ops-teredo-server-selection "Teredo Server Selection", Nathan Ward, 3-Jul-07, transition http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-van-beijnum-v6ops-connect-method "IPv4/IPv6 Interoperation Using the HTTP CONNECT Method", Iljitsch van Beijnum, 5-Jul-07, not sure what to do with this ------- End of forwarded message ------- -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Nov 28 05:49:47 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:49:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <67E889D1-2368-4DAF-A550-BC57B5884579@ras.eu.org> Le 28 nov. 07 à 02:05, Dan Krimm a écrit : > At 1:18 AM +0100 11/28/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Le 27 nov. 07 à 22:25, Dan Krimm a écrit : >> >>> Another question I heard elsewhere is: does the deep packet >>> inspection >>> violate EU privacy laws? >> >> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "deep packet inspection" >> here? > > In order to detect infringement, the content must be identified as > it is > passed through the net. In your earlier message you referred to it as > "filtering techniques" such as provided by Audible Magic (also > referenced > in the title of this email thread). Thanks for the explanation (and thanks, McTim, for the pointer). Actually, I don't know the answer to your question, as I'm not sure how deep this inspection goes, it depends on the system used: if used to only identify that it's P2P traffic (I assume we can call this protocol filtering), does this necessarily mean *content* inspection in the sense of privacy laws? Advanced network analysis tools (for e.g. QoS analysis or any other metrology studies) are based on "application flow classification". This is needed for fine analysis of network operation, but may also be used for other purposes, as we know. So, I personally wouldn't advocate a radical position against any use of such tools, but rather look at (1) how proportional is their use w.r.t. a given purpose and (2) whether the use is actually limited to the claimed purpose, which should obviously be legitimate. These two criteria are actually the cardinal principles of EU personal data protection legislation. Then come user rights recognized in this legislation (information on, and access to, user's data being processes, etc.). And they all should be examined on a case by case basis. > Perhaps, as you noted, this must be in conjunction with IP > addresses, etc., > to identify the supposed infringers. I guess it comes down to the > status > of the "legal order" to get the identifying info in the case of > claimed > infringement. Would this proposed system create some sort of "blanket > legal order" to allow bulk access to identifying info in case of > flagging > of infringing content in the filtering system? Not necessarily "blanket", but in any case a rather easy to obtain legal order (see my previous answer to Rui in the same thread, with the link given). > Even if the IP address "is not personal data" anymore in France, at > some > point they do have to get some personal data to prosecute the > claim, so at > some point there are personal data involved, and one would assume > that at > that point the privacy laws would kick in somehow, unless the > identifying > path is so "spread out" that the law cannot catch it at any > specific point > in the path. What I'm trying to explain is that once you get a legal order, you can go to the concerned ISPs and ask them for the identity of the concerned persons, given the IP addresses (and other relevant trafic data such as date, time, etc.). Given that, on the other hand, there are data retention laws, you're done. Like it or not, this is lawful. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 05:50:39 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:50:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv6 transition problem to be discussed at IETF 70 In-Reply-To: <20071128103155.D94C62202B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20071128103155.D94C62202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Nov 28, 2007 1:31 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Looks like the problem with IPv6 transition is finally going to > be seriously addressed by IETF. And the previous discussions haven't been serious ;-) Seriously tho, for those who like pretty pictures, this is nice: http://www.caida.org/analysis/topology/as_core_network/ipv6.xml Scroll down to "Comparative Analysis" to see v4 vs v6. -- 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Nov 28 06:27:26 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:27:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88B4AB64-F1A1-4024-8A95-8A1E90E71569@ras.eu.org> Le 28 nov. 07 à 04:40, Lee McKnight a écrit : > Meryem, Alejandro, > > Can I try to redirect as the lawyers say? :) > One can look at ICANN as half full: [...] > One can also look at ICANN as half empty: [...] Right (although I'm not sure of the proportions:) > I suspect the 2 of you won't agree on which view is accurate. > Which is fine. I agree, but the main problem I see here, Lee, is that this doesn't seem fine to everyone. If this was indeed fine, then we could have quiet discussions, with any view being expressed, contradicted, etc. avoiding caricatures and other "arguments" like: "paranoia", "obsession", "prejudice", "lack of knowledge", "parochiality", etc. Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be valued if expressed within a given framework, from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are equated to "the Internet's best interests"). Frankly, do you know of any other institution for which you are opposed such prerequistes to any criticism? Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 28 06:40:38 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:40:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <88B4AB64-F1A1-4024-8A95-8A1E90E71569@ras.eu.org> References: <88B4AB64-F1A1-4024-8A95-8A1E90E71569@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <005e01c831b3$80b6cdb0$82246910$@com> HI See comments below Jacqueline > Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be > valued if expressed within a given framework, I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. >from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are equated to "the > Internet's best interests"). I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the "institution". No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.6/1150 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 17:58 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Nov 28 07:12:06 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:12:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <005e01c831b3$80b6cdb0$82246910$@com> References: <88B4AB64-F1A1-4024-8A95-8A1E90E71569@ras.eu.org> <005e01c831b3$80b6cdb0$82246910$@com> Message-ID: Hi Jacqueline, Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >> valued if expressed within a given framework, > > I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently > dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for > discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and this is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are > equated to "the >> Internet's best interests"). > > I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date > in this > thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some from > outside > the "institution" and some from ex-members of the "institution". Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find very strange this approach to institutions. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Nov 28 07:23:27 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:23:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Alex, >> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:40:14 -0500 >> From: Lee McKnight >> Whether it might some day be replaced/transform into something else is >> unknowable at present, but maybe both Meryem and Alejandro and the rest of us >> can agree that whatever the model, whether of ALAC, ICANN more broadly, or >> Internet governance still more broadly, that fair, open, and transparent >> administrative procedures should be developed, and followed, whatever that >> might mean in a particular issue area? No small task in and of itself, and >> sure IETF, ICANN, and any number of other entities can be looked to for >> practical guiidance on what this might might mean for Internet governance. On 11/28/07 5:46 AM, "Alejandro Pisanty" wrote: > Lee, > > too either/or to work and still prejudiced. Could you explain how asking that fair, open, and transparent procedures be followed in IG (per Lee, generally, across issue-areas and institutional arrangements) is unduly binary and prejudiced? My recollection from the WGIG discussion about application of the WSIS principles is that you found such criteria to be quite useful in evaluating the ITU, so why they be prejudiced if applied to other arrangements? Perplexed in the peanut gallery, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Wed Nov 28 08:07:02 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:07:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <474D67F6.4040100@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Some tasks: > > When secretary general renewed the AG on August 20 he asked the group to > suggest means for rotating its membership ("based on recommendations > from the various interested groups"). Thoughts? Current list of members > here . I hope the "pain" > will be shared equally among stakeholders. This would also be an > opportunity to suggest better balance among stakeholders. We need a caucus statement :) To understand better - the February session will be run by the 2007 AG and focused on how to select the 2008 AG, or the AG will be rotated and reconstituted before February? > We should also be considering means to enhance transparency and flow of > information. AG's immediate reaction to the secretary general's request > was to publish notes of its closed meeting. Was this adequate? Given > the pretty rough and ready reaction at the time, if these notes were > improved --for example the ICANN board's doing a good job of reporting > -- would such > information be adequate? In general, the AG needs a bit of institutionalizing (hope that the idea doesn't scare the I* folks) - ie clearer procedures and mandate. > What worked well in Rio, what worked less well, what went badly? > > Badly: funding for participation. > > People mentioned the schedule was too crammed with activities, no time > to stop and talk. How can we take open call for workshops etc, and > filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard process.) > > Were the best practise sessions useful? Were the open sessions useful? I must say I did not have time to watch much, but my feeling is that: - orientation and primers don't really fit in such a conference - people should do their homeworks and come prepared. However, since I know that reality is different, learning sessions should at least be confined to an initial preparatory day, so that people who don't need the orientation can arrive one day later or use it for other preparatory work. - best practices could be useful if they were really innovative, not if they're just aimed at showing how great country X is at using and managing the Internet. Personally I'd scrap them. > Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? > Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental > changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have been > well received. We need to be realistic about what can be changed (in my > opinion.) Let's separate the two things - themes for the main sessions, and themes in general. The main sessions on the five main themes may become a bit pointless, IMHO - as long as the themes stay the same they are bound to be a repetition of known positions, without any real contribution to advancing anything. Either you change the themes every year, or you turn them back into a TV show designed for broadcast/webcast to a wider audience, which might not be a bad idea - but then, you have to move them out of the focus of the conference, and make them a collateral. About themes in general, I've really seen a lot of support for the theme of "Internet rights" in various declinations (not just the Bill of Rights, even if that particular flavour got plenty of attention in Rio). > plan to attend.) Might be possible to keep main sessions to the first > and last days, with workshops in the middle and have workshops report > back and discuss substantively on the final day? I think that time is ripe to have a "general assembly" type of plenary discussion, as long as it's clear that it's not negotiating anything. But it needs more than two hours per theme, and it needs to be clearly focused and finalized in some way. Not easy to put in practice. About rejecting workshops, I personally think that the AG should embrace a mix of top-down and bottom-up approach. I would be against the AG turning into a real program committee and rejecting workshop proposals at pleasure, but I would be for the AG being proactive in encouraging workshop proposals on certain "hot issues", for example, and in prompting people to "think again" if their proposals do not fit well, or are just self-promotional, or are not complete enough in terms of diversity. I support a set of hard requirements to workshops, including not just a clear connection to Internet governance, but also an explanation about why the organizers think that people would be willing to spend 90 minutes in a crowded conference to watch that particular dicussion - organizers should have to "sell" their workshop to the AG. And please, let's put a clear upper limit to how much time can be spent in presentations, and let's ensure that at least 30 minutes go for floor discussion. I'm also wondering whether certain workshops should be given more time. I don't know how to do it in practice, but our experience with the Bill of Rights workshop was frustrating. Ok, we started 20 minutes late (because you have a hosting Minister in the panel and you can't really start without - it's a sui generis conference, but still some protocol applies), but even if we managed to keep speeches in 50-55 minutes, after 100 minutes there were still plenty of people willing to speak from the floor. We really had to close, we had consumed the 30 minutes break and would otherwise have eaten into the following session, but it was an interesting discussion, with many different viewpoints, and it was a real pity not to let people continue. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 28 08:21:29 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:21:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <88B4AB64-F1A1-4024-8A95-8A1E90E71569@ras.eu.org> References: <88B4AB64-F1A1-4024-8A95-8A1E90E71569@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20071128132137.52F822BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> At 12:27 11/28/2007 +0100, you wrote: >I agree, but the main problem I see here, Lee, is that this doesn't >seem fine to everyone. If this was indeed fine, then we could have >quiet discussions, with any view being expressed, contradicted, etc. >avoiding caricatures and other "arguments" like: "paranoia", >"obsession", "prejudice", "lack of knowledge", "parochiality", etc. Meryem and all, if it was possible - for at least a moment - for people to think before they post the message about the following... a) the whole world is much bigger than the US / West Europe b) the US is not the center of the Universe, and neither is West Europe c) there are cultures which are much more vibrant, diverse, interesting, etc., etc., and they bring people with different minds, and we all have to be more tolerant ... then we may end up in a positive, constructive discussion. There is a lot of history on this list, and - choose one - [some] [most] [all] of us, me included, from time to time get into a direction, which is discussing the history, instead of thinking about the future. So, it would be really good to focus on the positive, constructive contribution into the discussion. There are some questions being asked, which remained without answers, because people went into discussion of the form, not the substance. 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 maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 08:26:46 2007 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:26:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: <474D67F6.4040100@bertola.eu> References: <474D67F6.4040100@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0711280526u3c693bs94d8aeb9cd7146a6@mail.gmail.com> > I think that time is ripe to have a "general assembly" type of plenary > discussion, as long as it's clear that it's not negotiating anything. > But it needs more than two hours per theme, and it needs to be clearly > focused and finalized in some way. Not easy to put in practice. The idea of a "general assembly" sounds interesting. I am not sure what you mean saying it should not negotiate? No binding agreements, but i believe the goal would be to have this body agree on something like "official IGF RFCs/Statements",no? Also it might make sense to think about an institutionalized "WGIG like" expert group a bit like the German "German Council of Economic Experts" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Council_of_Economic_Experts) they have authority not so much by mandate but by competence and reason. Regarding the workshops, I like Vittorio's soft steering of a "please think again" and possibly urge similar proposals to consolidate and make a joint session. Lastly regarding Ralf's point: I have been to their privacy workshop and it really was one of the few events worth the title "workshop". Possibly two types of side events "pannel discussions/presentations" and workshops would do the trick. best, max ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From plzak at arin.net Wed Nov 28 09:13:09 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:13:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: <474C1586.9090303@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <474C1586.9090303@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: I agree, they all seemed more focused on panel participants and basically ignored the audience by restricting their participation by "time management". A simple problem statement by the chair with focused discussion points for topic management and not panel presentations would have been more effective and would have allowed more ideas to flow. Most workshops were definitely top-down in orientation and practice. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:03 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 > > Adam Peake schrieb: > > Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? > To my understanding, there was a general feeling that the first "main > themes" have been discussed enough, and that we need to focus on new > ones. > The emerging issues session for example showed that there is an > increasing > need to discuss anonymity, identification and privacy on the internet - > I > guess this would be a good new theme. Or the whole human rights theme, > which as Max has emphazised could even be linked to tangible outcomes > integrated by the Bill of Rights DC. > > I also have the feeling that people are getting sick of just sitting in > a > room and passively listening to powerpoint presentations for hours. > This > is not what you call "workshop" in natural language. Of all the events > I > was involved in, the Privacy Coalition meeting got the best feedback by > far, because we had no presentations whatsoever, but instead asked > people > about their ideas and where they were willing to contribute and work > with > us. The result was a very engaged mix of discussing, brainstorming and > volunteering - and this at 8:30 in the morning on the last day! > > Maybe this is my general sentiment: The IGF must focus on outcomes now > (not necessarily stuff adopted in the plenary, but outcomes of > workshops, > coalitions, best practice collections, etc.), otherwise it will turn > into > just another conference. And I have the feeling that most people trust > each other enough after two IGF meetings and numerous consultations > that > they really want to collaborate. > > 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Nov 28 09:18:43 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:18:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Thanks for asking.. Some first suggestions from someone having not attended IGF 2007: Le 27 nov. 07 à 11:00, Adam Peake a écrit : > Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? > Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental > changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have > been well received. We need to be realistic about what can be > changed (in my opinion.) Unfortunately, there are no transcripts from workshops, but in the main sessions transcripts, I see from Bill's report on the IGC workshop (http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2- TakingStock-15NOV07.txt) a very useful proposal which seems still realistic to implement: "[...] an option that some people thought was interesting was, what we could do is try to have essentially the dynamic coalitions and the workshops and so on able to percolate up from the bottom, from the edges of the network, as the chairman said, the -- some of the ideas, some of the key points that have come out of their work, bring that to the larger community for discussion in a plenary setting. [...] And if we could find a way to leverage what they [wokshop discussions] have generated and bring it into a wider debate, that would be helpful. That doesn't necessarily mean adopting the recommendations. It means simply addressing the issues on a broader basis, giving more people a chance to respond to the ideas, and so on. [...]" Obviously, it's not that easy to pick up 3-4 of these key points. But it would be worth give it a try. We can try to set up a first list, and then have it refined. Or we can ask all workshop organizers to provide ONE proposal/issue as a result from their workshop, that they think would fit a plenary session discussion, and this would form the initial list. The proposal should be more than simply dropping a keyword, or an entirely open issue. It should come with a well prepared background, stating different views already expressed (as this is supposed to be an outcome from workshops, there have been previous discussions leading to such background). Some ideas have already been proposed: the "Internet bill of rights" is one of them. I would like to propose another one, which is the result of a workshop organized by APC and Co. (see CoE & APC press release at: http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569=): a proposal for a mechanism to foster participation, access to information and transparency in internet governance, based on the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. I'm sure there are many others. On workshops, I support the already expressed idea, by Max and others, on prioritizing really global IG issues, with a fixed, manageable, number of parallel workshops (not simply based on the number of received proposals / number of available slots). But the difficulty lies in the definition of what is a global IG issue:) As some messages already shown, an agreement on this seems hard to obtain. Another suggestion, not related to content: the transcripts are really useful, much more than webcast or videos in my opinion. They're useful for people not attending and also as archives for everyone. I understand funding is limited, but I would favor putting the money on the transcripts, including the transcripts of workshop sessions, and on translation of these transcripts. This is very important for inclusion. Maybe the translation costs can be shared among participating countries and international organizations, so that many languages can be available. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Wed Nov 28 09:55:20 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:55:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Why IPv4 address depletion matters (was Re: Reinstate...) In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:55:37 +0300) References: <00b001c82df2$ed804080$c880c180$@com> <2aa69fe40711230923w4eab69cbv9e92888853c4ae2d@mail.gmail.com> <2aa69fe40711232233s79f6ceb5me18cad6cdba72cf1@mail.gmail.com> <20071126132020.3BC4C2202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <20071126221229.A17802202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <20071127133520.71D392202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20071128145520.DB6242202B6@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On Nov 27, 2007 4:35 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Do you know if historic data is available somewhere, so that I can > > check whether there has been any movement forward recently, or > > whether perhaps (as I fear) all that is from several years ago > > back when the "Swiss IPv6 Task Force" was active? > > Yes, good records are publicly available: > > http://www.ripe.net/rs/ipv6/stats/ripencc.html Very cool, thanks for sharing this link! Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 10:11:06 2007 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:11:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d976d8e0711280711k66bbcf31hb3102e18ca9c3a5e@mail.gmail.com> I also really liked the idea expressed by one participant during a main session: To install a big a clock on the podium and during debates have esp. audience contributions limited to 2 minutes (the clock counting down and then turn of the mic). Possibly the chair can decide to extend that time but this would stop these people going on and on, and on..... best max On Nov 28, 2007 3:18 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for asking.. Some first suggestions from someone having not > attended IGF 2007: > > Le 27 nov. 07 à 11:00, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? > > Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental > > changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have > > been well received. We need to be realistic about what can be > > changed (in my opinion.) > > Unfortunately, there are no transcripts from workshops, but in the > main sessions transcripts, I see from Bill's report on the IGC > workshop (http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2- > TakingStock-15NOV07.txt) a very useful proposal which seems still > realistic to implement: > > "[...] an option that some people thought was interesting was, what > we could do is try to have essentially the dynamic coalitions and the > workshops and so on able to percolate up from the bottom, from the > edges of the network, as the chairman said, the -- some of the ideas, > some of the key points that have come out of their work, bring that > to the larger community for discussion in a plenary setting. [...] > And if we could find a way to leverage what they [wokshop > discussions] have generated and bring it into a wider debate, that > would be helpful. That doesn't necessarily mean adopting the > recommendations. It means simply addressing the issues on a broader > basis, giving more people a chance to respond to the ideas, and so on. > [...]" > > Obviously, it's not that easy to pick up 3-4 of these key points. But > it would be worth give it a try. We can try to set up a first list, > and then have it refined. Or we can ask all workshop organizers to > provide ONE proposal/issue as a result from their workshop, that they > think would fit a plenary session discussion, and this would form the > initial list. > > The proposal should be more than simply dropping a keyword, or an > entirely open issue. It should come with a well prepared background, > stating different views already expressed (as this is supposed to be > an outcome from workshops, there have been previous discussions > leading to such background). > > Some ideas have already been proposed: the "Internet bill of rights" > is one of them. > I would like to propose another one, which is the result of a > workshop organized by APC and Co. (see CoE & APC press release at: > http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569=): a proposal > for a mechanism to foster participation, access to information and > transparency in internet governance, based on the Aarhus Convention > on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and > Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. > I'm sure there are many others. > > On workshops, I support the already expressed idea, by Max and > others, on prioritizing really global IG issues, with a fixed, > manageable, number of parallel workshops (not simply based on the > number of received proposals / number of available slots). But the > difficulty lies in the definition of what is a global IG issue:) As > some messages already shown, an agreement on this seems hard to obtain. > > Another suggestion, not related to content: the transcripts are > really useful, much more than webcast or videos in my opinion. > They're useful for people not attending and also as archives for > everyone. I understand funding is limited, but I would favor putting > the money on the transcripts, including the transcripts of workshop > sessions, and on translation of these transcripts. This is very > important for inclusion. Maybe the translation costs can be shared > among participating countries and international organizations, so > that many languages can be available. > > Best, > Meryem > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- -------------------------------------------------------- "I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not the plains, and it seemeth I cannot long sit still. And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering will be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end one experienceth only oneself." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke Zarathustra) ------------------------------------------------------------ Max Senges Research Associate Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3 08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN PhD Candidate Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) Programme on the Information Society Tel: Spain +34-627193395 Germany +49-17660855358 @: maxsenges at gmail.com www.maxsenges.com http://entrepreneur.jot.com https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/ ------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 28 10:41:37 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:41:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: <474D67F6.4040100@bertola.eu> References: <474D67F6.4040100@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 2:07 PM +0100 11/28/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>Some tasks: >> >>When secretary general renewed the AG on August 20 he asked the >>group to suggest means for rotating its membership ("based on >>recommendations from the various interested groups"). Thoughts? >>Current list of members here >>. I hope the "pain" >>will be shared equally among stakeholders. This would also be an >>opportunity to suggest better balance among stakeholders. > >We need a caucus statement :) Yes. >To understand better - the February session will be run by the 2007 >AG and focused on how to select the 2008 AG, or the AG will be >rotated and reconstituted before February? My guess is the former. But I don't think anyone knows for sure. I believe the secretariat may ask UN New York for clarification on the mandate of the AG renewed on August 20. The usual IGF way to do it would be first to take comments from stakeholders, discuss, and make a recommendation to the secretary general. And this would be make sense in light of the instruction in the press release of August 20 "It [AG] has also been requested to make proposals on a suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations from the various interested groups." I imagine there will be a request for comments issued soon, discussion held during the February consultation, AG then draft some recommendation during its meeting and then I hope this draft recommendation will be put for further public comment before a final recommendation goes to the secretary general. Nothing's been discussed to date, been busy since August with Rio arrangements. But. A representative of the Russian Federation made a comment during one of the closing sessions in Rio that the mandate of the AG ended with the Rio meeting. So seems there's no agreement on all this. I think it would be a shame if the February consultation only discussed rotation and the AG. Need to get moving on themes, structure etc. The improvements you and others are suggesting won't happen if left until midsummer. Adam >>We should also be considering means to enhance transparency and >>flow of information. AG's immediate reaction to the secretary >>general's request was to publish notes of its closed meeting. Was >>this adequate? Given the pretty rough and ready reaction at the >>time, if these notes were improved --for example the ICANN board's >>doing a good job of reporting >>-- would >>such information be adequate? > >In general, the AG needs a bit of institutionalizing (hope that the >idea doesn't scare the I* folks) - ie clearer procedures and mandate. > >>What worked well in Rio, what worked less well, what went badly? >> >>Badly: funding for participation. >> >>People mentioned the schedule was too crammed with activities, no >>time to stop and talk. How can we take open call for workshops >>etc, and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard >>process.) >> >>Were the best practise sessions useful? Were the open sessions useful? > >I must say I did not have time to watch much, but my feeling is that: > >- orientation and primers don't really fit in such a conference - >people should do their homeworks and come prepared. However, since I >know that reality is different, learning sessions should at least be >confined to an initial preparatory day, so that people who don't >need the orientation can arrive one day later or use it for other >preparatory work. > >- best practices could be useful if they were really innovative, not >if they're just aimed at showing how great country X is at using and >managing the Internet. Personally I'd scrap them. > >>Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? >>Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental >>changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have >>been well received. We need to be realistic about what can be >>changed (in my opinion.) > >Let's separate the two things - themes for the main sessions, and >themes in general. > >The main sessions on the five main themes may become a bit >pointless, IMHO - as long as the themes stay the same they are bound >to be a repetition of known positions, without any real contribution >to advancing anything. Either you change the themes every year, or >you turn them back into a TV show designed for broadcast/webcast to >a wider audience, which might not be a bad idea - but then, you have >to move them out of the focus of the conference, and make them a >collateral. > >About themes in general, I've really seen a lot of support for the >theme of "Internet rights" in various declinations (not just the >Bill of Rights, even if that particular flavour got plenty of >attention in Rio). > >>plan to attend.) Might be possible to keep main sessions to the >>first and last days, with workshops in the middle and have >>workshops report back and discuss substantively on the final day? > >I think that time is ripe to have a "general assembly" type of >plenary discussion, as long as it's clear that it's not negotiating >anything. But it needs more than two hours per theme, and it needs >to be clearly focused and finalized in some way. Not easy to put in >practice. > >About rejecting workshops, I personally think that the AG should >embrace a mix of top-down and bottom-up approach. I would be against >the AG turning into a real program committee and rejecting workshop >proposals at pleasure, but I would be for the AG being proactive in >encouraging workshop proposals on certain "hot issues", for example, >and in prompting people to "think again" if their proposals do not >fit well, or are just self-promotional, or are not complete enough >in terms of diversity. I support a set of hard requirements to >workshops, including not just a clear connection to Internet >governance, but also an explanation about why the organizers think >that people would be willing to spend 90 minutes in a crowded >conference to watch that particular dicussion - organizers should >have to "sell" their workshop to the AG. And please, let's put a >clear upper limit to how much time can be spent in presentations, >and let's ensure that at least 30 minutes go for floor discussion. > >I'm also wondering whether certain workshops should be given more >time. I don't know how to do it in practice, but our experience with >the Bill of Rights workshop was frustrating. Ok, we started 20 >minutes late (because you have a hosting Minister in the panel and >you can't really start without - it's a sui generis conference, but >still some protocol applies), but even if we managed to keep >speeches in 50-55 minutes, after 100 minutes there were still plenty >of people willing to speak from the floor. We really had to close, >we had consumed the 30 minutes break and would otherwise have eaten >into the following session, but it was an interesting discussion, >with many different viewpoints, and it was a real pity not to let >people continue. >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 11:18:32 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:18:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] Who is Attending the Global Knowledge Partnership (GK3) Conference in KL Message-ID: <00be01c831da$527e7570$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> As part of a small piece of research I'm doing I'm wondering how many on this list will be attending the GK3 Conference in Kuala Lumpur in December? Please reply offlist. Tks MG Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St. Vancouver BC CANADA v6z 2s1 http://www.communityinformatics.net tel./fax +1-604-602-0624 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Wed Nov 28 11:23:26 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:23:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Who is Attending the Global Knowledge Partnership (GK3) Conference in KL In-Reply-To: <00be01c831da$527e7570$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <00be01c831da$527e7570$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: I'll be there. George >As part of a small piece of research I'm doing I'm wondering how many on >this list will be attending the GK3 Conference in Kuala Lumpur in December? > >Please reply offlist. > >Tks > >MG > >Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development >Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St. >Vancouver BC CANADA v6z 2s1 >http://www.communityinformatics.net >tel./fax +1-604-602-0624 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 28 11:44:38 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:44:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Dr. Sohrab Razzaghi released Message-ID: <200711281644.lASGiWCL022599@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear colleagues, This is to inform you that Dr. Sohrab Razzaghi, Executive director of the ICTRC, has been released last week by the Iranian authorities. The ICTRC itself is however still closed. The CS letter in this regard is therefore still valid. More information on the attached document. Ph 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Observatory urgent appeals" Subject: The Observatory: Iran: Release on bail of Mr. Sohrab Razzaghi Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:41:11 +0100 Size: 123505 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 14:43:07 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:43:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: <474D67F6.4040100@bertola.eu> Message-ID: About repeating the five main theme plenaries: Can we find out how many in Rio had attended Athens or WSIS? For people new to the process, from the region for instance, the plenaries may have been informative. Even though for most on this list, they were redundant. 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 15:30:14 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:30:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: <474D67F6.4040100@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45ed74050711281230k1456147dxe87cafd8a219b430@mail.gmail.com> Yes, plus can we somehow find out how many were participating over the Net? In the overarching spirit of this sort of social networking (just one but a key IGF event aspect) we hope that this number will grow. And see (paraphrasing) the discussion here re the "remote" connection as a * microcosm* of worlds to come. That is - so we think, hope, and pro-ject. Perhaps there are *stats* as to registration, though the actual sign-ins would of course per usual be less. Still, good to know or guestimate. Thanks, and best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* On 11/28/07, Sylvia Caras wrote: > > About repeating the five main theme plenaries: > > Can we find out how many in Rio had attended Athens or WSIS? For > people new to the process, from the region for instance, the plenaries > may have been informative. > > Even though for most on this list, they were redundant. > > Sylvia > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Wed Nov 28 17:04:34 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:04:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: France To Require Internet Service Providers To Filter Infringing Music In-Reply-To: <67E889D1-2368-4DAF-A550-BC57B5884579@ras.eu.org> References: <20071127142221.GA20616@nic.fr> <25419305-41CE-4177-9F64-68058509CA94@ras.eu.org> <67E889D1-2368-4DAF-A550-BC57B5884579@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Thanks very much, Meryem, this helps me understand things a lot more. BTW, Audible Magic does (I believe) fingerprinting analysis, which likely aims at certain spectral characteristics of the unencrypted/unencoded audio waveform and compares to registered recordings' signatures stored in a database. So it is a form of genuine content identification, not just protocol. A similar system is in operation at http://www.shazam.com/ -- because of the spectral methodology, this is quite resistant to bad recording quality and additional ambient noise (like: in a noisy bar, going through a phone call, coming from someone's iPod held up to the phone receiver). I know the guy who worked on Shazam's algorithm, and I assume AM's is similar in principle. So, I guess my final question is, if this stuff is all legal (including getting a "legal order" to obtain personal data), then what would be unconstitutional in France about a law to create the proposed regulatory authority, in order to challenge the constitutionality of such a law? Also, is the mere fact of a data transfer involving a work under copyright unequivocal proof of infringement in France? (What about fair use provisions, etc.?) Part of the issue with regulatory frameworks such as this is that they can avoid legitimate judicial review, in an unbalanced manner that favors copyright owner/aggregators over the rights of end users. If the legal order is too easy to get, then justice is being systematically subverted, because it is not as easy to fight the order. Easy = cheap, of course; it's all about money and other transaction costs.) But all of this is moot if the law never actually gets passed in the first place. Can you estimate the political chances of this? Dan At 11:49 AM +0100 11/28/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Le 28 nov. 07 à 02:05, Dan Krimm a écrit : > >> At 1:18 AM +0100 11/28/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> Le 27 nov. 07 à 22:25, Dan Krimm a écrit : >>> >>>> Another question I heard elsewhere is: does the deep packet >>>> inspection >>>> violate EU privacy laws? >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "deep packet inspection" >>> here? >> >> In order to detect infringement, the content must be identified as >> it is >> passed through the net. In your earlier message you referred to it as >> "filtering techniques" such as provided by Audible Magic (also >> referenced >> in the title of this email thread). > >Thanks for the explanation (and thanks, McTim, for the pointer). >Actually, I don't know the answer to your question, as I'm not sure >how deep this inspection goes, it depends on the system used: if used >to only identify that it's P2P traffic (I assume we can call this >protocol filtering), does this necessarily mean *content* inspection >in the sense of privacy laws? Advanced network analysis tools (for >e.g. QoS analysis or any other metrology studies) are based on >"application flow classification". This is needed for fine analysis >of network operation, but may also be used for other purposes, as we >know. So, I personally wouldn't advocate a radical position against >any use of such tools, but rather look at (1) how proportional is >their use w.r.t. a given purpose and (2) whether the use is actually >limited to the claimed purpose, which should obviously be legitimate. >These two criteria are actually the cardinal principles of EU >personal data protection legislation. Then come user rights >recognized in this legislation (information on, and access to, user's >data being processes, etc.). And they all should be examined on a >case by case basis. > >> Perhaps, as you noted, this must be in conjunction with IP >> addresses, etc., >> to identify the supposed infringers. I guess it comes down to the >> status >> of the "legal order" to get the identifying info in the case of >> claimed >> infringement. Would this proposed system create some sort of "blanket >> legal order" to allow bulk access to identifying info in case of >> flagging >> of infringing content in the filtering system? > >Not necessarily "blanket", but in any case a rather easy to obtain >legal order (see my previous answer to Rui in the same thread, with >the link given). > >> Even if the IP address "is not personal data" anymore in France, at >> some >> point they do have to get some personal data to prosecute the >> claim, so at >> some point there are personal data involved, and one would assume >> that at >> that point the privacy laws would kick in somehow, unless the >> identifying >> path is so "spread out" that the law cannot catch it at any >> specific point >> in the path. > >What I'm trying to explain is that once you get a legal order, you >can go to the concerned ISPs and ask them for the identity of the >concerned persons, given the IP addresses (and other relevant trafic >data such as date, time, etc.). Given that, on the other hand, there >are data retention laws, you're done. Like it or not, this is lawful. > >Meryem____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Wed Nov 28 23:22:35 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:22:35 -0800 Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <474E3E8B.2040404@cavebear.com> Adam Peake wrote: > Pretty much agree with Bret and Avri. It's taken along time to get all > the ALAC structures in place, now's time to see if they work. They have had 4 years already. And yet, with massive infusions of ICANN money and staff it is a cripple that can garner barely enough interest to fill a very small meeting room. That compares badly with the nearly 200,000 who tried, in a period of times measured in months, not years, to participate when there was something at stake. The ALAC, even after these 4+ years and mountains of money shows no real signs that it is rousing. Yes there are some significant worthies - Roberto and Vittorio come to mind - yet the best that the ALAC does is to occasionally express mild thoughts in mild phrases and without the power to compel the real decision makers to pay attention, much less to consider, what has been said. Any body of internet governance that builds on such a soft and weak foundation will find that eventually the public recedes and that when something really causes the public to itch that they will find that, because there is no real institutional means of recourse, that because in that body accountability is merely a word without substance, that the only recourse is not to repair the body but, rather to replace it. > The elections did not work. I rather beg to differ. (Reserving opinion on my own role) I'd assert that the directors who were elected were generally better qualified, worked harder, and were a richer source of ideas than those who came before. And that was even with active attempts by certain parts of ICANN that attempted to interfere with the work of those directors (such as suddenly changing the rules about putting things onto the agenda so that Andy MM could not put a motion onto the table.) > North America was OK (if we ignore the massive imbalance in voting pool. > Likely permanent US seat, Canada and a few other disenfranchised.) Your conclusion does not follow. The vote was rather close and the outcome could have been swayed a group in any of the countries. Moreover, the NA region is the one and only region is dominated by one country - 300,000,000 out of the total of about 330,000,000 at that time. In no other region does any one country have a population whose numbers so greatly dominate the combined weight of the other regions. One might naturally expect that the candidates and results might tend to follow that population distribution. But from that you are jumping to a conclusion that people voted by nationality. My own indication was that people voted based on the arguments made by the candidates. And to follow your logic - if one country can dominate others, then perhaps the elections ought to be for representatives selected on a country by country basis? And since there are regions within countries that might then be unequally distributed - For example California has a population that is 75x times larger than the smallest state - so by your logic we should then adopt regional or state wide elections. But then within individual states or regions do not some cities dominate and thus we need to go to even smaller divisions in order to remove the danger that you perceive that some area might dominate? Of course this logic, if followed to its conclusion, ends up right where I'd like to start: with the individual human being as the atomic unit of decision making, the ultimate "stakeholder" in internet governance. And in what why do we measure the voices of all of these ultimate stakeholders? An election in which each gets a vote seems like the obvious answer. > Asia Pacific was a a nationalistic mess. I disagree - in any election process the result tends to go to those who are best organized. That's why the intellectual property tends to dominate ICANN - because they are so well organized. The answer is, of course, for those who have different points of view to organize themselves. In addition, if the idea that a nationalistic point of view is so bad, then one must dismiss many of the voices on this list who argue for an ALAC based structure because it promises to increase nationalist and regional voices and to do so solely and exclusively on geography and borders. As it turned out the AP director was far from jingoistic and was, instead, synoptic, reflective, creative, and intelligent. His presence honored the entire AP region and his work has been, and continues to be, of value to the internet as a whole. > Latin America dominated by a national campaign in the country with the > largest population (significantly largest population). Others didn't > stand a chance. Again you are making an assertion that is not based on any statistical evidence. (And by-the-way, the director who was elected was very good at articulating a regional, not a Brazilian, point of view. He served his entire region very well.) > Europe, the person elected seems to have been strongly supported by a > special interest campaign. Yes, those who campaign tend to have backers. That's the nature of an election. Moreover that "special interest" group was internet users who have a strong technical understanding of the net, not unlike the IETF. (By the way the IETF gets a rather strong built-in voice in ICANN because it does have that kind of strong understanding - so it seems somewhat odd to disparage a similar constituency that is able to win in an election.) > Africa, the voting pool was so small as to make the election almost > irrelevant. Then, given that the ALAC is on same order of size, I guess that it should be discounted and dismissed for the same reason? As it came out, Nii Q. was an extremely fine director who was an effective voice for the needs of many people in his part of the world. > Karl, you were a Director, but you had no constituency and you didn't > make any attempt to communicate with the "at large". Really? I maintained massive contact with the community of internet users - everything from several hundred emails per week (the total number is in excess of 7,000 emails that I sent discussing ICANN matters with the community), to being the only director who had a published platform and explained his choices - see http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm and http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/diary/index.htm I also traveled and discussed issues at universities (Berkeley, UCLA, Northwestern, Loyola, CalTech, Univ of Texas, Harvard, Stanford, Boston University among others), intellectual property interests (don't forget that I am a member of the intellectual property section of the California state bar), businesses, and the US Congress. And, of course, to the degree that ICANN's board actually engaged in "discussion" of issues during that period I was the most active board member. And I maintained channels of discussion that were often quite active with at least 4 of the 6 other candidates in the election. And perhaps it is easy to forget but I was often the only board member who asked questions of the people in attendance (physically and over the net) during ICANN board meetings. These were hardly one-way exchanges. Please don't try to say that I did not make any attempt to communicate with the community of internet users. I made a far greater effort to do so than any person in ICANN, before or since. Moreover, all of this was done while ICANN was engaged in unlawful activity designed to prevent me from doing anything. All in all, I find your idea that I did not maintain contact with the internet users of North America to be an idea that is fully contradicted by the facts. > ALAC might do better, *might*. Yes, *might" deserves to be highlighted as the conditional, hopeful conditional, that it is. And here is where the "hope springs eternal" comes in - Many of us think of ICANN and the ALAC as a kind of "process" to make choices. That's one way to look at it. But there is a more important way to look at it: Power. The issue is that of raw power - the power of governance - the power to say "no" to activities that are otherwise lawful. We have seen how ICANN has leveraged that power into a siphon that pulls over half a billion dollars every year out of the pockets of internet users and splits that money between itself and the registries. Because we are engaged in allocating governmental kinds of power the ALAC must be judged as a political structure, not as an organizational structure. And it is for that reason why the idea of building an isolated, channeled, prim and proper ALAC fails. The ALAC is founded on a hope that through some process that ICANN will become a hall of philosopher kings. Yet history has taught us that philosopher kings are transient and that structures that do not contain real means for the community to hold a structure to account are structures that either become repressive or are dismantled. The flaws of the ALAC are many. The primary one is that it puts far too much distance between internet users and point of decision. This creates an opacity that makes it difficult, indeed impossible, for internet users to know who is making what choices and, more importantly, why. But the greater and more damaging result of that distance is the loss of accountability - internet users not only can not really perceive how choices are being made but they also do not have an effective means of signaling their displeasure and forcing a change. The ALAC is built of reeds that reflect a political naiveté - a kind of Panglossian hope that the internet is the best of all possible worlds and that everything will be right and good, that everyone plays fair, and that everything will turn out happily. On the other hand, elections are built of stones that reflect the hard political reality of the power of governance. Governance is venal and often quite ugly. The phrase "throw the bums out" is heard more often from the community than is heard words of admiration. ICANN has become a regulatory body that has been captured by commercial interests - you should go to an meeting of intellectual property lawyers and hear them laugh at how easy ICANN has made it for them to exert massive, even unfair, leverage on domain name owners. The ALAC is acceptable to those commercial interests because the ALAC is emasculated and powerless and is structured so that it will remain so. Had ICANN had a real system of elections ICANN may still have been captured. However, with elections there would be at least an avenue for remediation through action by the community expressed through votes. With the ALAC the chances of community outrage ever having any effect is about the same chance as you or I have of winning the state lottery. > Shame this discussion's not happening on the ALAC mailing list, subscribe: > > During the last quarter a mere 63 people made an average 10 comments each on that list and most of the notes were on ALAC procedural matters. That's not a sign of a lot of vibrancy or engagement with issues. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 29 06:10:27 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:10:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Meryem, Thanks for more good ideas -- we should end up with a good body of ideas that might become a contribution from the caucus for the February meeting (or from individuals, if we don't agree on everything we can pick and choose and submit what we like.) One update -- the dates of the stock taking consultation have moved. The open consultation now February 26, not 25th as I wrote earlier. The advisory group will most likely meet for the two days after, 27-28. Date of the consultation now on the website, I will ask that AG meeting also be mentioned. IGF website also now says: "All stakeholders are invited to send to the IGF Secretariat (igf at unog.ch) their comments and views on the Rio de Janeiro meeting and make suggestions with regard to the preparation of the meeting in New Delhi. You may wish to address topics such as the preparatory process, the logistics of the meeting as well as its format and content. All contributions will be posted on the Web site. A Web based form will also be made available for this purpose." More below... At 3:18 PM +0100 11/28/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Hi Adam, > >Thanks for asking.. Some first suggestions from >someone having not attended IGF 2007: > >Le 27 nov. 07 à 11:00, Adam Peake a écrit : > >>Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, >>should any be added? Radical reform of the >>whole agenda will not happen, so incremental >>changes may work. The caucus workshop on the >>mandate seems to have been well received. We >>need to be realistic about what can be changed >>(in my opinion.) > >Unfortunately, there are no transcripts from >workshops, but in the main sessions transcripts, Hopefully, all workshop organizers will submit a report, there was some confusion about the format, but hopefully these reports will appear sometime. And all workshops were audiocast and I hope audio files will be made available at some point. I believe the audiocasts were of the language used in the room, not interpreted. Your comment below about transcription very valid -- transcription services are reasonably affordable, text would be helpful (particularly if linked to any other materials, some may have used presentations, there may be background papers, etc.) Translation of course expensive, and the real-time scribes are a pretty unique resource, not sure there are many other services like their's. It's pretty amazing stuff. 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 From guru at itforchange.net Thu Nov 29 06:40:20 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:10:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very strange this approach to institutions' As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that substantive criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current ig structures) or has been simply ignored. Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this whole process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from an 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and ironical. Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults Regards, Guru Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of black -----Original Message----- From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation Hi Jacqueline, Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >> valued if expressed within a given framework, > > I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently > dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for > discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and this is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are > equated to "the >> Internet's best interests"). > > I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in > this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some > from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the > "institution". Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find very strange this approach to institutions. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 07:24:52 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:24:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474E3E8B.2040404@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <42154.5166.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Karl wrote: "During the last quarter a mere 63 people made an average 10 comments each on that list and most of the notes were on ALAC procedural matters." The situation is even worse than that... consider this remark by ICANN director Gaetano: "To be very honest, I don't see much work ongoing. To quote only one example, and referring to discussions I had in LA and Rio, I will mention the Euralo case: much bandwidth has been used to prepare and hold elections for a gigantic board, that has hardly ever met. I am still a member of the Euralo mailing list, and either I need to trim my mail filters, or not much has been going on lately." http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q4/002367.html ... and frankly, Roberto is being too kind... The Euralo Discuss list is a barren wasteland; there have been no discussions whatsoever in the last three months, and all prior comments were exclusively on matters of process (as in, who gets appointed to what position). http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/ If the Euralo was dissolved tomorrow probably no one would notice... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Nov 29 08:01:30 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:01:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Meryem, Either I or the transcription was a bit garbled, so let me try to clarify and expand a little. Essentially, I was trying to suggest that we return to the original idea of the IGF being a forum for open and participatory debate--on IG per se, rather than general Internet issues. Beyond the obligatory opening ceremony, abandon the main session model of overstuffed panels on general Internet issues that are painstakingly negotiated by the AG up to the very last possible moment. Replace them with structured (e.g. actually moderated, per Amb. Khan in Tunis) discussions of bounded and potentially tractable sets of issue concerning IG that are percolated up from workshops and DCs. One option might be to have afternoon plenary debates based on inputs from morning events. Obviously, it wouldn't be possible to take up inputs from all of them, particularly if per Rio there are five tracks of meetings in each time slot starting from 8:30. But the AG could agree on 3-4 actual IG issue-areas (taking into account inputs from online and at the open consultations) and solicit thematic event proposals on them. The limited set of selected events could run in the morning, with other workshops on general Internet issues, open forums, and BPFs running in the afternoon parallel to plenaries (yes that wouldn't be particularly advantageous for the organizers, but they'd still get to do their thing while allowing the rest of the program to be more value-adding). Another option would be to do alternating full days of thematic/other events and plenary debates, two days of each. In either case, the thematic events could put forward 1-3 principal points for debate (recommendations would probably be impossible, except perhaps from some DCs) and the plenary chair would allocate and manage debate time on each. There'd be no presumption that the plenaries have to result in consensus on any of the points, and the final chair's report could reflect that on topic x, some people argued this, others argued that, so going forward xyz needs further consideration including by decision making bodies, etc. Of course, if at least rough consensus were to be found on anything, all the better. Off the top of my head, the main advantages of something along these lines would seem to be that it: 1. Provides incentives to propose and participate in workshops and DCs that are on key IG topics; 2. Allows people to see their ideas taken up by the broader assemblage, as envisioned by the WGIG report etc; 3. Promotes a sense of engagement and open and robust debates among different stakeholders/positions in a way that responding to talking heads' prepared comments does not; 4. Avoids all the perceptual stuff associated with the composition and slant of panels (anyone else hear from developing country government reps on this?), and lets everyone have their say on equal footing; 5. Would probably lead toward more interesting "outcomes" in terms of the chair's report, press coverage, messages to relevant bodies, etc. 6. Comports more fully with the Tunis mandate in various respects; 7. Frees up the AG to perform more useful institutional capacity building functions instead of micromanaging panel line-ups; 8. Other stuff that's not occurring to me at present. In terms of possible themes, I agree with you that rights could be a good one, although if we are true to the IG framing it'd be useful to start from the baseline of assessing the applicability of existing instruments and recognized rights. Development would be another theme that presumably would interest some attendees. And of course, good governance procedures per the WSIS principles and APC/COE would appeal to some of us (BTW I did a little chapter for Wolgang's new book proposing a DC and main session on the WSIS principles---a number of us here are in that volume, which was only released in Rio and hasn't been mentioned on the list, http://medienservice.land-der-ideen.de/MEDIA/65534,0.pdf if you're interested). Basta, BD On 11/28/07 3:18 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for asking.. Some first suggestions from someone having not > attended IGF 2007: > > Le 27 nov. 07 à 11:00, Adam Peake a écrit : > >> Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? >> Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental >> changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have >> been well received. We need to be realistic about what can be >> changed (in my opinion.) > > Unfortunately, there are no transcripts from workshops, but in the > main sessions transcripts, I see from Bill's report on the IGC > workshop (http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2- > TakingStock-15NOV07.txt) a very useful proposal which seems still > realistic to implement: > > "[...] an option that some people thought was interesting was, what > we could do is try to have essentially the dynamic coalitions and the > workshops and so on able to percolate up from the bottom, from the > edges of the network, as the chairman said, the -- some of the ideas, > some of the key points that have come out of their work, bring that > to the larger community for discussion in a plenary setting. [...] > And if we could find a way to leverage what they [wokshop > discussions] have generated and bring it into a wider debate, that > would be helpful. That doesn't necessarily mean adopting the > recommendations. It means simply addressing the issues on a broader > basis, giving more people a chance to respond to the ideas, and so on. > [...]" > > Obviously, it's not that easy to pick up 3-4 of these key points. But > it would be worth give it a try. We can try to set up a first list, > and then have it refined. Or we can ask all workshop organizers to > provide ONE proposal/issue as a result from their workshop, that they > think would fit a plenary session discussion, and this would form the > initial list. > > The proposal should be more than simply dropping a keyword, or an > entirely open issue. It should come with a well prepared background, > stating different views already expressed (as this is supposed to be > an outcome from workshops, there have been previous discussions > leading to such background). > > Some ideas have already been proposed: the "Internet bill of rights" > is one of them. > I would like to propose another one, which is the result of a > workshop organized by APC and Co. (see CoE & APC press release at: > http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569=): a proposal > for a mechanism to foster participation, access to information and > transparency in internet governance, based on the Aarhus Convention > on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and > Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. > I'm sure there are many others. > > On workshops, I support the already expressed idea, by Max and > others, on prioritizing really global IG issues, with a fixed, > manageable, number of parallel workshops (not simply based on the > number of received proposals / number of available slots). But the > difficulty lies in the definition of what is a global IG issue:) As > some messages already shown, an agreement on this seems hard to obtain. > > Another suggestion, not related to content: the transcripts are > really useful, much more than webcast or videos in my opinion. > They're useful for people not attending and also as archives for > everyone. I understand funding is limited, but I would favor putting > the money on the transcripts, including the transcripts of workshop > sessions, and on translation of these transcripts. This is very > important for inclusion. Maybe the translation costs can be shared > among participating countries and international organizations, so > that many languages can be available. > > Best, > Meryem > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Nov 29 08:41:28 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:41:28 -0400 Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474E3E8B.2040404@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com><003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> <474E3E8B.2040404@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <019d01c8328d$8d5e1570$a81a4050$@com> > > > Latin America dominated by a national campaign in the country with > the > > largest population (significantly largest population). Others didn't > > stand a chance. > > Again you are making an assertion that is not based on any statistical > evidence. (And by-the-way, the director who was elected was very good > at articulating a regional, not a Brazilian, point of view. He served > his entire region very well.) If the region was LA and not LAC, you might be right BUT please remember that the LAC region includes the Caribbean, and no - the ENTIRE regional point of view was not articulated and you cannot say that the "entire" region was served very well, as you have not heard from the 14 million Caribbean users. Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1158 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 21:11 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 29 11:07:12 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:07:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: 42154.5166.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com Message-ID: Danny, There maybe no way to gage this, but when it comes to "involvement" 'How much of it is a turn-off'? There are plenty of "Industrial Insiders, Industrial Lobbyist, or People that don't want to see the Ralo-AtLarge Structures succeed. Because it is perceived to effect changes to their ROI/Cash Flow. (They somehow effect Business) I am sometime incensed by this. It is a turn-off too argue endlessly with the opposition, who have no concerns for the social development of NetUsers and impact on Local-Socio-Economic-Systems. I look at CircleID sometimes, and find its a turn-off for the most part, because I see it primarily as an Industrial Publication. Maybe the Mail-List are not severed/defined well enough. Flaming Liberals on the Left, Industrial Conservatives of the Right. So participants can find a comfortable environment in which to speak. IcannAtLarge.Com (liberals) and IcannatLarge.Org (Conservatives) carried on for quite some time. People could identify the playing field and follow what was going on. The 'Structure' of the AtLarge is the 'mental-conception' of perspective & perception. (i.e.: what people readily identify with / construct). That's a profound and fundamental area we need to fix. Oh, and the Jeff Williams factor as well ... "Hope springs eternal" he'll stop posting. - I no longer see Icann as fit for this, the Internet and its diverse-global-interactivity has out-grown the design. Lets try a new. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Nov 29 12:02:35 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:02:35 -0500 Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474E3E8B.2040404@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D6 0C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8 336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <003401c83090$f61e1690$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E 356> <348657879-1196129914-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275101169- @bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <001201c8309f$24997830$6f2700c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B9553.1060002@cavebear.com> <474BB035.3050202@internet.law.pro> <474E3E8B.2040404@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071129170318.C04233372A0@mxr.isoc.bg> At 20:22 11/28/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: >>The elections did not work. > >I rather beg to differ. (Reserving opinion on my own role) I'd >assert that the directors who were elected were generally better >qualified, worked harder, and were a richer source of ideas than >those who came before. I don't think anyone would argue the qualities of the directors. The argument was about the elections, the process, not the results. As you would agree sometimes in bad elections good results may happen, but sometimes in good elections, bad results happen, as well. >>North America was OK (if we ignore the massive imbalance in voting >>pool. Likely permanent US seat, Canada and a few other disenfranchised.) > >Your conclusion does not follow. The vote was rather close and the >outcome could have been swayed a group in any of the countries. Would you argue it today, if there were elections? >One might naturally expect that the candidates and results might >tend to follow that population distribution. But from that you are >jumping to a conclusion that people voted by nationality. My own >indication was that people voted based on the arguments made by the candidates. My review is in accordance with Adam's - people voted on nations. >And since there are regions within countries that might then be >unequally distributed - For example California has a population that >is 75x times larger than the smallest state - so by your logic we >should then adopt regional or state wide elections. Actually you are quite on the wrong way here. Comparing the US elections to world-wide elections? What about the fact that in the US the candidate who has won the popular vote has lost the elections? >Of course this logic, if followed to its conclusion, ends up right >where I'd like to start: with the individual human being as the >atomic unit of decision making, the ultimate "stakeholder" in >internet governance. I would agree with you, if you can guarantee that a) the atoms would have equal access, and b) there will be no votes based on nations, and c, d, e... >And in what why do we measure the voices of all of these ultimate >stakeholders? An election in which each gets a vote seems like the >obvious answer. Actually not. If that was so easy, why is the US system not like that? Or why would Andy be elected after an article in a magazine? Why didn't the German voters read and vote for someone else? Again, mixing USA/Canada (both with English, and Canada with French on top of that) with Europe, for example, or Asia, where there are tens of languages, inequality in the access to the Internet... >>Asia Pacific was a a nationalistic mess. > >I disagree - in any election process the result tends to go to those >who are best organized. What do you disagree with here? It was a mess, and you know it; the simple fact that you say "I disagree" does not make it less of a mess.... >The answer is, of course, for those who have different points of >view to organize themselves. ... hm... thinking about the elections in the history of Bulgaria (and each of us can give examples in other countries)... let's say, since 1948 until 1991 the Communist party had 99 % of the votes. Those who had different points and tried to organize themselves ended as emigrants or dead (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Petkov , in Dutch). My own Grandfather had a different point from Tito in Yugoslavia, and was sent for 5 years at a concentration camp. >>Europe, the person elected seems to have been strongly supported by >>a special interest campaign. > >Yes, those who campaign tend to have backers. That's the nature of >an election. So, in other words, a country, where a magazine can ask the readers to go and vote, and they do it, is better than the others, who didn't do it. I can write more here, with more examples, about countries, where the whole population may be asked to go and vote one way or another. >Please don't try to say that I did not make any attempt to >communicate with the community of internet users. I made a far >greater effort to do so than any person in ICANN, before or since. That's a very strange statement. I am sure that surely you didn't mean you made a greater effort than "any person in ICANN" before or since you were there. If you *really* mean this, then I think it is a pointless discussion. 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 12:36:15 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:36:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> > As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is > perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >(attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by > pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my role in ICANN. I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other issues as well? Like broccoli. Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Irony I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very strange this approach to institutions' As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that substantive criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current ig structures) or has been simply ignored. Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this whole process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from an 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and ironical. Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults Regards, Guru Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of black -----Original Message----- From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation Hi Jacqueline, Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >> valued if expressed within a given framework, > > I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently > dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for > discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and this is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are > equated to "the >> Internet's best interests"). > > I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in > this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some > from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the > "institution". Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find very strange this approach to institutions. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Thu Nov 29 12:42:33 2007 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:42:33 +0600 Subject: [OCDC] Re: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: References: <4d976d8e0711270401l5190167er7e2d1c7a5431ec03@mail.gmail.com> <444905.50554.qm@web50508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <45ed74050711272250l5638fc0cq1204425329381728@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071129175547.8DD77678B4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear Adam and All, Internet governance, to me is mostly related to policy issues and of course these are relevant to all, including policy initiators and development actors. In another sense, IT4D (rather ICT4D), though is more inclined towards application stages, but inherently related to policy. Unless, opened up policies prevail in countries, ICT initiatives will always remain hurdles to implement and at the same time not affordable to the end users. At IGF-2 what I have learned, more involvement of governmental presence, which is certainly better, especially if they are from developing countries. They need more attention in terms of de-regulation of policies and enabled environment at the grass roots. Regarding workshops and other sessions, I would be optimistic, as it will be held in India, a land that is pioneer to establish many ingenious, realistic and successful ICT4D applications and there are many among other SA countries. I presume, showcasing them will promote these initiatives and at the same time inspire others to instigate them in any form in their own countries. Best regards, Hakik At 03:05 PM 11/28/2007, Adam Peake wrote: >At 1:50 AM -0500 11/28/07, linda misek-falkoff wrote: >>This thread is quite enlightening, as to focus and otherwise. > > >Yes -- and thanks for the comments so far! > > >>Query: what issues would properly be brought >>before an (Intl.) Internet (not ITC) Governance >>Court? (Over what issues would it have jurisdiction). > > >Is the thought I had after reading Max, Milton >and Alejandro: what do we mean by Internet >governance, and how does it differ from IT4D and >themes that would be better discussed at GAID > >Any description needs to be easy to grasp so >people can submit proposals for workshops >appropriately, so sessions can be designed, >speakers instructed etc. (I don't find the WGIG >definition much help in this.) What should a >general call for proposals for workshops and >description of the 2008 IGF say in this regard? Thoughts? > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >(I've trimmed the to list back to the governance >list, I can post to the other.) > > > >> >>Thanking you, and best wishes, LDMF. >>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff >>*Respectful Interfaces* >> >> >>On 11/28/07, Rose Gill >><pdorganisation at yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>Greetings Max and all! >> >>I would totally agree with friends who are more >>towards result-oriented activities and plans >>for the future. IGF, in my opinion can be the >>ultimate platform for influencing the >>international policies and can be a good >>influence for countries that are still not part of the process. >>There was no way of ensuring as to what extent >>representatives of governments were attending >>the event particularly from developing countries. >> >>The generalised approach of some of the >>speakers was also very much evident in >>different sessions as pointed out by Max. There >>should be more concrete criteria for the >>selection of the panelists and the selction of >>the sub-themes so that the speakers give deeper >>insight on the topics in order to lead to a >>more focused and productive debate on the IG issues. >> >>The thing that I strongly felt lacking was the >>contribution towards the future of IG and how >>it is going to shape up. There must have been >>collective results/suggestions from each >>workshop and on the last day, a seperate >>session to discuss the results, new findings >>and suggestions that are feasible/possible to >>implement leading to discussions on possible >>responsible stakeholders/volunteers in future for the relevant task. >> >>Best wishes, >>Ms. Rose Gill >>Research Associate/Activist >>Pakistan >> >> >>Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>Dear Adam, and all >> >>Thank you for initiating this review and suggestion process. Some >>comments and questions: >> >>> How can we take open call for workshops etc, >>> and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard >>> process.) >> >>As I raised before, the most important criteria for admittance should >>be the proven relation and focus on INTERNET GOVERNANCE. There were >>workshops on education, and access to knowledge that could have had a >>connection and could have discussed GOVERNANCE of their causes on the >>INTERNET but didn't. Panelists gave interesting but 'very general' >>talks about intellectual property etc. >> >>Another key point in making the sessions more productive is to setup a >>standardized and obligatory Report of Results, which again should be >>geared towards - What does this workshop contribute to the IG debate? >> >>In general I argue that all IGF activities - and especially DCs - >>should have RESULTS (minutes, statements, requests for comments, - a >>variety of standardized formats) and that these results are somehow >>gathered, catalouged and made available. >>One initiative were DCs can contribute and aggregate their work is the >>Internet Bill of Rights initiative, which means to develop a framework >>for defining, promoting and watching the enforcement of Human Rights >>and other Principles on the Internet. >> >>> ...very little remote participation... >>> ...the problem might not have been content >>> but about announcing the content early >> > enough so people could plan to attend. >> >>I agree 100%. The ONLINE PLATFORM and REMOTE PARTICIPATION >>possibilities of the IGF are >> >>1) too distributed - everything should be in one integrated >>environment or at least one portal >>2) online participation was almost not offered >>- except for individual efforts >> >>In my understanding this is a major strategic point for two reasons: >> >>Firstly it will improve participation, and esp. multi-stakeholderism >>(participation from the south) and thereby representativeness and >>legitimity. >>On a more historic perspective, the IGF is an experiment that could be >>a blueprint for global governance in other areas, so the second, >>meta-relevance of deploying excellent online info and collaboration >>tools is the IGF's pioneering role. Critiques in other thematic areas >>will righfully say: "If the Internet Governance community didn's >>manage to deploy and exploit effective online tools how should we?" >> >>There is a Dynamic Coalition on Online Collaboration which has >>provided the IGF-Community site. This groups is however not >>sufficiently integrated in the IGF structure. The the IGF online >>information environment and tools should IMHO be developed in close >>collaboration between the Secretariate, the host country and a >>multi-stakeholder service coalition. >> >>Does anyone know how and where to engage to work and push for better >>online collaboration and information environments? >> >>> Might be possible to keep >>> main sessions to the first and last days, with workshops in the >>> middle and have workshops report back and discuss substantively on >>> the final day? >> >>I like that proposal! >> >>Best, >>Max >>-------------------------------------------------------- >>"I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not the >>plains, and it seemeth I cannot long sit still. >> >>And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering will >>be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end >>one experienceth only oneself." >> >>(Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke Zarathustra) >> >>------------------------------------------------------------ >>Max Senges >>Research Associate >>Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) >>Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3 >>08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN >> >>PhD Candidate >>Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) >>Programme on the Information Society >> >>Tel: >>Spain +34-627193395 >>Germany +49-17660855358 >>@: maxsenges at gmail.com >> >>www.maxsenges.com >> http://entrepreneur.jot.com >>https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/ >>------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >>Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends >>inside Yahoo! Mail. >>See how. >> >> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 29 12:57:10 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:57:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <474EFD76.5000805@rits.org.br> Ahh, broccolli, definitely not. I love broccolli and I do not admit anyone missing with it. Now, ICANN, hmmmm.... --c.a. Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. > > > Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. > > As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my role > in ICANN. > > I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except > with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. > > I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other > issues as well? Like broccoli. > > Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining > what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so > people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. > > > > Kieren > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Irony > > I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very > strange this approach to institutions' > > As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps > attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to > influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on > what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that substantive > criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' > (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only > be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all > discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current > ig structures) or has been simply ignored. > > Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to > Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions > (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance > institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot > afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and > indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + > thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and > different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to > others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! > > Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this whole > process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from an > 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that > feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and ironical. > > Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying > concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to > resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / > substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This > would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather > than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. > > I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that > light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults > > Regards, > Guru > Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first > posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and > its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of > black > > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > > Hi Jacqueline, > > Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > >>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. > > I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that > this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the > dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this > geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and this > is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. > >>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >> equated to "the >>> Internet's best interests"). >> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >> "institution". > > Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best > interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, > explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public > Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may > look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find > very strange this approach to institutions. > > Best, > Meryem > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 29 13:23:31 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:23:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: <474EFD76.5000805@rits.org.br> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <474EFD76.5000805@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Broccolli is good for you and easy to work with - even beginners soon learn how to maximise the benefits of working with it, what it goes well with etc. Now, ICANN is like ox tail - not easy to work, and with so few successful recipes, you are too scared to explore and experiment. So you end up allowing the ox tail dictating how to work with it. And it doesn't go with everything. Don't forget the toothpicks. Rui On 29/11/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Ahh, broccolli, definitely not. I love broccolli and I do not admit > anyone missing with it. Now, ICANN, hmmmm.... > > --c.a. > > Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is > >> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions > >> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by > >> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. > > > > > > Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. > > > > As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my > role > > in ICANN. > > > > I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN > except > > with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. > > > > I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing > other > > issues as well? Like broccoli. > > > > Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email > outlining > > what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment > so > > people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. > > > > > > > > Kieren > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Irony > > > > I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find > very > > strange this approach to institutions' > > > > As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is > perhaps > > attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting > to > > influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement > on > > what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that > substantive > > criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' > > (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can > only > > be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all > > discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the > current > > ig structures) or has been simply ignored. > > > > Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener > to > > Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the > discussions > > (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for > governance > > institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role > cannot > > afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and > > indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). > Openness + > > thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues > and > > different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to > > others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! > > > > Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this > whole > > process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' > from an > > 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that > > feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and > ironical. > > > > Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the > underlying > > concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to > > resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant > equivalent / > > substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective > ..' This > > would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, > rather > > than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. > > > > I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that > > light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal > insults > > > > Regards, > > Guru > > Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first > > posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list > and > > its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of > > black > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > > > > Hi Jacqueline, > > > > Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > > > >>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be > >>> valued if expressed within a given framework, > >> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently > >> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for > >> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. > > > > I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say > that > > this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the > > dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this > > geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and > this > > is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. > > > >>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are > >> equated to "the > >>> Internet's best interests"). > >> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in > >> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some > >> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the > >> "institution". > > > > Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best > > interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, > > explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public > > Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one > may > > look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I > find > > very strange this approach to institutions. > > > > Best, > > Meryem > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Thu Nov 29 13:54:22 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:54:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <474EFD76.5000805@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <474F0ADE.3070407@rits.org.br> Messing with, not "missing with", of course... :) Ahhh, a hot plate of watercress with ox tail chunks... one of the best dishes of Rio! In Portuguese it is called "rabada com agrião", and must be accompanied by a caipirinha, of course. abraços fraternos --c.a. Rui Correia wrote: > Broccolli is good for you and easy to work with - even beginners soon learn > how to maximise the benefits of working with it, what it goes well with etc. > Now, ICANN is like ox tail - not easy to work, and with so few successful > recipes, you are too scared to explore and experiment. So you end up > allowing the ox tail dictating how to work with it. And it doesn't go with > everything. Don't forget the toothpicks. > > Rui > > On 29/11/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Ahh, broccolli, definitely not. I love broccolli and I do not admit >> anyone missing with it. Now, ICANN, hmmmm.... >> >> --c.a. >> >> Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >>>> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >>>> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >>>> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. >>> >>> Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. >>> >>> As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my >> role >>> in ICANN. >>> >>> I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN >> except >>> with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. >>> >>> I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing >> other >>> issues as well? Like broccoli. >>> >>> Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email >> outlining >>> what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment >> so >>> people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kieren >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Irony >>> >>> I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find >> very >>> strange this approach to institutions' >>> >>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >> perhaps >>> attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting >> to >>> influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement >> on >>> what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that >> substantive >>> criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' >>> (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can >> only >>> be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all >>> discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the >> current >>> ig structures) or has been simply ignored. >>> >>> Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener >> to >>> Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the >> discussions >>> (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for >> governance >>> institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role >> cannot >>> afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and >>> indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). >> Openness + >>> thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues >> and >>> different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to >>> others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! >>> >>> Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this >> whole >>> process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' >> from an >>> 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that >>> feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and >> ironical. >>> Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the >> underlying >>> concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to >>> resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant >> equivalent / >>> substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective >> ..' This >>> would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, >> rather >>> than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. >>> >>> I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that >>> light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal >> insults >>> Regards, >>> Guru >>> Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first >>> posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list >> and >>> its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of >>> black >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >>> >>> Hi Jacqueline, >>> >>> Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >>> >>>>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>>>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >>>> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >>>> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >>>> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. >>> I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say >> that >>> this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the >>> dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this >>> geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and >> this >>> is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >>> >>>>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >>>> equated to "the >>>>> Internet's best interests"). >>>> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >>>> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >>>> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >>>> "institution". >>> Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best >>> interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, >>> explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public >>> Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one >> may >>> look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I >> find >>> very strange this approach to institutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> Meryem >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Nov 29 16:22:12 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:22:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: I honestly found this response to be quite funny. Thanks for the light touch, Kieren. Nevertheless, I think you are (dis)missing the substantial influence you have as a mouthpiece for an organization that is de facto quite powerful, even if in principle the RSOs can walk away at any time. You have no *formal jurisdiction* in this list-community, but you have a disproportionate individual effect nonetheless, due to your official affiliation and duties. Larry Lessig, in his first book "Code," identifies four species of regulation on human behavior: laws, social norms, architecture, and markets. While you do not have a legal jurisdiction over listservs such as this, and you do not control their architecture, you do contribute significantly to both the social norms and the "market dynamics" of participation. This is simply a reality, and ignoring it does not make it go away. You have a privileged position as a public representative of ICANN, and that enhances the effects of your participation on the list. Otherwise people may not care quite as much about what you say (and *please* do not take *that* as an "ad hominem" statement ... it's a statement about the real effects of official affiliation, no more, and it would apply to anyone and everyone in your position). Anyone involved in public relations has to navigate this delicate interplay of individual and organizational speech with fully explicit awareness. You should be aware of these dynamics in your position, because I would expect that this is part of your job description. If not, then I think it should be. You are in fact in a fairly sensitive role, as much as any government diplomat (like, say, Bertrand). People read things into your words because, well, they *should*, due to your official role. They attach your words to the organization, and vice versa. Anita is making a valid point, and to laugh it off is ultimately not fairly warranted. Your reply could be read as a strategic response, designed to attack Anita's point of view by belittling it (just this side of "ad hominem"...). I honestly don't know what you truly believe (whether you think the idea of your enhanced influence on discourse is preposterous, or whether you view it as a serious threat to be actively defused by belittling the point in a political manner). But by deflecting away from the point through ridicule rather than addressing it, I think you did not dampen the fire so much as pour fuel on it. Is that really what you intended to do? If not, then you might well re-examine your tactics here. I would urge you to try to understand how your responses are perceived by others, given the ineliminable context of your official role at a powerful institution of governance that deeply affects -- and even controls -- some of the important matters discussed here. You cannot *really* be assuming that your comments here will be taken purely as an individual, can you? That would not be realistic, IMHO. Everyone here connects you to ICANN with the assumption of some official role. Everything you write here should take that axiom into account. It is not within your control to alter that perception, so you have no choice but to work with it. That is just "the facts on the ground" and there is really nothing you can do about it. Though the logic may seem convoluted, you are powerless to avoid having an enhanced influence on discourse in this community, because of your official position that ultimately cannot be separated from your words. This will not change as long as you hold your current staff position. Dan At 9:36 AM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >>(attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. > > >Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. > >As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my role >in ICANN. > >I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except >with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. > >I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other >issues as well? Like broccoli. > >Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining >what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so >people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. > > > >Kieren > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] >Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Irony > >I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very >strange this approach to institutions' > >As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps >attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to >influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on >what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that substantive >criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' >(apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only >be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all >discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current >ig structures) or has been simply ignored. > >Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to >Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions >(and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance >institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot >afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and >indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + >thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and >different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to >others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! > >Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this whole >process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from an >'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that >feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and ironical. > >Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying >concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to >resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / >substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This >would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather >than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. > >I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that >light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults > >Regards, >Guru >Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first >posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and >its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of >black > >-----Original Message----- >From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > >Hi Jacqueline, > >Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > >>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >> >> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. > >I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that >this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the >dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this >geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and this >is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. > >>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >> equated to "the >>> Internet's best interests"). >> >> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >> "institution". > >Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best >interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, >explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public >Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may >look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find >very strange this approach to institutions. > >Best, >Meryem > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Nov 29 17:00:32 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:00:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: <474F0ADE.3070407@rits.org.br> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <474EFD76.5000805@rits.org.br> <474F0ADE.3070407@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <025901c832d3$446c5de0$cd4519a0$@com> Oxtail is good with anything! > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 14:54 > To: Rui Correia > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Irony > > Messing with, not "missing with", of course... :) > > Ahhh, a hot plate of watercress with ox tail chunks... one of the best > dishes of Rio! In Portuguese it is called "rabada com agrião", and must > be accompanied by a caipirinha, of course. > > abraços fraternos > > --c.a. > > Rui Correia wrote: > > Broccolli is good for you and easy to work with - even beginners soon > learn > > how to maximise the benefits of working with it, what it goes well > with etc. > > Now, ICANN is like ox tail - not easy to work, and with so few > successful > > recipes, you are too scared to explore and experiment. So you end up > > allowing the ox tail dictating how to work with it. And it doesn't go > with > > everything. Don't forget the toothpicks. > > > > Rui > > > > On 29/11/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> Ahh, broccolli, definitely not. I love broccolli and I do not admit > >> anyone missing with it. Now, ICANN, hmmmm.... > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren > is > >>>> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the > discussions > >>>> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by > >>>> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. > >>> > >>> Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. > >>> > >>> As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from > discussing my > >> role > >>> in ICANN. > >>> > >>> I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN > >> except > >>> with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to > decide. > >>> > >>> I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing > >> other > >>> issues as well? Like broccoli. > >>> > >>> Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email > >> outlining > >>> what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the > moment > >> so > >>> people should expect several days' delay before a response is > granted. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kieren > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] > >>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Irony > >>> > >>> I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I > find > >> very > >>> strange this approach to institutions' > >>> > >>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is > >> perhaps > >>> attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions > (attempting > >> to > >>> influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing > judgement > >> on > >>> what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that > >> substantive > >>> criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or > 'naïve' > >>> (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN > can > >> only > >>> be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that > all > >>> discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the > >> current > >>> ig structures) or has been simply ignored. > >>> > >>> Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a > 'Listener > >> to > >>> Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the > >> discussions > >>> (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for > >> governance > >>> institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role > >> cannot > >>> afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and > >>> indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). > >> Openness + > >>> thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the > issues > >> and > >>> different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply > to > >>> others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! > >>> > >>> Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that > this > >> whole > >>> process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking > feedback' > >> from an > >>> 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing > that > >>> feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and > >> ironical. > >>> Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the > >> underlying > >>> concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done > to > >>> resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant > >> equivalent / > >>> substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective > >> ..' This > >>> would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, > >> rather > >>> than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. > >>> > >>> I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in > that > >>> light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal > >> insults > >>> Regards, > >>> Guru > >>> Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's > first > >>> posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the > list > >> and > >>> its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various > shades of > >>> black > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > >>> > >>> Hi Jacqueline, > >>> > >>> Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > >>> > >>>>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only > be > >>>>> valued if expressed within a given framework, > >>>> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the > currently > >>>> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework > for > >>>> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive > dialogue. > >>> I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would > say > >> that > >>> this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the > >>> dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from > this > >>> geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), > and > >> this > >>> is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. > >>> > >>>>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which > are > >>>> equated to "the > >>>>> Internet's best interests"). > >>>> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date > in > >>>> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some > >>>> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the > >>>> "institution". > >>> Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN > best > >>> interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by > Kieren, > >>> explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public > >>> Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since > one > >> may > >>> look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, > simply I > >> find > >>> very strange this approach to institutions. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Meryem > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1158 - Release Date: > 11/28/2007 21:11 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1158 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 21:11 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 17:09:16 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:09:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> Okay, fair enough. So... Q. Am I attempting to 'manage' the discussions? A. No. Q. Am I attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse'? A. No. Q. Am I thin-skinned? A. Quite the opposite. And I can give you a list of 1,000 people that would happily testify to that. Well, some not necessarily happily. Q. Am I unwilling to discuss issues surrounding ICANN? A. No. Quite the opposite - I *want* people to discuss ICANN. I'm not sure this list is necessarily the best place for all of it, but you take what you can find. Q. Why am I therefore complaining about rudeness etc? A. Because it limits conversation and discussion. That's it. Nothing more to it. If you don't believe me, why not ask the exact same questions but without being personally offensive, rude, dismissive or couching a question in leading, negative terms? (And it's not just me and ICANN under discussion here, it's this list in general and its wider discussions.) Q. Are you going to go on and on about this? A. God, I hope not. Particularly when in recent days the list has been very interesting and informative re: IGF 2008 preparations. Q. Is that it? A. If people want to continue having this conversation let's have it off-list. Leave this space for real work. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:22 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Irony I honestly found this response to be quite funny. Thanks for the light touch, Kieren. Nevertheless, I think you are (dis)missing the substantial influence you have as a mouthpiece for an organization that is de facto quite powerful, even if in principle the RSOs can walk away at any time. You have no *formal jurisdiction* in this list-community, but you have a disproportionate individual effect nonetheless, due to your official affiliation and duties. Larry Lessig, in his first book "Code," identifies four species of regulation on human behavior: laws, social norms, architecture, and markets. While you do not have a legal jurisdiction over listservs such as this, and you do not control their architecture, you do contribute significantly to both the social norms and the "market dynamics" of participation. This is simply a reality, and ignoring it does not make it go away. You have a privileged position as a public representative of ICANN, and that enhances the effects of your participation on the list. Otherwise people may not care quite as much about what you say (and *please* do not take *that* as an "ad hominem" statement ... it's a statement about the real effects of official affiliation, no more, and it would apply to anyone and everyone in your position). Anyone involved in public relations has to navigate this delicate interplay of individual and organizational speech with fully explicit awareness. You should be aware of these dynamics in your position, because I would expect that this is part of your job description. If not, then I think it should be. You are in fact in a fairly sensitive role, as much as any government diplomat (like, say, Bertrand). People read things into your words because, well, they *should*, due to your official role. They attach your words to the organization, and vice versa. Anita is making a valid point, and to laugh it off is ultimately not fairly warranted. Your reply could be read as a strategic response, designed to attack Anita's point of view by belittling it (just this side of "ad hominem"...). I honestly don't know what you truly believe (whether you think the idea of your enhanced influence on discourse is preposterous, or whether you view it as a serious threat to be actively defused by belittling the point in a political manner). But by deflecting away from the point through ridicule rather than addressing it, I think you did not dampen the fire so much as pour fuel on it. Is that really what you intended to do? If not, then you might well re-examine your tactics here. I would urge you to try to understand how your responses are perceived by others, given the ineliminable context of your official role at a powerful institution of governance that deeply affects -- and even controls -- some of the important matters discussed here. You cannot *really* be assuming that your comments here will be taken purely as an individual, can you? That would not be realistic, IMHO. Everyone here connects you to ICANN with the assumption of some official role. Everything you write here should take that axiom into account. It is not within your control to alter that perception, so you have no choice but to work with it. That is just "the facts on the ground" and there is really nothing you can do about it. Though the logic may seem convoluted, you are powerless to avoid having an enhanced influence on discourse in this community, because of your official position that ultimately cannot be separated from your words. This will not change as long as you hold your current staff position. Dan At 9:36 AM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >>(attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. > > >Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. > >As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my role >in ICANN. > >I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except >with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. > >I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other >issues as well? Like broccoli. > >Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining >what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so >people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. > > > >Kieren > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] >Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Irony > >I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very >strange this approach to institutions' > >As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps >attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to >influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on >what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that substantive >criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' >(apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only >be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all >discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current >ig structures) or has been simply ignored. > >Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to >Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions >(and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance >institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot >afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and >indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + >thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and >different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to >others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! > >Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this whole >process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from an >'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that >feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and ironical. > >Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying >concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to >resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / >substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This >would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather >than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. > >I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that >light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults > >Regards, >Guru >Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first >posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and >its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of >black > >-----Original Message----- >From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > >Hi Jacqueline, > >Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > >>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >> >> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. > >I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that >this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the >dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this >geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and this >is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. > >>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >> equated to "the >>> Internet's best interests"). >> >> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >> "institution". > >Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best >interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, >explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public >Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may >look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find >very strange this approach to institutions. > >Best, >Meryem > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Nov 29 18:48:38 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:48:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: Okay, fair enough, so: At 2:09 PM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >Okay, fair enough. So... > > >Q. Am I attempting to 'manage' the discussions? >A. No. > > >Q. Am I attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse'? >A. No. Attempts to read subjective intent into your posts are probably not going to go anywhere, but the whole of your discourse here influences how much others might or might not trust any statements made by you. Again, this is not "ad hominem" (I'm not saying that I distrust you, just that people make that judgment according to the totality of your participation, and if you want to be trusted you should take it all into account, because everyone else does -- just a friendly word of advice). > >Q. Am I thin-skinned? >A. Quite the opposite. And I can give you a list of 1,000 people that would >happily testify to that. Well, some not necessarily happily. I wouldn't hazard a guess on this, but your responses must simply be taken on their merits by the person reading them. When something comes out "sounding" like an ad hominem from you, especially when it is in response to something that seems not to have been intended as an ad hominem *at* you, it is easy to see why people might judge you accordingly. Part of the duty of someone in public relations is not to allow emotions to get the best of you (unless it is somehow strategically to your advantage, I suppose...). And for those that have wrath for ICANN, you cannot take those sentiments personally. Whether or not you personally feel that such wrath is justified, it is ultimately not your call to make, as a representative of the organization. People feel the way they feel, and usually because of some substantive reason. If you respond to the wrath instead of the substance behind it, you distract from any productive discussion. In some other cases, that would be an explicit intent (we see it a lot in the US, and it is part of the general degradation of political discourse in the US -- a real shame). > >Q. Am I unwilling to discuss issues surrounding ICANN? >A. No. Quite the opposite - I *want* people to discuss ICANN. I'm not sure >this list is necessarily the best place for all of it, but you take what you >can find. If a viewpoint (or the person stating it) is merely attacked rather than addressed substantively, then it suggests that one does not want to discuss the substance of issue, at least not in the manner offered. The question is deeper than *whether* to discuss ICANN, but *how* to discuss ICANN. People here expect to discuss it substantively however they want, even when it goes against the preferred policies of those who run ICANN. Whenever you personally take issue with someone's substantive point of view, you need to take into account that you cannot separate yourself from the organization, either in viewpoint or in tone of presentation. Even your dismissal of this list as "not ... necessarily the best place" to discuss ICANN can be interpreted as a sort of collective ad hominem. Do you see that? Perhaps you really meant that there are structural and procedural reasons why discussions here are less effective in affecting ICANN policy deliberations, which is one thing, but given the contextual priming, it can also be read as suggesting that the opinions here are not useful in the discussion as a matter of substance (and that could be because the substantive comments are diluted with too much ad hominem, but maybe also because the substance is not to the liking of ICANN as an institution -- again, you can't get rid of that organizational connection, so as a public mouthpiece for ICANN you have to go the extra distance to clarify yourself in the face of such ambiguity). We are all now on hair-trigger alert for ad hominems here, so everyone must be extra careful. Again, just a friendly word of advice on how we conduct ourselves here, because one may be causing unintended consequences in one's own expressions. For example, if you were to dismiss this analysis as "long winded" without addressing the substance of these comments, then you would be falling prey to exactly what you deplore in others. I'm trying hard here to go into great detail, because sometimes the point is lost without explicit detail. Repetition is part of the learning process, so sometimes a little redundancy is called for, when addressing a point that is particularly difficult to absorb for one reason or another. > >Q. Why am I therefore complaining about rudeness etc? >A. Because it limits conversation and discussion. That's it. Nothing more to >it. If you don't believe me, why not ask the exact same questions but >without being personally offensive, rude, dismissive or couching a question >in leading, negative terms? (And it's not just me and ICANN under discussion >here, it's this list in general and its wider discussions.) The best way to address this here is to lead by example. I've developed a fairly thick skin myself (prior to joining this list), but I still find it annoying and challenging to constantly have to fend off my own emotional reactions to focus on matters of substance. You have disagreed sometimes with policy stances taken by me and/or organizations I am working for (unpaid, by the way), but when the disagreement is not substantive but rather dismissive or otherwise attacking the frame or presentation of the message rather than the substance of the message, this cannot be considered to be leading by example. > >Q. Are you going to go on and on about this? >A. God, I hope not. Particularly when in recent days the list has been very >interesting and informative re: IGF 2008 preparations. The best way to put this to rest is for everyone involved to begin behaving without demeaning every other statement by someone who disagrees with one's own viewpoint, and instead to address the substance of the disagreement on the merits. I can assure you that I have been the target of a good number of ad hominem attacks on this list, and it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth, especially when they are later denied. And, frankly, I don't expect that this list will all of a sudden become perfect in its avoidance of ad hominems. It's hard to change ingrained habits, and flame wars are well-known online. I'll try to give you the benefit of doubt if you do it in the future (as I did above), but I may call explicit attention to the uncertainty surrounding your intent, and ask you to clarify. > >Q. Is that it? >A. If people want to continue having this conversation let's have it >off-list. Leave this space for real work. Fine, then let the real work not bring the manifestation of the substance of this conversation back on the list, shall we? If we can all finally begin to behave better, then maybe we might figure a few things out. As long as people continue to live in glass houses, they would be advised not throw stones, because that would be disingenuous and counterproductive. And that applies to everyone, not any particular individual. Dan PS -- When people misinterpret the substance of each others' statements for strategically rhetorical purposes, it is really no less undermining of trust than a direct and explicit ad hominem attack. Just a thought to ponder moving forward as we consider how to conduct our discourse here. Let real substantive disagreements be explored on their merits. There are a lot of rhetorical tactics that are fundamentally disrespectful of one's opponents while falling short of abject ad hominem, and these habits of discourse are unfortunately rampant in political contexts. And this list is a highly political context, like it or not. That's precisely why it is such a rhetorical danger zone. > > > > >Kieren > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:22 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Irony > >I honestly found this response to be quite funny. Thanks for the light >touch, Kieren. > >Nevertheless, I think you are (dis)missing the substantial influence you >have as a mouthpiece for an organization that is de facto quite powerful, >even if in principle the RSOs can walk away at any time. You have no >*formal jurisdiction* in this list-community, but you have a >disproportionate individual effect nonetheless, due to your official >affiliation and duties. > >Larry Lessig, in his first book "Code," identifies four species of >regulation on human behavior: laws, social norms, architecture, and >markets. While you do not have a legal jurisdiction over listservs such as >this, and you do not control their architecture, you do contribute >significantly to both the social norms and the "market dynamics" of >participation. This is simply a reality, and ignoring it does not make it >go away. > >You have a privileged position as a public representative of ICANN, and >that enhances the effects of your participation on the list. Otherwise >people may not care quite as much about what you say (and *please* do not >take *that* as an "ad hominem" statement ... it's a statement about the >real effects of official affiliation, no more, and it would apply to anyone >and everyone in your position). > >Anyone involved in public relations has to navigate this delicate interplay >of individual and organizational speech with fully explicit awareness. You >should be aware of these dynamics in your position, because I would expect >that this is part of your job description. If not, then I think it should >be. You are in fact in a fairly sensitive role, as much as any government >diplomat (like, say, Bertrand). People read things into your words >because, well, they *should*, due to your official role. They attach your >words to the organization, and vice versa. > >Anita is making a valid point, and to laugh it off is ultimately not fairly >warranted. Your reply could be read as a strategic response, designed to >attack Anita's point of view by belittling it (just this side of "ad >hominem"...). I honestly don't know what you truly believe (whether you >think the idea of your enhanced influence on discourse is preposterous, or >whether you view it as a serious threat to be actively defused by >belittling the point in a political manner). > >But by deflecting away from the point through ridicule rather than >addressing it, I think you did not dampen the fire so much as pour fuel on >it. Is that really what you intended to do? If not, then you might well >re-examine your tactics here. I would urge you to try to understand how >your responses are perceived by others, given the ineliminable context of >your official role at a powerful institution of governance that deeply >affects -- and even controls -- some of the important matters discussed >here. You cannot *really* be assuming that your comments here will be >taken purely as an individual, can you? That would not be realistic, IMHO. > >Everyone here connects you to ICANN with the assumption of some official >role. Everything you write here should take that axiom into account. It >is not within your control to alter that perception, so you have no choice >but to work with it. That is just "the facts on the ground" and there is >really nothing you can do about it. > >Though the logic may seem convoluted, you are powerless to avoid having an >enhanced influence on discourse in this community, because of your official >position that ultimately cannot be separated from your words. This will >not change as long as you hold your current staff position. > >Dan > > > >At 9:36 AM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >>> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >>>(attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >>> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. >> >> >>Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. >> >>As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my >role >>in ICANN. >> >>I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except >>with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. >> >>I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other >>issues as well? Like broccoli. >> >>Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining >>what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so >>people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. >> >> >> >>Kieren >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] >>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: Re: [governance] Irony >> >>I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very >>strange this approach to institutions' >> >>As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps >>attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to >>influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on >>what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that >substantive >>criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' >>(apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only >>be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all >>discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current >>ig structures) or has been simply ignored. >> >>Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to >>Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions >>(and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance >>institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot >>afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and >>indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + >>thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and >>different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to >>others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! >> >>Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this >whole >>process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from >an >>'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that >>feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and >ironical. >> >>Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying >>concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to >>resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / >>substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This >>would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather >>than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. >> >>I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that >>light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults >> >>Regards, >>Guru >>Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first >>posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and >>its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of >>black >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >> >>Hi Jacqueline, >> >>Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >> >>>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >>> >>> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >>> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >>> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. >> >>I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that >>this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the >>dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this >>geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and >this >>is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >> >>>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >>> equated to "the >>>> Internet's best interests"). >>> >>> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >>> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >>> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >>> "institution". >> >>Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best >>interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, >>explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public >>Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may >>look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find >>very strange this approach to institutions. >> >>Best, >>Meryem >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 29 19:02:46 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:02:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> Message-ID: <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Hi Karl > You indicarte that Internet users have "shunned At Large in droves" > But as soon as there was information about At Large and ICANN being > published in the English speaking Caribbean, there was a great interest and > a lot of the people who are interested in ICT have joined and are quite > enthusiastic. It is good to hear that people are getting interested. Was it you who mentioned previously that you thought that the Director elected for LA in year 2000 did not fully represent the Caribbean area? Do you think that the ALAC - a channel in which your regions views are filtered and then filtered and then filtered again - is as good as having a Director you can chose and elect? Back here in the US there was a thing known as a "company union" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union This was a technique used during the latter 1800's and early 1900's by companies that wanted to crush the voice of workers by creating a plausible substitute for independent worker-formed, worker-controlled unions. These substitute company unions were formed by the company. The company provided money and time off work for employees to attend meetings. Of course this company union tended to adopt mild stances and was not quite willing to bite the hand that fed it. You might begin sense a resemblance between these company unions and the ALAC. As it turned out the company union approach was very effective - that is, it was effective from the company point of view. But from the worker point of view it was often a disaster. The company union almost always muted the demands of the workers, much to their detriment. The company union system turned out to be such a good way of suppressing labor needs and demands that it had to be banned in the US by Federal law in 1935. It is natural that internet users who are starving for representation in ICANN should reach for the waterlogged life preserver, the ALAC, has thrown to them. And in the absence of any alternative it is only natural that many internet users ill invest their hopes and grab on. However, what I am suggesting - elections is not the waterlogged life preserver but a fully seaworthy lifeboat. And the election mechanism need not require the ALAC to be abandoned - it would merely have to be relegated to a level in which it obtained no more support from ICANN and had no more privilege in ICANN than any other user formed group. If you were drowning, as internet users are, in a sea of powerlessness, and if given a choice between the ALAC, and its nearly vacuous ability to hold ICANN to account, and real elections for real identifiable people - including themselves if they chose to run, don't you think that many, perhaps most would chose elections? ICANN did have this lifeboat. But they dropped a stone through the hull and caused it to sink. Then they threw us the soggy preserver. Perhaps some might feel grateful; many of us do not. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Thu Nov 29 19:10:02 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: OK, so, no trust for Kieren or anyone who speaks for ICANN or in favor of ICANN. Dan's minutious dissection proves that and everybody should take that as dogma from now on. This may cut two ways but never mind for now. Is there still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list with the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full than half-empty? There are at least three outstanding strands that I can recognize from recent days: 1. my question to Meryem whether there is any positive he recognizes in ICANN; 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet Governance question that is not ICANN; 3. the thread started by Adam about the IGF 2008 session; 4. Bill Drake's question to me, whether we should go through the exercise of measuring ICANN against the WSIS criteria. He recalls correctly that I thought that would be a useful exercise to perform with respect to the ITU, and in fact that did not happen in the WGIG or any time later. It was done for ICANN in the WGIG in 2004, and it was done again for ICANN ("to use WSIS criteria as a kind of report card") in Sao Paulo in December 2006, I think. Once again? Bill, yes, let's do it. I call it the WSIS-o-meter, it's a nice, compact spreadsheet, let's, by all means, and be able to move beyond. There is a fifth strand still waving in the air, which moved from ICANN elections to the achievements and else of ICANN's ALAC to Karl's self-glorification, and general dismissal of most everyone else, which is begging for a "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?" from an eyewitness. Better spared, though. I move that we get our discussions organized around those threads and actually achieve something, or find a true alternative. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:48:38 -0800 > From: Dan Krimm > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy > Subject: RE: [governance] Irony > > Okay, fair enough, so: > > > At 2:09 PM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> Okay, fair enough. So... >> >> >> Q. Am I attempting to 'manage' the discussions? >> A. No. >> >> >> Q. Am I attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse'? >> A. No. > > Attempts to read subjective intent into your posts are probably not going > to go anywhere, but the whole of your discourse here influences how much > others might or might not trust any statements made by you. > > Again, this is not "ad hominem" (I'm not saying that I distrust you, just > that people make that judgment according to the totality of your > participation, and if you want to be trusted you should take it all into > account, because everyone else does -- just a friendly word of advice). > > > >> >> Q. Am I thin-skinned? >> A. Quite the opposite. And I can give you a list of 1,000 people that would >> happily testify to that. Well, some not necessarily happily. > > I wouldn't hazard a guess on this, but your responses must simply be taken > on their merits by the person reading them. When something comes out > "sounding" like an ad hominem from you, especially when it is in response > to something that seems not to have been intended as an ad hominem *at* > you, it is easy to see why people might judge you accordingly. > > Part of the duty of someone in public relations is not to allow emotions to > get the best of you (unless it is somehow strategically to your advantage, > I suppose...). > > And for those that have wrath for ICANN, you cannot take those sentiments > personally. Whether or not you personally feel that such wrath is > justified, it is ultimately not your call to make, as a representative of > the organization. People feel the way they feel, and usually because of > some substantive reason. If you respond to the wrath instead of the > substance behind it, you distract from any productive discussion. > > In some other cases, that would be an explicit intent (we see it a lot in > the US, and it is part of the general degradation of political discourse in > the US -- a real shame). > > > >> >> Q. Am I unwilling to discuss issues surrounding ICANN? >> A. No. Quite the opposite - I *want* people to discuss ICANN. I'm not sure >> this list is necessarily the best place for all of it, but you take what you >> can find. > > If a viewpoint (or the person stating it) is merely attacked rather than > addressed substantively, then it suggests that one does not want to discuss > the substance of issue, at least not in the manner offered. The question > is deeper than *whether* to discuss ICANN, but *how* to discuss ICANN. > People here expect to discuss it substantively however they want, even when > it goes against the preferred policies of those who run ICANN. > > Whenever you personally take issue with someone's substantive point of > view, you need to take into account that you cannot separate yourself from > the organization, either in viewpoint or in tone of presentation. > > Even your dismissal of this list as "not ... necessarily the best place" to > discuss ICANN can be interpreted as a sort of collective ad hominem. Do > you see that? Perhaps you really meant that there are structural and > procedural reasons why discussions here are less effective in affecting > ICANN policy deliberations, which is one thing, but given the contextual > priming, it can also be read as suggesting that the opinions here are not > useful in the discussion as a matter of substance (and that could be > because the substantive comments are diluted with too much ad hominem, but > maybe also because the substance is not to the liking of ICANN as an > institution -- again, you can't get rid of that organizational connection, > so as a public mouthpiece for ICANN you have to go the extra distance to > clarify yourself in the face of such ambiguity). > > We are all now on hair-trigger alert for ad hominems here, so everyone must > be extra careful. Again, just a friendly word of advice on how we conduct > ourselves here, because one may be causing unintended consequences in one's > own expressions. > > For example, if you were to dismiss this analysis as "long winded" without > addressing the substance of these comments, then you would be falling prey > to exactly what you deplore in others. I'm trying hard here to go into > great detail, because sometimes the point is lost without explicit detail. > Repetition is part of the learning process, so sometimes a little > redundancy is called for, when addressing a point that is particularly > difficult to absorb for one reason or another. > > > >> >> Q. Why am I therefore complaining about rudeness etc? >> A. Because it limits conversation and discussion. That's it. Nothing more to >> it. If you don't believe me, why not ask the exact same questions but >> without being personally offensive, rude, dismissive or couching a question >> in leading, negative terms? (And it's not just me and ICANN under discussion >> here, it's this list in general and its wider discussions.) > > The best way to address this here is to lead by example. I've developed a > fairly thick skin myself (prior to joining this list), but I still find it > annoying and challenging to constantly have to fend off my own emotional > reactions to focus on matters of substance. > > You have disagreed sometimes with policy stances taken by me and/or > organizations I am working for (unpaid, by the way), but when the > disagreement is not substantive but rather dismissive or otherwise > attacking the frame or presentation of the message rather than the > substance of the message, this cannot be considered to be leading by > example. > > > >> >> Q. Are you going to go on and on about this? >> A. God, I hope not. Particularly when in recent days the list has been very >> interesting and informative re: IGF 2008 preparations. > > The best way to put this to rest is for everyone involved to begin behaving > without demeaning every other statement by someone who disagrees with one's > own viewpoint, and instead to address the substance of the disagreement on > the merits. > > I can assure you that I have been the target of a good number of ad hominem > attacks on this list, and it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth, > especially when they are later denied. > > And, frankly, I don't expect that this list will all of a sudden become > perfect in its avoidance of ad hominems. It's hard to change ingrained > habits, and flame wars are well-known online. I'll try to give you the > benefit of doubt if you do it in the future (as I did above), but I may > call explicit attention to the uncertainty surrounding your intent, and ask > you to clarify. > > > >> >> Q. Is that it? >> A. If people want to continue having this conversation let's have it >> off-list. Leave this space for real work. > > Fine, then let the real work not bring the manifestation of the substance > of this conversation back on the list, shall we? If we can all finally > begin to behave better, then maybe we might figure a few things out. > > As long as people continue to live in glass houses, they would be advised > not throw stones, because that would be disingenuous and counterproductive. > And that applies to everyone, not any particular individual. > > Dan > > PS -- When people misinterpret the substance of each others' statements for > strategically rhetorical purposes, it is really no less undermining of > trust than a direct and explicit ad hominem attack. Just a thought to > ponder moving forward as we consider how to conduct our discourse here. > Let real substantive disagreements be explored on their merits. There are > a lot of rhetorical tactics that are fundamentally disrespectful of one's > opponents while falling short of abject ad hominem, and these habits of > discourse are unfortunately rampant in political contexts. And this list > is a highly political context, like it or not. That's precisely why it is > such a rhetorical danger zone. > > >> >> >> >> >> Kieren >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:22 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony >> >> I honestly found this response to be quite funny. Thanks for the light >> touch, Kieren. >> >> Nevertheless, I think you are (dis)missing the substantial influence you >> have as a mouthpiece for an organization that is de facto quite powerful, >> even if in principle the RSOs can walk away at any time. You have no >> *formal jurisdiction* in this list-community, but you have a >> disproportionate individual effect nonetheless, due to your official >> affiliation and duties. >> >> Larry Lessig, in his first book "Code," identifies four species of >> regulation on human behavior: laws, social norms, architecture, and >> markets. While you do not have a legal jurisdiction over listservs such as >> this, and you do not control their architecture, you do contribute >> significantly to both the social norms and the "market dynamics" of >> participation. This is simply a reality, and ignoring it does not make it >> go away. >> >> You have a privileged position as a public representative of ICANN, and >> that enhances the effects of your participation on the list. Otherwise >> people may not care quite as much about what you say (and *please* do not >> take *that* as an "ad hominem" statement ... it's a statement about the >> real effects of official affiliation, no more, and it would apply to anyone >> and everyone in your position). >> >> Anyone involved in public relations has to navigate this delicate interplay >> of individual and organizational speech with fully explicit awareness. You >> should be aware of these dynamics in your position, because I would expect >> that this is part of your job description. If not, then I think it should >> be. You are in fact in a fairly sensitive role, as much as any government >> diplomat (like, say, Bertrand). People read things into your words >> because, well, they *should*, due to your official role. They attach your >> words to the organization, and vice versa. >> >> Anita is making a valid point, and to laugh it off is ultimately not fairly >> warranted. Your reply could be read as a strategic response, designed to >> attack Anita's point of view by belittling it (just this side of "ad >> hominem"...). I honestly don't know what you truly believe (whether you >> think the idea of your enhanced influence on discourse is preposterous, or >> whether you view it as a serious threat to be actively defused by >> belittling the point in a political manner). >> >> But by deflecting away from the point through ridicule rather than >> addressing it, I think you did not dampen the fire so much as pour fuel on >> it. Is that really what you intended to do? If not, then you might well >> re-examine your tactics here. I would urge you to try to understand how >> your responses are perceived by others, given the ineliminable context of >> your official role at a powerful institution of governance that deeply >> affects -- and even controls -- some of the important matters discussed >> here. You cannot *really* be assuming that your comments here will be >> taken purely as an individual, can you? That would not be realistic, IMHO. >> >> Everyone here connects you to ICANN with the assumption of some official >> role. Everything you write here should take that axiom into account. It >> is not within your control to alter that perception, so you have no choice >> but to work with it. That is just "the facts on the ground" and there is >> really nothing you can do about it. >> >> Though the logic may seem convoluted, you are powerless to avoid having an >> enhanced influence on discourse in this community, because of your official >> position that ultimately cannot be separated from your words. This will >> not change as long as you hold your current staff position. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> At 9:36 AM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >>>> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >>>> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >>>> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. >>> >>> >>> Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. >>> >>> As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my >> role >>> in ICANN. >>> >>> I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except >>> with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. >>> >>> I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other >>> issues as well? Like broccoli. >>> >>> Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining >>> what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so >>> people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kieren >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Irony >>> >>> I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very >>> strange this approach to institutions' >>> >>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps >>> attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to >>> influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on >>> what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that >> substantive >>> criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' >>> (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only >>> be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all >>> discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current >>> ig structures) or has been simply ignored. >>> >>> Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to >>> Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions >>> (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance >>> institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot >>> afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and >>> indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + >>> thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and >>> different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to >>> others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! >>> >>> Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this >> whole >>> process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from >> an >>> 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that >>> feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and >> ironical. >>> >>> Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying >>> concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to >>> resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / >>> substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This >>> would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather >>> than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. >>> >>> I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that >>> light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults >>> >>> Regards, >>> Guru >>> Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first >>> posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and >>> its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of >>> black >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >>> >>> Hi Jacqueline, >>> >>> Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >>> >>>>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>>>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >>>> >>>> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >>>> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >>>> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. >>> >>> I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that >>> this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the >>> dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this >>> geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and >> this >>> is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >>> >>>>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >>>> equated to "the >>>>> Internet's best interests"). >>>> >>>> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >>>> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >>>> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >>>> "institution". >>> >>> Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best >>> interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, >>> explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public >>> Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may >>> look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find >>> very strange this approach to institutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> Meryem >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Thu Nov 29 19:18:34 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:18:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: apology - RE: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: Hi, apologies, I have mistyped Meryem as "he" and not "she". Deep sorry. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:10:02 +0000 (UTC) > From: Alejandro Pisanty > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > Alejandro Pisanty > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm > Cc: Kieren McCarthy > Subject: RE: [governance] Irony > > OK, > > so, no trust for Kieren or anyone who speaks for ICANN or in favor of ICANN. > Dan's minutious dissection proves that and everybody should take that as > dogma from now on. This may cut two ways but never mind for now. > > Is there still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list with > the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full than > half-empty? There are at least three outstanding strands that I can recognize > from recent days: > > 1. my question to Meryem whether there is any positive he recognizes in > ICANN; > > 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet > Governance question that is not ICANN; > > 3. the thread started by Adam about the IGF 2008 session; > > 4. Bill Drake's question to me, whether we should go through the exercise of > measuring ICANN against the WSIS criteria. He recalls correctly that I > thought that would be a useful exercise to perform with respect to the ITU, > and in fact that did not happen in the WGIG or any time later. It was done > for ICANN in the WGIG in 2004, and it was done again for ICANN ("to use WSIS > criteria as a kind of report card") in Sao Paulo in December 2006, I think. > Once again? Bill, yes, let's do it. I call it the WSIS-o-meter, it's a nice, > compact spreadsheet, let's, by all means, and be able to move beyond. > > There is a fifth strand still waving in the air, which moved from ICANN > elections to the achievements and else of ICANN's ALAC to Karl's > self-glorification, and general dismissal of most everyone else, which is > begging for a "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?" from an > eyewitness. Better spared, though. > > I move that we get our discussions organized around those threads and > actually achieve something, or find a true alternative. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico > UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 > http://www.dgsca.unam.mx > * > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:48:38 -0800 >> From: Dan Krimm >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy >> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony >> >> Okay, fair enough, so: >> >> >> At 2:09 PM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>> Okay, fair enough. So... >>> >>> >>> Q. Am I attempting to 'manage' the discussions? >>> A. No. >>> >>> >>> Q. Am I attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse'? >>> A. No. >> >> Attempts to read subjective intent into your posts are probably not going >> to go anywhere, but the whole of your discourse here influences how much >> others might or might not trust any statements made by you. >> >> Again, this is not "ad hominem" (I'm not saying that I distrust you, just >> that people make that judgment according to the totality of your >> participation, and if you want to be trusted you should take it all into >> account, because everyone else does -- just a friendly word of advice). >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Am I thin-skinned? >>> A. Quite the opposite. And I can give you a list of 1,000 people that >>> would >>> happily testify to that. Well, some not necessarily happily. >> >> I wouldn't hazard a guess on this, but your responses must simply be taken >> on their merits by the person reading them. When something comes out >> "sounding" like an ad hominem from you, especially when it is in response >> to something that seems not to have been intended as an ad hominem *at* >> you, it is easy to see why people might judge you accordingly. >> >> Part of the duty of someone in public relations is not to allow emotions to >> get the best of you (unless it is somehow strategically to your advantage, >> I suppose...). >> >> And for those that have wrath for ICANN, you cannot take those sentiments >> personally. Whether or not you personally feel that such wrath is >> justified, it is ultimately not your call to make, as a representative of >> the organization. People feel the way they feel, and usually because of >> some substantive reason. If you respond to the wrath instead of the >> substance behind it, you distract from any productive discussion. >> >> In some other cases, that would be an explicit intent (we see it a lot in >> the US, and it is part of the general degradation of political discourse in >> the US -- a real shame). >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Am I unwilling to discuss issues surrounding ICANN? >>> A. No. Quite the opposite - I *want* people to discuss ICANN. I'm not sure >>> this list is necessarily the best place for all of it, but you take what >>> you >>> can find. >> >> If a viewpoint (or the person stating it) is merely attacked rather than >> addressed substantively, then it suggests that one does not want to discuss >> the substance of issue, at least not in the manner offered. The question >> is deeper than *whether* to discuss ICANN, but *how* to discuss ICANN. >> People here expect to discuss it substantively however they want, even when >> it goes against the preferred policies of those who run ICANN. >> >> Whenever you personally take issue with someone's substantive point of >> view, you need to take into account that you cannot separate yourself from >> the organization, either in viewpoint or in tone of presentation. >> >> Even your dismissal of this list as "not ... necessarily the best place" to >> discuss ICANN can be interpreted as a sort of collective ad hominem. Do >> you see that? Perhaps you really meant that there are structural and >> procedural reasons why discussions here are less effective in affecting >> ICANN policy deliberations, which is one thing, but given the contextual >> priming, it can also be read as suggesting that the opinions here are not >> useful in the discussion as a matter of substance (and that could be >> because the substantive comments are diluted with too much ad hominem, but >> maybe also because the substance is not to the liking of ICANN as an >> institution -- again, you can't get rid of that organizational connection, >> so as a public mouthpiece for ICANN you have to go the extra distance to >> clarify yourself in the face of such ambiguity). >> >> We are all now on hair-trigger alert for ad hominems here, so everyone must >> be extra careful. Again, just a friendly word of advice on how we conduct >> ourselves here, because one may be causing unintended consequences in one's >> own expressions. >> >> For example, if you were to dismiss this analysis as "long winded" without >> addressing the substance of these comments, then you would be falling prey >> to exactly what you deplore in others. I'm trying hard here to go into >> great detail, because sometimes the point is lost without explicit detail. >> Repetition is part of the learning process, so sometimes a little >> redundancy is called for, when addressing a point that is particularly >> difficult to absorb for one reason or another. >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Why am I therefore complaining about rudeness etc? >>> A. Because it limits conversation and discussion. That's it. Nothing more >>> to >>> it. If you don't believe me, why not ask the exact same questions but >>> without being personally offensive, rude, dismissive or couching a >>> question >>> in leading, negative terms? (And it's not just me and ICANN under >>> discussion >>> here, it's this list in general and its wider discussions.) >> >> The best way to address this here is to lead by example. I've developed a >> fairly thick skin myself (prior to joining this list), but I still find it >> annoying and challenging to constantly have to fend off my own emotional >> reactions to focus on matters of substance. >> >> You have disagreed sometimes with policy stances taken by me and/or >> organizations I am working for (unpaid, by the way), but when the >> disagreement is not substantive but rather dismissive or otherwise >> attacking the frame or presentation of the message rather than the >> substance of the message, this cannot be considered to be leading by >> example. >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Are you going to go on and on about this? >>> A. God, I hope not. Particularly when in recent days the list has been >>> very >>> interesting and informative re: IGF 2008 preparations. >> >> The best way to put this to rest is for everyone involved to begin behaving >> without demeaning every other statement by someone who disagrees with one's >> own viewpoint, and instead to address the substance of the disagreement on >> the merits. >> >> I can assure you that I have been the target of a good number of ad hominem >> attacks on this list, and it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth, >> especially when they are later denied. >> >> And, frankly, I don't expect that this list will all of a sudden become >> perfect in its avoidance of ad hominems. It's hard to change ingrained >> habits, and flame wars are well-known online. I'll try to give you the >> benefit of doubt if you do it in the future (as I did above), but I may >> call explicit attention to the uncertainty surrounding your intent, and ask >> you to clarify. >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Is that it? >>> A. If people want to continue having this conversation let's have it >>> off-list. Leave this space for real work. >> >> Fine, then let the real work not bring the manifestation of the substance >> of this conversation back on the list, shall we? If we can all finally >> begin to behave better, then maybe we might figure a few things out. >> >> As long as people continue to live in glass houses, they would be advised >> not throw stones, because that would be disingenuous and counterproductive. >> And that applies to everyone, not any particular individual. >> >> Dan >> >> PS -- When people misinterpret the substance of each others' statements for >> strategically rhetorical purposes, it is really no less undermining of >> trust than a direct and explicit ad hominem attack. Just a thought to >> ponder moving forward as we consider how to conduct our discourse here. >> Let real substantive disagreements be explored on their merits. There are >> a lot of rhetorical tactics that are fundamentally disrespectful of one's >> opponents while falling short of abject ad hominem, and these habits of >> discourse are unfortunately rampant in political contexts. And this list >> is a highly political context, like it or not. That's precisely why it is >> such a rhetorical danger zone. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kieren >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:22 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony >>> >>> I honestly found this response to be quite funny. Thanks for the light >>> touch, Kieren. >>> >>> Nevertheless, I think you are (dis)missing the substantial influence you >>> have as a mouthpiece for an organization that is de facto quite powerful, >>> even if in principle the RSOs can walk away at any time. You have no >>> *formal jurisdiction* in this list-community, but you have a >>> disproportionate individual effect nonetheless, due to your official >>> affiliation and duties. >>> >>> Larry Lessig, in his first book "Code," identifies four species of >>> regulation on human behavior: laws, social norms, architecture, and >>> markets. While you do not have a legal jurisdiction over listservs such >>> as >>> this, and you do not control their architecture, you do contribute >>> significantly to both the social norms and the "market dynamics" of >>> participation. This is simply a reality, and ignoring it does not make it >>> go away. >>> >>> You have a privileged position as a public representative of ICANN, and >>> that enhances the effects of your participation on the list. Otherwise >>> people may not care quite as much about what you say (and *please* do not >>> take *that* as an "ad hominem" statement ... it's a statement about the >>> real effects of official affiliation, no more, and it would apply to >>> anyone >>> and everyone in your position). >>> >>> Anyone involved in public relations has to navigate this delicate >>> interplay >>> of individual and organizational speech with fully explicit awareness. >>> You >>> should be aware of these dynamics in your position, because I would expect >>> that this is part of your job description. If not, then I think it should >>> be. You are in fact in a fairly sensitive role, as much as any government >>> diplomat (like, say, Bertrand). People read things into your words >>> because, well, they *should*, due to your official role. They attach your >>> words to the organization, and vice versa. >>> >>> Anita is making a valid point, and to laugh it off is ultimately not >>> fairly >>> warranted. Your reply could be read as a strategic response, designed to >>> attack Anita's point of view by belittling it (just this side of "ad >>> hominem"...). I honestly don't know what you truly believe (whether you >>> think the idea of your enhanced influence on discourse is preposterous, or >>> whether you view it as a serious threat to be actively defused by >>> belittling the point in a political manner). >>> >>> But by deflecting away from the point through ridicule rather than >>> addressing it, I think you did not dampen the fire so much as pour fuel on >>> it. Is that really what you intended to do? If not, then you might well >>> re-examine your tactics here. I would urge you to try to understand how >>> your responses are perceived by others, given the ineliminable context of >>> your official role at a powerful institution of governance that deeply >>> affects -- and even controls -- some of the important matters discussed >>> here. You cannot *really* be assuming that your comments here will be >>> taken purely as an individual, can you? That would not be realistic, >>> IMHO. >>> >>> Everyone here connects you to ICANN with the assumption of some official >>> role. Everything you write here should take that axiom into account. It >>> is not within your control to alter that perception, so you have no choice >>> but to work with it. That is just "the facts on the ground" and there is >>> really nothing you can do about it. >>> >>> Though the logic may seem convoluted, you are powerless to avoid having an >>> enhanced influence on discourse in this community, because of your >>> official >>> position that ultimately cannot be separated from your words. This will >>> not change as long as you hold your current staff position. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> At 9:36 AM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >>>>> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >>>>> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >>>>> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. >>>> >>>> >>>> Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. >>>> >>>> As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my >>> role >>>> in ICANN. >>>> >>>> I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except >>>> with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. >>>> >>>> I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other >>>> issues as well? Like broccoli. >>>> >>>> Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email >>>> outlining >>>> what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment >>>> so >>>> people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kieren >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Irony >>>> >>>> I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find >>>> very >>>> strange this approach to institutions' >>>> >>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >>>> perhaps >>>> attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting >>>> to >>>> influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on >>>> what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that >>> substantive >>>> criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' >>>> (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can >>>> only >>>> be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all >>>> discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the >>>> current >>>> ig structures) or has been simply ignored. >>>> >>>> Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener >>>> to >>>> Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the >>>> discussions >>>> (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance >>>> institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot >>>> afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and >>>> indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness >>>> + >>>> thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues >>>> and >>>> different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to >>>> others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! >>>> >>>> Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this >>> whole >>>> process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from >>> an >>>> 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that >>>> feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and >>> ironical. >>>> >>>> Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the >>>> underlying >>>> concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to >>>> resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent >>>> / >>>> substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This >>>> would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather >>>> than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. >>>> >>>> I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that >>>> light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal >>>> insults >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Guru >>>> Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first >>>> posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list >>>> and >>>> its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of >>>> black >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >>>> >>>> Hi Jacqueline, >>>> >>>> Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >>>> >>>>>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>>>>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >>>>> >>>>> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >>>>> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >>>>> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. >>>> >>>> I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say >>>> that >>>> this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the >>>> dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this >>>> geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and >>> this >>>> is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >>>> >>>>>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >>>>> equated to "the >>>>>> Internet's best interests"). >>>>> >>>>> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >>>>> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >>>>> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >>>>> "institution". >>>> >>>> Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best >>>> interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, >>>> explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public >>>> Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one >>>> may >>>> look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I >>>> find >>>> very strange this approach to institutions. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Meryem >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com Thu Nov 29 19:49:19 2007 From: joppenheimer at icbtollfree.com (=?utf-8?B?SnVkaXRoIE9wcGVuaGVpbWVy?=) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:49:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: <025901c832d3$446c5de0$cd4519a0$@com> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net><006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <474EFD76.5000805@rits.org.br><474F0ADE.3070407@rits.org.br><025901c832d3$446c5de0$cd4519a0$@com> Message-ID: <775913629-1196383602-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1121531130-@bxe019.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Agreed! Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:00:32 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Carlos Afonso' ,'Rui Correia' Subject: RE: [governance] Irony Oxtail is good with anything! > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 14:54 > To: Rui Correia > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Irony > > Messing with, not "missing with", of course... :) > > Ahhh, a hot plate of watercress with ox tail chunks... one of the best > dishes of Rio! In Portuguese it is called "rabada com agrião", and must > be accompanied by a caipirinha, of course. > > abraços fraternos > > --c.a. > > Rui Correia wrote: > > Broccolli is good for you and easy to work with - even beginners soon > learn > > how to maximise the benefits of working with it, what it goes well > with etc. > > Now, ICANN is like ox tail - not easy to work, and with so few > successful > > recipes, you are too scared to explore and experiment. So you end up > > allowing the ox tail dictating how to work with it. And it doesn't go > with > > everything. Don't forget the toothpicks. > > > > Rui > > > > On 29/11/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> Ahh, broccolli, definitely not. I love broccolli and I do not admit > >> anyone missing with it. Now, ICANN, hmmmm.... > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren > is > >>>> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the > discussions > >>>> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by > >>>> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. > >>> > >>> Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. > >>> > >>> As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from > discussing my > >> role > >>> in ICANN. > >>> > >>> I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN > >> except > >>> with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to > decide. > >>> > >>> I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing > >> other > >>> issues as well? Like broccoli. > >>> > >>> Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email > >> outlining > >>> what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the > moment > >> so > >>> people should expect several days' delay before a response is > granted. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kieren > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] > >>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Irony > >>> > >>> I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I > find > >> very > >>> strange this approach to institutions' > >>> > >>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is > >> perhaps > >>> attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions > (attempting > >> to > >>> influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing > judgement > >> on > >>> what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that > >> substantive > >>> criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or > 'naïve' > >>> (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN > can > >> only > >>> be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that > all > >>> discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the > >> current > >>> ig structures) or has been simply ignored. > >>> > >>> Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a > 'Listener > >> to > >>> Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the > >> discussions > >>> (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for > >> governance > >>> institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role > >> cannot > >>> afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and > >>> indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). > >> Openness + > >>> thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the > issues > >> and > >>> different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply > to > >>> others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! > >>> > >>> Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that > this > >> whole > >>> process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking > feedback' > >> from an > >>> 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing > that > >>> feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and > >> ironical. > >>> Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the > >> underlying > >>> concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done > to > >>> resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant > >> equivalent / > >>> substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective > >> ..' This > >>> would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, > >> rather > >>> than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. > >>> > >>> I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in > that > >>> light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal > >> insults > >>> Regards, > >>> Guru > >>> Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's > first > >>> posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the > list > >> and > >>> its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various > shades of > >>> black > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation > >>> > >>> Hi Jacqueline, > >>> > >>> Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : > >>> > >>>>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only > be > >>>>> valued if expressed within a given framework, > >>>> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the > currently > >>>> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework > for > >>>> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive > dialogue. > >>> I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would > say > >> that > >>> this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the > >>> dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from > this > >>> geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), > and > >> this > >>> is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. > >>> > >>>>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which > are > >>>> equated to "the > >>>>> Internet's best interests"). > >>>> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date > in > >>>> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some > >>>> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the > >>>> "institution". > >>> Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN > best > >>> interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by > Kieren, > >>> explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public > >>> Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since > one > >> may > >>> look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, > simply I > >> find > >>> very strange this approach to institutions. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Meryem > >>> > >>>____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>>____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >>____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1158 - Release Date: > 11/28/2007 21:11 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1158 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 21:11 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 29 19:55:25 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:55:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:02:46 -0800) References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > Back here in the US there was a thing known as a "company union" - see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union > > This was a technique used during the latter 1800's and early 1900's by > companies that wanted to crush the voice of workers by creating a > plausible substitute for independent worker-formed, worker-controlled > unions. > > These substitute company unions were formed by the company. The company > provided money and time off work for employees to attend meetings. Of > course this company union tended to adopt mild stances and was not quite > willing to bite the hand that fed it. > > You might begin sense a resemblance between these company unions and the > ALAC. Sounds like it might be wise to establish the internet governance equivalent of genuine, independent unions. Given that such a new structure aiming to genuinely represent internet users would probably have to be operated on extremely limited financial resources (since otherwise it would quickly lose its independence through being financially dependent on its donors), how could it be set up to make it genuinely democratic and robust against forgery of votes etc? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Nov 29 20:03:55 2007 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:03:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Irony Unravelled Message-ID: Hi Alejandro, Getting back to 2) on your list, whether international Internet governance issues exists beyond ICANN, and drawing by analogy on the ITU, here's what I am now thinking: a) there are IG issues which MUST be coordinated globally (ITU analogy: satellite orbital slots) b) there are IG issues which SHOULD be coordinated globally but MUST be implemented regionally, nationally or locally. (ITU analogy: RF allocations) and c) there are IG issues which CANNOT be coordinated globally, perhaps SHOULD be coordinated Regionally, and MUST be coordinated locally. (well by definition this is outside ITU mandate, though we might think of the Bureau of Telecom Development, where there are international initiatives but implementation typicaly is local in a specific nation.) I suggest we consider these more variegated categories than either all-international ICANN or non-ICANN, since I suspect that 2)b and 2)c are larger buckets than 2)a. On the other hand, if it is a purely local issue, definitely take it to a local list. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 11/29/07 7:10 PM >>> OK, so, no trust for Kieren or anyone who speaks for ICANN or in favor of ICANN. Dan's minutious dissection proves that and everybody should take that as dogma from now on. This may cut two ways but never mind for now. Is there still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list with the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full than half-empty? There are at least three outstanding strands that I can recognize from recent days: 1. my question to Meryem whether there is any positive he recognizes in ICANN; 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet Governance question that is not ICANN; 3. the thread started by Adam about the IGF 2008 session; 4. Bill Drake's question to me, whether we should go through the exercise of measuring ICANN against the WSIS criteria. He recalls correctly that I thought that would be a useful exercise to perform with respect to the ITU, and in fact that did not happen in the WGIG or any time later. It was done for ICANN in the WGIG in 2004, and it was done again for ICANN ("to use WSIS criteria as a kind of report card") in Sao Paulo in December 2006, I think. Once again? Bill, yes, let's do it. I call it the WSIS-o-meter, it's a nice, compact spreadsheet, let's, by all means, and be able to move beyond. There is a fifth strand still waving in the air, which moved from ICANN elections to the achievements and else of ICANN's ALAC to Karl's self-glorification, and general dismissal of most everyone else, which is begging for a "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?" from an eyewitness. Better spared, though. I move that we get our discussions organized around those threads and actually achieve something, or find a true alternative. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:48:38 -0800 > From: Dan Krimm > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy > Subject: RE: [governance] Irony > > Okay, fair enough, so: > > > At 2:09 PM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> Okay, fair enough. So... >> >> >> Q. Am I attempting to 'manage' the discussions? >> A. No. >> >> >> Q. Am I attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse'? >> A. No. > > Attempts to read subjective intent into your posts are probably not going > to go anywhere, but the whole of your discourse here influences how much > others might or might not trust any statements made by you. > > Again, this is not "ad hominem" (I'm not saying that I distrust you, just > that people make that judgment according to the totality of your > participation, and if you want to be trusted you should take it all into > account, because everyone else does -- just a friendly word of advice). > > > >> >> Q. Am I thin-skinned? >> A. Quite the opposite. And I can give you a list of 1,000 people that would >> happily testify to that. Well, some not necessarily happily. > > I wouldn't hazard a guess on this, but your responses must simply be taken > on their merits by the person reading them. When something comes out > "sounding" like an ad hominem from you, especially when it is in response > to something that seems not to have been intended as an ad hominem *at* > you, it is easy to see why people might judge you accordingly. > > Part of the duty of someone in public relations is not to allow emotions to > get the best of you (unless it is somehow strategically to your advantage, > I suppose...). > > And for those that have wrath for ICANN, you cannot take those sentiments > personally. Whether or not you personally feel that such wrath is > justified, it is ultimately not your call to make, as a representative of > the organization. People feel the way they feel, and usually because of > some substantive reason. If you respond to the wrath instead of the > substance behind it, you distract from any productive discussion. > > In some other cases, that would be an explicit intent (we see it a lot in > the US, and it is part of the general degradation of political discourse in > the US -- a real shame). > > > >> >> Q. Am I unwilling to discuss issues surrounding ICANN? >> A. No. Quite the opposite - I *want* people to discuss ICANN. I'm not sure >> this list is necessarily the best place for all of it, but you take what you >> can find. > > If a viewpoint (or the person stating it) is merely attacked rather than > addressed substantively, then it suggests that one does not want to discuss > the substance of issue, at least not in the manner offered. The question > is deeper than *whether* to discuss ICANN, but *how* to discuss ICANN. > People here expect to discuss it substantively however they want, even when > it goes against the preferred policies of those who run ICANN. > > Whenever you personally take issue with someone's substantive point of > view, you need to take into account that you cannot separate yourself from > the organization, either in viewpoint or in tone of presentation. > > Even your dismissal of this list as "not ... necessarily the best place" to > discuss ICANN can be interpreted as a sort of collective ad hominem. Do > you see that? Perhaps you really meant that there are structural and > procedural reasons why discussions here are less effective in affecting > ICANN policy deliberations, which is one thing, but given the contextual > priming, it can also be read as suggesting that the opinions here are not > useful in the discussion as a matter of substance (and that could be > because the substantive comments are diluted with too much ad hominem, but > maybe also because the substance is not to the liking of ICANN as an > institution -- again, you can't get rid of that organizational connection, > so as a public mouthpiece for ICANN you have to go the extra distance to > clarify yourself in the face of such ambiguity). > > We are all now on hair-trigger alert for ad hominems here, so everyone must > be extra careful. Again, just a friendly word of advice on how we conduct > ourselves here, because one may be causing unintended consequences in one's > own expressions. > > For example, if you were to dismiss this analysis as "long winded" without > addressing the substance of these comments, then you would be falling prey > to exactly what you deplore in others. I'm trying hard here to go into > great detail, because sometimes the point is lost without explicit detail. > Repetition is part of the learning process, so sometimes a little > redundancy is called for, when addressing a point that is particularly > difficult to absorb for one reason or another. > > > >> >> Q. Why am I therefore complaining about rudeness etc? >> A. Because it limits conversation and discussion. That's it. Nothing more to >> it. If you don't believe me, why not ask the exact same questions but >> without being personally offensive, rude, dismissive or couching a question >> in leading, negative terms? (And it's not just me and ICANN under discussion >> here, it's this list in general and its wider discussions.) > > The best way to address this here is to lead by example. I've developed a > fairly thick skin myself (prior to joining this list), but I still find it > annoying and challenging to constantly have to fend off my own emotional > reactions to focus on matters of substance. > > You have disagreed sometimes with policy stances taken by me and/or > organizations I am working for (unpaid, by the way), but when the > disagreement is not substantive but rather dismissive or otherwise > attacking the frame or presentation of the message rather than the > substance of the message, this cannot be considered to be leading by > example. > > > >> >> Q. Are you going to go on and on about this? >> A. God, I hope not. Particularly when in recent days the list has been very >> interesting and informative re: IGF 2008 preparations. > > The best way to put this to rest is for everyone involved to begin behaving > without demeaning every other statement by someone who disagrees with one's > own viewpoint, and instead to address the substance of the disagreement on > the merits. > > I can assure you that I have been the target of a good number of ad hominem > attacks on this list, and it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth, > especially when they are later denied. > > And, frankly, I don't expect that this list will all of a sudden become > perfect in its avoidance of ad hominems. It's hard to change ingrained > habits, and flame wars are well-known online. I'll try to give you the > benefit of doubt if you do it in the future (as I did above), but I may > call explicit attention to the uncertainty surrounding your intent, and ask > you to clarify. > > > >> >> Q. Is that it? >> A. If people want to continue having this conversation let's have it >> off-list. Leave this space for real work. > > Fine, then let the real work not bring the manifestation of the substance > of this conversation back on the list, shall we? If we can all finally > begin to behave better, then maybe we might figure a few things out. > > As long as people continue to live in glass houses, they would be advised > not throw stones, because that would be disingenuous and counterproductive. > And that applies to everyone, not any particular individual. > > Dan > > PS -- When people misinterpret the substance of each others' statements for > strategically rhetorical purposes, it is really no less undermining of > trust than a direct and explicit ad hominem attack. Just a thought to > ponder moving forward as we consider how to conduct our discourse here. > Let real substantive disagreements be explored on their merits. There are > a lot of rhetorical tactics that are fundamentally disrespectful of one's > opponents while falling short of abject ad hominem, and these habits of > discourse are unfortunately rampant in political contexts. And this list > is a highly political context, like it or not. That's precisely why it is > such a rhetorical danger zone. > > >> >> >> >> >> Kieren >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:22 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony >> >> I honestly found this response to be quite funny. Thanks for the light >> touch, Kieren. >> >> Nevertheless, I think you are (dis)missing the substantial influence you >> have as a mouthpiece for an organization that is de facto quite powerful, >> even if in principle the RSOs can walk away at any time. You have no >> *formal jurisdiction* in this list-community, but you have a >> disproportionate individual effect nonetheless, due to your official >> affiliation and duties. >> >> Larry Lessig, in his first book "Code," identifies four species of >> regulation on human behavior: laws, social norms, architecture, and >> markets. While you do not have a legal jurisdiction over listservs such as >> this, and you do not control their architecture, you do contribute >> significantly to both the social norms and the "market dynamics" of >> participation. This is simply a reality, and ignoring it does not make it >> go away. >> >> You have a privileged position as a public representative of ICANN, and >> that enhances the effects of your participation on the list. Otherwise >> people may not care quite as much about what you say (and *please* do not >> take *that* as an "ad hominem" statement ... it's a statement about the >> real effects of official affiliation, no more, and it would apply to anyone >> and everyone in your position). >> >> Anyone involved in public relations has to navigate this delicate interplay >> of individual and organizational speech with fully explicit awareness. You >> should be aware of these dynamics in your position, because I would expect >> that this is part of your job description. If not, then I think it should >> be. You are in fact in a fairly sensitive role, as much as any government >> diplomat (like, say, Bertrand). People read things into your words >> because, well, they *should*, due to your official role. They attach your >> words to the organization, and vice versa. >> >> Anita is making a valid point, and to laugh it off is ultimately not fairly >> warranted. Your reply could be read as a strategic response, designed to >> attack Anita's point of view by belittling it (just this side of "ad >> hominem"...). I honestly don't know what you truly believe (whether you >> think the idea of your enhanced influence on discourse is preposterous, or >> whether you view it as a serious threat to be actively defused by >> belittling the point in a political manner). >> >> But by deflecting away from the point through ridicule rather than >> addressing it, I think you did not dampen the fire so much as pour fuel on >> it. Is that really what you intended to do? If not, then you might well >> re-examine your tactics here. I would urge you to try to understand how >> your responses are perceived by others, given the ineliminable context of >> your official role at a powerful institution of governance that deeply >> affects -- and even controls -- some of the important matters discussed >> here. You cannot *really* be assuming that your comments here will be >> taken purely as an individual, can you? That would not be realistic, IMHO. >> >> Everyone here connects you to ICANN with the assumption of some official >> role. Everything you write here should take that axiom into account. It >> is not within your control to alter that perception, so you have no choice >> but to work with it. That is just "the facts on the ground" and there is >> really nothing you can do about it. >> >> Though the logic may seem convoluted, you are powerless to avoid having an >> enhanced influence on discourse in this community, because of your official >> position that ultimately cannot be separated from your words. This will >> not change as long as you hold your current staff position. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> At 9:36 AM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >>>> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >>>> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >>>> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. >>> >>> >>> Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. >>> >>> As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my >> role >>> in ICANN. >>> >>> I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except >>> with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. >>> >>> I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other >>> issues as well? Like broccoli. >>> >>> Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining >>> what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so >>> people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kieren >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Irony >>> >>> I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very >>> strange this approach to institutions' >>> >>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps >>> attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to >>> influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on >>> what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that >> substantive >>> criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' >>> (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only >>> be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all >>> discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current >>> ig structures) or has been simply ignored. >>> >>> Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to >>> Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions >>> (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance >>> institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot >>> afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and >>> indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + >>> thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and >>> different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to >>> others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! >>> >>> Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this >> whole >>> process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from >> an >>> 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that >>> feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and >> ironical. >>> >>> Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying >>> concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to >>> resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / >>> substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This >>> would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather >>> than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. >>> >>> I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that >>> light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults >>> >>> Regards, >>> Guru >>> Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first >>> posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and >>> its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of >>> black >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >>> >>> Hi Jacqueline, >>> >>> Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >>> >>>>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>>>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >>>> >>>> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >>>> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >>>> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. >>> >>> I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that >>> this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the >>> dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this >>> geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and >> this >>> is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >>> >>>>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >>>> equated to "the >>>>> Internet's best interests"). >>>> >>>> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >>>> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >>>> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >>>> "institution". >>> >>> Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best >>> interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, >>> explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public >>> Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may >>> look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find >>> very strange this approach to institutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> Meryem >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Thu Nov 29 20:07:15 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:07:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Irony Unravelled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee, and the issues are...? Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Lee McKnight wrote: > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:03:55 -0500 > From: Lee McKnight > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, dan at musicunbound.com, apisan at servidor.unam.mx > Cc: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com > Subject: RE: [governance] Irony Unravelled > > Hi Alejandro, > > Getting back to 2) on your list, whether international Internet governance issues exists beyond ICANN, and drawing by analogy on the ITU, here's what I am now thinking: > > a) there are IG issues which MUST be coordinated globally (ITU analogy: satellite orbital slots) > b) there are IG issues which SHOULD be coordinated globally but MUST be implemented regionally, nationally or locally. (ITU analogy: RF allocations) > and > c) there are IG issues which CANNOT be coordinated globally, perhaps SHOULD be coordinated Regionally, and MUST be coordinated locally. (well by definition this is outside ITU mandate, though we might think of the Bureau of Telecom Development, where there are international initiatives but implementation typicaly is local in a specific nation.) > > I suggest we consider these more variegated categories than either all-international ICANN or non-ICANN, since I suspect that 2)b and 2)c are larger buckets than 2)a. > > On the other hand, if it is a purely local issue, definitely take it to a local list. > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 11/29/07 7:10 PM >>> > OK, > > so, no trust for Kieren or anyone who speaks for ICANN or in favor of > ICANN. Dan's minutious dissection proves that and everybody should take > that as dogma from now on. This may cut two ways but never mind for now. > > Is there still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list > with the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full > than half-empty? There are at least three outstanding strands that I can > recognize from recent days: > > 1. my question to Meryem whether there is any positive he recognizes in > ICANN; > > 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet > Governance question that is not ICANN; > > 3. the thread started by Adam about the IGF 2008 session; > > 4. Bill Drake's question to me, whether we should go through the exercise > of measuring ICANN against the WSIS criteria. He recalls correctly that I > thought that would be a useful exercise to perform with respect to the > ITU, and in fact that did not happen in the WGIG or any time later. It was > done for ICANN in the WGIG in 2004, and it was done again for ICANN ("to > use WSIS criteria as a kind of report card") in Sao Paulo in December > 2006, I think. Once again? Bill, yes, let's do it. I call it the > WSIS-o-meter, it's a nice, compact spreadsheet, let's, by all means, and > be able to move beyond. > > There is a fifth strand still waving in the air, which moved from ICANN > elections to the achievements and else of ICANN's ALAC to Karl's > self-glorification, and general dismissal of most > everyone else, which is begging for a "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, > patientia nostra?" from an eyewitness. Better spared, though. > > I move that we get our discussions organized around those threads and > actually achieve something, or find a true alternative. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico > UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 > http://www.dgsca.unam.mx > * > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:48:38 -0800 >> From: Dan Krimm >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy >> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony >> >> Okay, fair enough, so: >> >> >> At 2:09 PM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>> Okay, fair enough. So... >>> >>> >>> Q. Am I attempting to 'manage' the discussions? >>> A. No. >>> >>> >>> Q. Am I attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse'? >>> A. No. >> >> Attempts to read subjective intent into your posts are probably not going >> to go anywhere, but the whole of your discourse here influences how much >> others might or might not trust any statements made by you. >> >> Again, this is not "ad hominem" (I'm not saying that I distrust you, just >> that people make that judgment according to the totality of your >> participation, and if you want to be trusted you should take it all into >> account, because everyone else does -- just a friendly word of advice). >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Am I thin-skinned? >>> A. Quite the opposite. And I can give you a list of 1,000 people that would >>> happily testify to that. Well, some not necessarily happily. >> >> I wouldn't hazard a guess on this, but your responses must simply be taken >> on their merits by the person reading them. When something comes out >> "sounding" like an ad hominem from you, especially when it is in response >> to something that seems not to have been intended as an ad hominem *at* >> you, it is easy to see why people might judge you accordingly. >> >> Part of the duty of someone in public relations is not to allow emotions to >> get the best of you (unless it is somehow strategically to your advantage, >> I suppose...). >> >> And for those that have wrath for ICANN, you cannot take those sentiments >> personally. Whether or not you personally feel that such wrath is >> justified, it is ultimately not your call to make, as a representative of >> the organization. People feel the way they feel, and usually because of >> some substantive reason. If you respond to the wrath instead of the >> substance behind it, you distract from any productive discussion. >> >> In some other cases, that would be an explicit intent (we see it a lot in >> the US, and it is part of the general degradation of political discourse in >> the US -- a real shame). >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Am I unwilling to discuss issues surrounding ICANN? >>> A. No. Quite the opposite - I *want* people to discuss ICANN. I'm not sure >>> this list is necessarily the best place for all of it, but you take what you >>> can find. >> >> If a viewpoint (or the person stating it) is merely attacked rather than >> addressed substantively, then it suggests that one does not want to discuss >> the substance of issue, at least not in the manner offered. The question >> is deeper than *whether* to discuss ICANN, but *how* to discuss ICANN. >> People here expect to discuss it substantively however they want, even when >> it goes against the preferred policies of those who run ICANN. >> >> Whenever you personally take issue with someone's substantive point of >> view, you need to take into account that you cannot separate yourself from >> the organization, either in viewpoint or in tone of presentation. >> >> Even your dismissal of this list as "not ... necessarily the best place" to >> discuss ICANN can be interpreted as a sort of collective ad hominem. Do >> you see that? Perhaps you really meant that there are structural and >> procedural reasons why discussions here are less effective in affecting >> ICANN policy deliberations, which is one thing, but given the contextual >> priming, it can also be read as suggesting that the opinions here are not >> useful in the discussion as a matter of substance (and that could be >> because the substantive comments are diluted with too much ad hominem, but >> maybe also because the substance is not to the liking of ICANN as an >> institution -- again, you can't get rid of that organizational connection, >> so as a public mouthpiece for ICANN you have to go the extra distance to >> clarify yourself in the face of such ambiguity). >> >> We are all now on hair-trigger alert for ad hominems here, so everyone must >> be extra careful. Again, just a friendly word of advice on how we conduct >> ourselves here, because one may be causing unintended consequences in one's >> own expressions. >> >> For example, if you were to dismiss this analysis as "long winded" without >> addressing the substance of these comments, then you would be falling prey >> to exactly what you deplore in others. I'm trying hard here to go into >> great detail, because sometimes the point is lost without explicit detail. >> Repetition is part of the learning process, so sometimes a little >> redundancy is called for, when addressing a point that is particularly >> difficult to absorb for one reason or another. >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Why am I therefore complaining about rudeness etc? >>> A. Because it limits conversation and discussion. That's it. Nothing more to >>> it. If you don't believe me, why not ask the exact same questions but >>> without being personally offensive, rude, dismissive or couching a question >>> in leading, negative terms? (And it's not just me and ICANN under discussion >>> here, it's this list in general and its wider discussions.) >> >> The best way to address this here is to lead by example. I've developed a >> fairly thick skin myself (prior to joining this list), but I still find it >> annoying and challenging to constantly have to fend off my own emotional >> reactions to focus on matters of substance. >> >> You have disagreed sometimes with policy stances taken by me and/or >> organizations I am working for (unpaid, by the way), but when the >> disagreement is not substantive but rather dismissive or otherwise >> attacking the frame or presentation of the message rather than the >> substance of the message, this cannot be considered to be leading by >> example. >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Are you going to go on and on about this? >>> A. God, I hope not. Particularly when in recent days the list has been very >>> interesting and informative re: IGF 2008 preparations. >> >> The best way to put this to rest is for everyone involved to begin behaving >> without demeaning every other statement by someone who disagrees with one's >> own viewpoint, and instead to address the substance of the disagreement on >> the merits. >> >> I can assure you that I have been the target of a good number of ad hominem >> attacks on this list, and it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth, >> especially when they are later denied. >> >> And, frankly, I don't expect that this list will all of a sudden become >> perfect in its avoidance of ad hominems. It's hard to change ingrained >> habits, and flame wars are well-known online. I'll try to give you the >> benefit of doubt if you do it in the future (as I did above), but I may >> call explicit attention to the uncertainty surrounding your intent, and ask >> you to clarify. >> >> >> >>> >>> Q. Is that it? >>> A. If people want to continue having this conversation let's have it >>> off-list. Leave this space for real work. >> >> Fine, then let the real work not bring the manifestation of the substance >> of this conversation back on the list, shall we? If we can all finally >> begin to behave better, then maybe we might figure a few things out. >> >> As long as people continue to live in glass houses, they would be advised >> not throw stones, because that would be disingenuous and counterproductive. >> And that applies to everyone, not any particular individual. >> >> Dan >> >> PS -- When people misinterpret the substance of each others' statements for >> strategically rhetorical purposes, it is really no less undermining of >> trust than a direct and explicit ad hominem attack. Just a thought to >> ponder moving forward as we consider how to conduct our discourse here. >> Let real substantive disagreements be explored on their merits. There are >> a lot of rhetorical tactics that are fundamentally disrespectful of one's >> opponents while falling short of abject ad hominem, and these habits of >> discourse are unfortunately rampant in political contexts. And this list >> is a highly political context, like it or not. That's precisely why it is >> such a rhetorical danger zone. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kieren >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:22 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Irony >>> >>> I honestly found this response to be quite funny. Thanks for the light >>> touch, Kieren. >>> >>> Nevertheless, I think you are (dis)missing the substantial influence you >>> have as a mouthpiece for an organization that is de facto quite powerful, >>> even if in principle the RSOs can walk away at any time. You have no >>> *formal jurisdiction* in this list-community, but you have a >>> disproportionate individual effect nonetheless, due to your official >>> affiliation and duties. >>> >>> Larry Lessig, in his first book "Code," identifies four species of >>> regulation on human behavior: laws, social norms, architecture, and >>> markets. While you do not have a legal jurisdiction over listservs such as >>> this, and you do not control their architecture, you do contribute >>> significantly to both the social norms and the "market dynamics" of >>> participation. This is simply a reality, and ignoring it does not make it >>> go away. >>> >>> You have a privileged position as a public representative of ICANN, and >>> that enhances the effects of your participation on the list. Otherwise >>> people may not care quite as much about what you say (and *please* do not >>> take *that* as an "ad hominem" statement ... it's a statement about the >>> real effects of official affiliation, no more, and it would apply to anyone >>> and everyone in your position). >>> >>> Anyone involved in public relations has to navigate this delicate interplay >>> of individual and organizational speech with fully explicit awareness. You >>> should be aware of these dynamics in your position, because I would expect >>> that this is part of your job description. If not, then I think it should >>> be. You are in fact in a fairly sensitive role, as much as any government >>> diplomat (like, say, Bertrand). People read things into your words >>> because, well, they *should*, due to your official role. They attach your >>> words to the organization, and vice versa. >>> >>> Anita is making a valid point, and to laugh it off is ultimately not fairly >>> warranted. Your reply could be read as a strategic response, designed to >>> attack Anita's point of view by belittling it (just this side of "ad >>> hominem"...). I honestly don't know what you truly believe (whether you >>> think the idea of your enhanced influence on discourse is preposterous, or >>> whether you view it as a serious threat to be actively defused by >>> belittling the point in a political manner). >>> >>> But by deflecting away from the point through ridicule rather than >>> addressing it, I think you did not dampen the fire so much as pour fuel on >>> it. Is that really what you intended to do? If not, then you might well >>> re-examine your tactics here. I would urge you to try to understand how >>> your responses are perceived by others, given the ineliminable context of >>> your official role at a powerful institution of governance that deeply >>> affects -- and even controls -- some of the important matters discussed >>> here. You cannot *really* be assuming that your comments here will be >>> taken purely as an individual, can you? That would not be realistic, IMHO. >>> >>> Everyone here connects you to ICANN with the assumption of some official >>> role. Everything you write here should take that axiom into account. It >>> is not within your control to alter that perception, so you have no choice >>> but to work with it. That is just "the facts on the ground" and there is >>> really nothing you can do about it. >>> >>> Though the logic may seem convoluted, you are powerless to avoid having an >>> enhanced influence on discourse in this community, because of your official >>> position that ultimately cannot be separated from your words. This will >>> not change as long as you hold your current staff position. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> At 9:36 AM -0800 11/29/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >>>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is >>>>> perhaps attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions >>>>> (attempting to influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by >>>>> pronouncing judgement on what is rude or 'personal criticism'. >>>> >>>> >>>> Damn you caught me out. That's exactly what I was trying to do. >>>> >>>> As such, I am afraid that, Guru, I hereafter ban you from discussing my >>> role >>>> in ICANN. >>>> >>>> I should say I am also considering banning all discussion of ICANN except >>>> with my express permission. And then only on topics I get to decide. >>>> >>>> I never knew I had so much power. Can I stop people from discussing other >>>> issues as well? Like broccoli. >>>> >>>> Perhaps it's best if everyone from now on simply send me an email outlining >>>> what they would like to discuss and when. I am quite busy at the moment so >>>> people should expect several days' delay before a response is granted. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kieren >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:40 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Irony >>>> >>>> I was struck by an irony on reading Meryems' mail - on 'simply I find very >>>> strange this approach to institutions' >>>> >>>> As 'general manager of public participation', I wonder if Kieren is perhaps >>>> attempting to do precisely that - 'managing' the discussions (attempting to >>>> influence the range of 'allowable discourse') by pronouncing judgement on >>>> what is rude or 'personal criticism'. These attempts convey that >>> substantive >>>> criticism of ICANN has sometimes been considered 'ad hominem' or 'naïve' >>>> (apparently premising on the belief that the alternative to ICANN can only >>>> be 'Government control' which is ad-infinitum worse ..... and that all >>>> discussions on IG need to necessarily be fully anchored within the current >>>> ig structures) or has been simply ignored. >>>> >>>> Maybe if the designation were changed to (or interpreted as) a 'Listener to >>>> Vox Populi' it may persuade Kieren to be a bit more open in the discussions >>>> (and bit more thick skinned as well -; .... People working for governance >>>> institutions and that too in a predominant 'Public interface' role cannot >>>> afford to be thin skinned. And CS does tend to be a bit rough and >>>> indisciplined - that is its nature and maybe even its strength). Openness + >>>> thick skin could be quite useful to gaining understanding of the issues and >>>> different viewpoints and possible solutions. This logic would apply to >>>> others as well on the list which is one reason for this posting ! >>>> >>>> Again like Meryem, I do not intend any personal attack, only that this >>> whole >>>> process of an employee of the main IG institution 'seeking feedback' from >>> an >>>> 'open' civil society mailing list, seeming to flirt with 'managing that >>>> feedback' within that list discussions appears a tad dangerous and >>> ironical. >>>> >>>> Whereas if criticism of ICANN were to be viewed as 'what are the underlying >>>> concerns that prompt such criticism, what can be (or could be) done to >>>> resolve the issues raised, .... to make ICANN (or any relevant equivalent / >>>> substitute) more representative/legitimate as well as effective ..' This >>>> would also encourage more people to come forward with their views, rather >>>> than feeling that critical feedback is unwelcome. >>>> >>>> I once again request my friends to engage with critical comments in that >>>> light .... Caveat - this posting does not relate to purely personal insults >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Guru >>>> Ps - Another irony of the charges of ad hominem is that Kieren's first >>>> posting to this list was a 'flame' containing verbal abuse of the list and >>>> its participants :-). I guesss most of us are pots, in various shades of >>>> black >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation >>>> >>>> Hi Jacqueline, >>>> >>>> Le 28 nov. 07 à 12:40, Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit : >>>> >>>>>> Last but not least, it seems that an opinion on ICANN could only be >>>>>> valued if expressed within a given framework, >>>>> >>>>> I agree - seems to me sometimes that it has to be from the currently >>>>> dominant NA/Euro perspective, but I'm OK with a given framework for >>>>> discussion as long as it serves the purpose of constructive dialogue. >>>> >>>> I also agree on this, but this was not my point, actually. I would say that >>>> this (NA or Euro perspective -- as they're different) is due to the >>>> dominance of players from this area/perspective (no need to be from this >>>> geographical area to adopt such perspective: back to Frantz Fanon), and >>> this >>>> is by no way specific to ICANN discussions. >>>> >>>>>> from inside the institution, and in its own best interests (which are >>>>> equated to "the >>>>>> Internet's best interests"). >>>>> >>>>> I disagree, some of the most passionate opinions expressed to date in >>>>> this thread are most emphatically anti-current structure, and some >>>>> from outside the "institution" and some from ex-members of the >>>>> "institution". >>>> >>>> Actually, my last point (given framework + from inside + in ICANN best >>>> interests) was directly referring to numerous messages posted by Kieren, >>>> explicitely in his capacity of ICANN General Manager of Public >>>> Participation. No need to provide quotes, I think, specially since one may >>>> look into the list archives. Kieren: no personal attack here, simply I find >>>> very strange this approach to institutions. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Meryem >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 29 20:41:23 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:41:23 -0800 Subject: Voting, procedures, costs, and privacy. Was: Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <474F6A43.4020203@cavebear.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Sounds like it might be wise to establish the internet governance > equivalent of genuine, independent unions. > > Given that such a new structure aiming to genuinely represent > internet users would probably have to be operated on extremely > limited financial resources (since otherwise it would quickly > lose its independence through being financially dependent on > its donors), how could it be set up to make it genuinely > democratic and robust against forgery of votes etc? Let's not try to solve the internet voting problem in its general case. In that general case one tries to permit everything from registration to voting to occur over the net. That means having means so that each human gets no more and no less than one ballot and one vote. That's a tough problem to solve - in fact it may not be solvable. And there is the separate problem of privacy of the votes so that voters can't be coerced. That's another problem that is extremely difficult to solve. So, any election process needs to have its requirement softened and/or to tie itself to some external, hopefully already pre-existing, mechanisms. One such mechanism was used in the proposal made to ICANN for a constitutency for individual domain name owners. In that case we tried to ride on the coattails of the credit card companies that most people use to pay for domain names. That wasn't completely satisfactory - because while it largely solved the problem of fictitious created people (for the most part, but clearly not completely, fictitious people don't have credit cards that they've used to pay for domain names) but it did not solve the problem of one person having many cards and thus potentially getting multiple votes. Paypal's system of making small deposits to bank accounts is also an interesting method. At the end one may end up with a sieve of techniques that reduce, but not eliminate the problems of fictitious people or one person with multiple votes - in this case the question is when the risk of such problems becomes acceptably low. Trying for perfection pretty much means that we will never get anywhere. The other problem - coercion of the internet voter as he/she casts his/her ballot - is a problem that perhaps we can solve by declaring it a non problem. Maybe the issues faced in internet governance will be such that the drive to coerce does not become a real problem. Maybe - I'm merely suggesting that this question should be asked. There's also the notion of voter privacy during the canvasing process, i.e. the vote counting process. Again, for the kinds of matters that arise in the context of internet governance we should ask whether this is a real issue or whether we can simply hire some people to do the counting and impose upon them some solid contractual obligations not to disclose what they see (and perhaps add a bonding requirement as well.) As for the costs - In the case of the company unions, the company paid for the meeting halls and the beer. Of course that tended to influence the opinions of the members - particularly when more beer was provided. So, for a body to really be independent it needs to cover its own costs from a source that is disinterested in the outcome. That sort of disqualifies the body of internet governance that the election is associated with. Assuming we've solved or are dismissing the coercion/privacy question, then the main cost is the registration - identifying who is whom - the actual voting itself isn't all that expensive. For example, when I vote my shares in a shareholder election the main cost is in making sure that I have a unique voter ID number. The actual dissemination of voting materials and the actual voting is done by a relatively simple web mechanism. Again that's for corporate stuff where the privacy requirements are less than in a political election - and I'm hoping that internet governance voting has privacy concerns more on par with what is the norm in the corporate shareholder election rather than the typical political election. The bottom line is, however, that the costs, whether high or low, need to be borne by the body itself. Otherwise there is systemic compromise of the integrity - it does not matter whether that compromise is real or perceived - of the system, i.e. an ALAC. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Nov 29 22:07:46 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:07:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008 In-Reply-To: p06240819c3744a5e2840@[192.168.1.4] Message-ID: Adam, I have clipped out the blah-blah-blah from the Rio: Stocktaking Session and Closing Ceremony to focus on the critique commements. >From these: What can we address 'Now' and what can we address in 08? -- Stocktaking Session http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-TakingStock-15NOV07.txt - HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Tunis Agenda paragraph 72f states that the IGF should strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries. Taking this goal into account, the adoption of financial and other mechanisms to stimulate the participation of representatives from developing countries in all stakeholder groups could be considered. I am convinced that this balance should also be observed in the structure that will advise the United Nations' secretary-general in the preparation of this third IGF. To conclude, I would like to point out that the respect for balanced geographic representation and the participation of representatives from both developed and developing countries within in stakeholder group is essential for the legitimacy of any action that the IGF may recommend to the international community. In this context, I recall that the world summit process envisages a multilateral, transparent and democratic Internet governance model involving all stakeholders and their respective roles. -- BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Now, second point on methodology. It will probably be mentioned again, but I think we are touching on a very interesting element with the articulation between the workshops and the plenary or the main sessions. In particular, I believe that in the future, as it has already been mentioned in some of the reporting, using the main sessions to present more thoroughly the feedback from the workshops might be an interesting avenue to explore. And in that respect, we attach great importance to this innovation of the dynamic coalitions. We consider in particular that they have been, almost by accident, very useful in shaping the workshops and I believe the workshops are even better, more coherent, than the ones in Athens mostly because the ones among co-sponsors and participants has been prepared within the dynamic coalitions in an almost informal manner. It is likely to be going on further in the future. Weeks expect in particular that the dynamic coalitions or groupings of actors have streamlined the process of reducing the number of workshops so that we can save time for the informal interactions. We need to have a balance, and it's a delicate element, between the very good openness of the agenda setting of the IGF which allows anybody to propose a workshop and the need to have a limited number of workshops to save time to interact informally. And the dynamic coalitions in that respect might be a useful tool for this in the future as well as for intersessional work. -- FATIMA SEYE SYLLA: It's now time to start implementing with more active participation by Africa, because only Africa can defend Africa's interests. And it is in this spirit that the Kigali meeting on the theme of connecting Africa showed that access is vital for Africa's participation in Internet governance. Let me just remind you of a few commitments made by the African community to get access to Internet, which by definition today is a rare resource, but a critical resource for Africa. Let me just give you a few major points for specific action to be undertaken in the coming five years. First of all, we need to develop backbone infrastructure and access networks in order to interconnect all African capitals through broadband by 2012. All African villages need to be connected up by 2015. Human capacity building, production of adapted local content and services through a participatory process . Of course, thinking also of tele services, content in local languages and so forth. We need to develop a regulatory and policy framework at the national, subregional and regional levels which will be investment friendly for the well-being of our peoples. ... You must give civil society its due role in building the Information Society in order to improve the living conditions of our peoples. -- JUAN CARLOS SOLINES: The main challenge is not to stop because in an Information Society, as dynamic as ours, to stop would be to go backwards. And we need democracy, transparency. And we have to move forward constantly. The IGF is a five years process without a precedent and it responds to a revolutionary reality which is unique and marvelous and I say potentially because the impact of telecommunications still don't reach everyone in the world. And the elections and free votes are not democracy in themselves. What we have now is not yet a more inclusive and democratic infomatic society. The principles of the Internet, multisectoriality contained in the Geneva Declaration are not a goal but a philosophy, an attitude and a dynamic way of living. If we became more democratic in Rio, we should become even more democratic in New Delhi and we should become even more transparent. And if a growing number of people from several sectors participate in these discussions, then in 2008 we shall be enriched by more contributions and participation. Our true challenge is to get closer to people and understand what people need to benefit from the technology and knowledge. We believe the next forum will be even better than this one that we carried out in the charming city of Rio, and we have to ask ourselves if we are truly representing our organizations. And we have to ask ourselves if our organizations represent the interests, concerns, not of our staff, but, rather, the interests of the communities we serve, for whom we have to work and be more democratic. The IGF, with its secretariat and the multisectorial groups carried out an impartial task. We have to recognize the importance of the reports that were used by us as basis for the discussions held here this week. There will always be room for improvement, but changes must be the result of reflection and analysis, and all players should be consulted for these adoptions. We shall try to consolidate other principles, such as alternability, plurality, and meritocracy. This is the only way we will be more transparent. If we use electronic means to allow for the participation of people, we must now worry that all of them should use the tools, should know how Wiki works, they should access webcast, and they should simply reply e-mail. If they don't do that, we have to work to understand their reasons. Maybe they cannot have access, they don't know the topics they are being consulted about, they don't know about the Tunis Agenda, and they may even ignore the rights reserved for them by their own institutions. And only by working on this we can become more democratic. We shouldn't just have sectorial, regional, and gender balance. First and foremost, we have to have a balance on visions. The challenge will never be -- have panel members and speakers, et cetera. The true challenge is to find what enriches the wealth and knowledge of all the others. We should look for balance not just with other sectors, but also with the participation of private and production of players in developing countries, intellectual property, and encouragement to investment. Everyone has a way to participate. And the interests of states should find a balance before the interest of other states and peoples. -- JEANETTE HOFMANN: The first concerns gender balance. I'm sure most of you must have noticed this, there has been a striking discrepancy between the share of women in the audience and the share of women on the panels. There have been quite a few panels where there was not one single woman included. Can't we do better? The IGF is supposed to be an innovative space. This should also include the diversity of experts we invite to our panels. Second point. Diversity of stakeholders. I think we are doing quite well in terms of including several stakeholders in the organization of workshops and also in terms of including them on the panels. But this does not always mean that we also have a diversity of views. Several stakeholders can still have the same opinion. My sense is we should be more courageous and not be afraid of diversity of opinions, and make sure in the following years that we also invite people with different opinions. My third point concerns some complaining and moaning I've heard over the last days about lack of structure, too many workshops, too much duplication between workshops, and overlapping topics. First of all, I think what is very positive is that most of the workshops attracted a big audience, and people really stayed and asked questions and contributed. -- COLIN OLIVER: In fact, although we speak of workshops as being a bottom-up process, I do wonder, in fact, I think it's an issue for the next advisory group to consider, is should we actually be inviting, not compelling, not imposing structures, but inviting more cross-fertilization of that kind? I think we need to avoid negotiation, as has been said before. But I think we can also move beyond simple information-sharing. And that could be encouraged by, again, inviting contributions of more structured information. ... Finally, I want to say that I think it is premature to institutionalize too many arrangements. We're dealing with the Internet, one of the most dynamic agencies in our world. I don't think we should be making rules. I don't think we should be making rules for dynamic coalitions, for example. But many other aspects, I think we should be prepared to encourage evolution, give space to participants to make things happen, and admit that we're learning as we go. Many different points of view need to be heard. Those who've taken a back seat need to be encouraged to come forward. And the biggest challenge of all, I think, it's coming back to a point, is that Bertrand made right at the beginning, is that we have to take advantage of the opportunity to make new friends. -- BILL DRAKE: the one main point that I think came forward, the suggestion of a number of people, was that perhaps, as we look to the future, since the IGF per se can't do these things, and it's really up to stakeholders to take this role, we should try to figure out a way to create a facilitative environment in which the stakeholders could try to take on some of these functions more effectively, but also bring the results of their activities, of their efforts, to the wider community for discussion. ... Because, really, at the end of the day, the IGF as it is now, the real value is the bottom-up energy that you're getting from all these different communities in generating new ideas and having very vibrant discussions. And if we could find a way to leverage what they have generated and bring it into a wider debate, that would be helpful. That doesn't necessarily mean adopting the recommendations. It means simply addressing the issues on a broader basis, giving more people a chance to respond to the ideas, and so on. In this manner, also, those ideas might feed back, then, into other institutions and back to the national level. -- PEDRO VEIGA: The Internet is a platform of global value that should develop in the spirit of its pioneering times, offering ample opportunities for creativity and innovation to all users. It should remain open, people-centered, and multilingual, flexible to foster new technologies and users, preserve neutrality, inclusive and supportive of global, social, cultural, and economic interaction and development, but at the same time, meet the new challenges of today and tomorrow. Improving access to the Internet is a goal for us all, and freedom of expression and access to knowledge through the Internet stand as important democratic values to be preserved. The current arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic, and geographically diverse medium that it is today. -- EVERTON LUCERO: And there are certain improvements that I believe to be considered for the next session, or sessions, aiming at this goal. For instance, attendance at the main sessions. This is one of the main sessions with great attendance, but others weren't that successful. Perhaps because there were too many events in parallel and lots of people wanted to be, at the same time, in workshops which were considering more in-depth issues that later on would be brought to the attention of the main session. So perhaps one good improvement would be to have main sessions as single events or at least with few parallel sessions so that they will not be competing with workshops. Main sessions could be held, for instance, each morning or half morning. And the reporting back sessions, on the other hand, were even lower in attendance. I think they could be incorporated into the main sessions to make them more useful. And as I said, substantive and in-depth debate could be left to the workshops and dynamic coalition meetings. Main sessions would therefore receive reports and focus on discussing suggested actions, possible way forward. Let's see that the main question of -- the main question to be posed to each main session would be where and how this particular issue should be addressed. So there's no need to reproduce at main sessions the same workshop format of panelists and discussants that we already have at the workshops. We could also think of a possible rotational basis for chairing each of the main sessions among the different regions. Of course, the host country would continue chairing the opening, the closing, perhaps the emerging issues or one of these particular sessions, including taking stock, but it would be good, perhaps, to have a more diverse participation and geographically balanced. ... I would like to use this opportunity also to suggest that procedures for preparing the IGF should also be improved. The present advisory group has no rules of procedure, and the absence of rules is not necessarily beneficial to the process. There are no clear rules of participants, and not absolute transparency in its proceedings. -- MARGARET MORAN: Most particularly it is of real significance to users and that is my question. How can we ensure that we have a greater voice for users within this process as part of a gathering of stakeholders? I think we have to ensure that the voice of the user is really heard so that they can be part of determining the outcomes from technological innovation going forward. And by that I do not mean existing stakeholders having new mechanisms, online mechanisms, for example, to have their voice heard over again. I do mean users that are usually not heard in forums like this. And I believe that we should be looking for mechanisms and a commitment to the IGF at various levels to establish mechanisms for public participation in the kinds of debates that effect all of us. That way I think there will be greater transparency, greater accountability and real outcomes from the IGF in the future. -- End Stocktaking Session ------------------------- Closing Ceremony http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Closing-15NOV07.txt -- MARKUS KUMMER There are square brackets to be concluded, and we will conclude that. And we also have a short, generic passage on all the events that have taken place, all in all, 84 events outside the main session, which is a considerable amount. We also had the final statistics. We had over 2,100 registered participants. However, not all of them turned up, and we issued, I think, 1,363 badges of participants from 109 countries. Also, we had over 100 members of the press who attended the event. -- AUGUSTO GADELHA VIEIRA The second IGF provided a space for multistakeholder debate on cross-cutting themes. It facilitated the dialogue between organizations in charge of complementary aspects of Internet governance. It identified emerging issues and brought them to the attention of the public. The intense debate and participation in main sessions, workshops, open and best-practice forums, dynamic coalitions, and other meetings confirmed the role of the IGF in shaping the governance of the Internet, with a view to contribute to the building of a people-centered, development-oriented, and inclusive information society. The second meeting of the IGF also confirmed that the format of this forum is at the forefront of multilateral policy-making and may set precedents for a renewed, upgraded style of multilateral conferences in an open, inclusive, and representative environment, with the participation of all stakeholders. It's important to build upon the experience achieved so far, with a view of exploring possible avenues for strengthening the existing Internet governance mechanisms, adding to their legitimacy to the international community in adequacy to the guiding principles of the World Summit on the Information Society. The second IGF meeting advanced on the path towards the full implementation of the mandate in terms of participation, scope, thematic agenda, organization of work, and possible results. It contributed to the incremental process that aims at accomplishing the fulfillment of the forum's mandate by 2010, at the end of the five-year period initially established by the Tunis Agenda. ... There are certainly lessons to be learned and improvements to be made for the next IGF meetings. Among those improvements, I would like to stress the need for reviewing the IGF preparation process in order to allow for a broader, more balanced and more representative participation from all stakeholders, as well as from all regions of the world. It's important to bring into this process as much diversity of opinions as possible, taking into account gender balance. The criteria, nomination, rotation, proceedings, and the role of the advisory group or other structures to be used as a supporting structure to prepare and conduct the meeting could be improved. -- DELPHINE NANA MEKOUNTE: To speak of Africa, African countries cannot be left behind in this revolution. It must be a pluralist, transparent, democratic revolution. That is why ACSIS, in accordance with the initiatives we have taken involving all stakeholders, has proposed an agenda for African priorities in Internet governance. This study will be submitted to the next forum in New Delhi in 2008. In light of the forgoing we would recommend once again to the United Nations in general and the Secretariat in particular to pay special attention to strengthening arrangements for granting fellowships to people from civil society and developing countries, and to the granting visas of developing countries' nationals in order to facilitate even more the physical participation -- let me repeat that, the physical participation of representatives from civil societies and developing countries in the various IGFs. We need to strengthen linguistic diversity. In this connection, the working documents need to be translated into the United Nations languages without any exception. And also, the audio system has to be interpreted starting with the Web site of the IGF itself. We need to strengthen the multistakeholder interaction between governments, the private sector and the civil society. We need to make the committees of the IGF more efficient and more effective. -- PETER EDUARDO SIEMSEN: We have seen a rising tide of consciousness with regard to security through collaborations, and preventing abuse of the Internet. We particularly welcome the discussions on child protection and look forward to constructive doll log with other interested parties in the near future. We have underscored the vital importance of establishing an enabling environment which promotes investment, fosters entrepreneurship, and stimulates innovation. Key factors of this environment are: Strengthened cooperation on developing Internet infrastructure; expanded Internet access; pro-competitive policy frameworks; liberalization, and protection of intellectual property rights. We have highlighted that as the Internet and Internet applications continue to evolve to an accelerating pace, we must ensure that policy approaches do not block innovation or restrict user choice. We have also heard through the discussions this week how much important all of us place on innovative applications and service that are allowing people to share more information and promote cultural diversity. It is, however, important to remember that to maximize the opportunities that these new applications and services provide, they must be supported by access and skills resulting from training and education. Without literacy and computer skills beginning in schools and continuing throughout a person's career, people cannot maximize their use of the Internet. -- MATTHEW SHEARS: I'd like to make one or two observations. Part of the IGF's purpose is to engage broadly across stakeholders and across regions. The ability to reach beyond the physical confines of an IGF is an expectation. Remote participation is therefore an essential tool. Yet, there was but one, one question for the access panelists through the remote channels at this IGF. This is not a criticism of the IGF Rio infrastructure, but this should cause us to think about how we make this event ever more relevant to those who do not have the wherewithal to attend in person. We must shape the IGF to encourage greater and more diverse participation. If we fail in this respect, the IGF will have failed. The IGF can undoubtedly evolve further, and I think we can all agree on this. However, there is, in true multistakeholder fashion, a diversity of views as to how it should evolve. We are of the firm belief that the IGF can evolve so it brings greater value to participants without becoming burdened by further processes and structure. Undoubtedly, there are some important issues that need to be addressed before Delhi. But they should not undermine this grand experiment. Defining success is always difficult for these types of events. It should not be measured by whether or not we can tick the boxes in the mandate, but, rather, by understanding how the main sessions, the workshops, and the best practices forums resonate with the participants and bring about change. - End Closing Ceremony --------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 29 23:19:58 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:19:58 -0500 Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <42154.5166.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <474E3E8B.2040404@cavebear.com> <42154.5166.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C572@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > "To be very honest, I don't see much work ongoing. To > quote only one example, and referring to discussions I > had in LA and Rio, I will mention the Euralo case: > much bandwidth has been used to prepare and hold > elections for a gigantic board, that has hardly ever > met. I am still a member of the Euralo mailing list, > and either I need to trim my mail filters, or not much > has been going on lately." > While Danny's characterization of the lack of activity on Euralo lists is correct, I hope that this is not interpreted as some kind of attack on the commitment or competence of the people involved. And it must not also be allowed to discredit the idea of public participation. The problem is, rather, a perfectly predictable function of the scarcity of people's time and the level of resources they have relative to their stakes in the policy outcome. The typical civil society person who would be interested and informed enough about Internet governance to participate in European civil society has dozens of other demands on his or her time. What tasks does the Euralo do, what benefits can it generate, that would command enough allegiance and commitment to make people participate on a daily basis? People have jobs. They have families. They have the duties associated with their own civil society organizations. Now add to that the duties associated with the internal organization and management of the RALO itself. And add to that the numerous committees, task forces and branches of ICANN, which is now issuing reports and asking for public comment about twice a week. And there are other public interest causes to attend to. There is IGF civil society; the OECD has a ministerial and wants CS participation, there are domestic issues and local issues, and oh, there might be driveways full of snow to shovel in the winter (that one's for us Northern North Americans....) The fatal flaw of the whole ALAC concept is that it overlooks this simple fact of human nature. It asks people to devote big chunks of their lives to an issue that (for a typical individual) is worth only about .01% of their lives in terms of the overall stakes. A common assumption of many of these debates is that if thousands of people aren't clamoring to join and participate in these "bottom up" organizations that there must be something wrong with the organizations, or the people. That is not right. What's wrong is our expectations about how much time people can be expected to donate to public policy making and public causes. People are basically rational in the way they spend their time; they spend more time on things that have bigger payoffs for them and are more enjoyable than on things that are a lot of work and offer little or no payoffs. ALAC offers people an opportunity to spend tons of time -- a lot of it purely internal organizational crap with no payoff at all, just overhead -- to achieve very little influence. The mismatch in that equation has been evident from the beginning. And that's why I insist on voting. It offers people who care a simple, direct and low-cost way to express and aggregate their preferences. People like Kieren who get paid to do this may have a hard time understanding this argument. Businesses with a direct, very large economic stake in policy outcomes will be able to pay professional lobbyists, lawyers and staffers to do this work. True civil society and individual representation, on the other hand, is always going to involve large numbers of people with very small individual stakes in the outcome. They will rarely be able to sustain the level of participation that organizing a RALO requires. If you don't allow them to vote, if you ask them to assume the role of full-time professional lobbyists, you inherently disenfranchise the vast majority of them. --MM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Fri Nov 30 00:07:06 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:07:06 +0800 Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <42154.5166.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <42154.5166.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <474F9A7A.1010004@bertola.eu> Danny Younger ha scritto: > If the Euralo was dissolved tomorrow probably no one > would notice... except maybe the people that it appoints at ALAC members :) Anyway, the EURALO was formed in March this year, and some people were really in favour of introducing individual membership, while others were really against. A few people (including Wolfgang and I) proposed a compromise, to give to the first Board of the EURALO the mandate to work out a practical proposal to allow for individual members and to let them participate in electing representatives, to be discussed in the first EURALO general assembly. Then the Board and Chairs were elected. That was 6-8 months ago. Now, as a member of the EURALO Board, I am still waiting for the Chairs to start the discussion, for example by calling for a meeting or posting a message whatsoever (there was an attempt to have a physical meeting in Warsaw, back to back with the Studienkreis, but ICANN did not accept to fly 11 people there and suggested that work could first be conducted online). I encourage them to do that asap, and get to work. That would be a productive contribution to advancing the cause of individual membership in the At Large (something that, honestly, posting to this list is not). If this does not happen, I will support Danny's suggestion to dissolve the EURALO. -- 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 Nov 30 00:25:14 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:25:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > > 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet > Governance question that is not ICANN; There is strong interest here in many IG issues that are not purely ICANN. I see four main categories: 1. Internet security governance, and the related privacy issues. These issues intersect with ICANN (DNSSEC, Whois, certain aspects of the IPv6 transition) but go beyond it (spam, viruses, phishing, DDoS attacks, transnational cooperation among CERTS; routing security; transnational surveillance and data retention; digital identity) 2. Transnational content regulation. A big push to regulate content in the name of child abuse was evident at Rio; at the same time, human rights NGOs sought to advance or solidify global commitments to free expression on the internet (AI, Bill of Rights, Net Neutrality). Here too, there is an intersection with ICANN issues, as when ICANN develops new global standards to regulate the semantic content of new top-level domain names. 3. Intellectual property (at the global level). The "France to Require ISPs to Filter Infringing Music" is an example of how copyright protection can intersect with IG issues. IPRs do however intersect in many ways with domain name and Whois issues, as you know, AP. 4. Trade & competition policy. A variety of international economic regulatory issues ranging from Internet interconnection arrangements to market dominance by MS or Google to content regulations that act as trade barriers fall in this category. These too intersect with IPR issues (TRIPS) and ICANN issues (e.g., IP address markets, whether national ccTLD monopolies will be privileged with new IDNs before anyone else, etc.) You ask whether there is "still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list with the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full than half-empty?" My answer is of course there is. The discussion would be impoverished otherwise. As I have shown in the categories above, ICANN is a central institution and its activities intersect with all four of them. I think ICANN defenders need to move beyond their obsession with the "are you for us or against us" question, which is really getting old, and deal with the substantive policy issues and the accountability questions. Most of us so-called "ICANN critics" have always been concerned about substantive policy issues; the criticisms stem from disagreement with the policy directions it has taken and (not unrelated) its susceptibility to influence from interest groups (trademark and copyright) or political powers (USG, GAC) due to its imperfect structure. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Fri Nov 30 01:02:46 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:02:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, so, for a breath of fresh air for all, do we choose one of those subjects (any will do for me as they are all of importance) and work out what the governance physiology and anatomy have to be, building on the experience avaialble to date? That way, we don't have to shy away from difficult questions, we just tackle them as they appear in a different context. So if for any of the issues a structure that can be useful requires, say, global user representation, a discussion can be held about how to provide it in a meaningful way, and then, if elections look like the alternative, a reasonably clear electorate can be defined, etc., people can look at how they should work; and if an ALAC-like web-of-trust concept seems a better, or at least an alternative solution, again that can be given proper thought. And so on. No discussion precluded, no holds barred, no punches held, ample room for flame wars and what have you. But instead of dwelling on the imperfections of one organization with one field of work, people have a chance to apply all the lessons already learned to start something that solves a different, yet unsolved problem. This productive exercise starts by identifying the problem, segmenting it into treatable chunks, clarifying who are the stakeholders, who their representatives, what their different - potentially competing - interests and the principles that drive them, and so on and on. Institutional design, problem-oriented, problem-domain by problem-domain, building on history. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540 http://www.dgsca.unam.mx * ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:25:14 -0500 > From: Milton L Mueller > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Alejandro Pisanty > Subject: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] >> >> 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet >> Governance question that is not ICANN; > > There is strong interest here in many IG issues that are not purely ICANN. I see four main categories: > > 1. Internet security governance, and the related privacy issues. These issues intersect with ICANN (DNSSEC, Whois, certain aspects of the IPv6 transition) but go beyond it (spam, viruses, phishing, DDoS attacks, transnational cooperation among CERTS; routing security; transnational surveillance and data retention; digital identity) > > 2. Transnational content regulation. A big push to regulate content in the name of child abuse was evident at Rio; at the same time, human rights NGOs sought to advance or solidify global commitments to free expression on the internet (AI, Bill of Rights, Net Neutrality). Here too, there is an intersection with ICANN issues, as when ICANN develops new global standards to regulate the semantic content of new top-level domain names. > > 3. Intellectual property (at the global level). The "France to Require ISPs to Filter Infringing Music" is an example of how copyright protection can intersect with IG issues. IPRs do however intersect in many ways with domain name and Whois issues, as you know, AP. > > 4. Trade & competition policy. A variety of international economic regulatory issues ranging from Internet interconnection arrangements to market dominance by MS or Google to content regulations that act as trade barriers fall in this category. These too intersect with IPR issues (TRIPS) and ICANN issues (e.g., IP address markets, whether national ccTLD monopolies will be privileged with new IDNs before anyone else, etc.) > > You ask whether there is "still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list with the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full than half-empty?" My answer is of course there is. The discussion would be impoverished otherwise. As I have shown in the categories above, ICANN is a central institution and its activities intersect with all four of them. I think ICANN defenders need to move beyond their obsession with the "are you for us or against us" question, which is really getting old, and deal with the substantive policy issues and the accountability questions. Most of us so-called "ICANN critics" have always been concerned about substantive policy issues; the criticisms stem from disagreement with the policy directions it has taken and (not unrelated) its susceptibility to influence from interest groups (trademark and copyright) or political powers (USG, GAC) due to its imperfect structure. > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 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 karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 30 02:28:38 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:28:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <474FBBA6.2040006@cavebear.com> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet >> Governance question that is not ICANN; > > There is strong interest here in many IG issues that are not purely ICANN. I see four main categories: To your fine list I'd add two more items 5. Mechanisms to give end users (or their agents, usually their local ISP's) a means to interact with packet carriers so that it is possible (perhaps with the payment of some money) to obtain adequate end-to-end assurances (not guarantees) that the packet transport quality, as measured in terms of delay, jitter, packet loss, and overall bandwidth, is adequate to sustain the user's application. This kind of thing is quite important to assure that a region's or a user's investment in things like VoIP isn't erased because it can't be used across the wide span of the net. (A note of clarification - I'm not thinking anything technical here - not a new version of RSVP - but rather some sort of clearing house mechanism in which this kind of end-to-end agreement among a sequence of carriers can be worked out.) 6. Mechanisms to facilitate the detection, isolation, and repair of technical faults in the net. Right now there are some informal systems that allow repair and troubleshooting teams at user sites and in provider network operations centers to look a bit what is going on on the net - modulo the proprietary concerns of each provider. As the net grows more complex troubleshooting and repair will require that providers let repair teams look a bit deeper into the providers forming a path across the net. This process may need a degree of governance, or rather a degree of facilitation (governance perhaps being too strong a word) to help make this kind of thing a smooth undertaking. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Nov 30 03:29:18 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:29:18 +0100 Subject: Voting, procedures, costs, and privacy. Was: Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474F6A43.4020203@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <474F6A43.4020203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> Hi, but these procedures exclude everyone who has neither a credit card nor a bank account. i expect that is most people in the world. or are they not rich enough to count? i find this so much less democratic then an organisation that is enabled, though adequate financing, to reach out to local populations who do not have any means. yes, i would prefer to see financing come from a ICANN funded foundation that was separate from staff, to eliminate the appearance of company union (i am not arguing that it is happeing, but ICANN, or an company, remains open to the accusation). but the idea that the instruments of the rich and middle class should be used to determine who can vote, is rather frightening. additionally, again based on my life experience, any vote that is not locally based, is little more then a popularity contest based on puffery, illusion and lies. a. On 30 nov 2007, at 02.41, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Sounds like it might be wise to establish the internet governance >> equivalent of genuine, independent unions. >> Given that such a new structure aiming to genuinely represent >> internet users would probably have to be operated on extremely >> limited financial resources (since otherwise it would quickly >> lose its independence through being financially dependent on >> its donors), how could it be set up to make it genuinely >> democratic and robust against forgery of votes etc? > > Let's not try to solve the internet voting problem in its general > case. In that general case one tries to permit everything from > registration to voting to occur over the net. That means having > means so that each human gets no more and no less than one ballot > and one vote. That's a tough problem to solve - in fact it may not > be solvable. And there is the separate problem of privacy of the > votes so that voters can't be coerced. That's another problem that > is extremely difficult to solve. > > So, any election process needs to have its requirement softened and/ > or to tie itself to some external, hopefully already pre-existing, > mechanisms. > > One such mechanism was used in the proposal made to ICANN for a > constitutency for individual domain name owners. In that case we > tried to ride on the coattails of the credit card companies that > most people use to pay for domain names. That wasn't completely > satisfactory - because while it largely solved the problem of > fictitious created people (for the most part, but clearly not > completely, fictitious people don't have credit cards that they've > used to pay for domain names) but it did not solve the problem of > one person having many cards and thus potentially getting multiple > votes. > > Paypal's system of making small deposits to bank accounts is also > an interesting method. > > At the end one may end up with a sieve of techniques that reduce, > but not eliminate the problems of fictitious people or one person > with multiple votes - in this case the question is when the risk of > such problems becomes acceptably low. Trying for perfection pretty > much means that we will never get anywhere. > > The other problem - coercion of the internet voter as he/she casts > his/her ballot - is a problem that perhaps we can solve by > declaring it a non problem. Maybe the issues faced in internet > governance will be such that the drive to coerce does not become a > real problem. Maybe - I'm merely suggesting that this question > should be asked. > > There's also the notion of voter privacy during the canvasing > process, i.e. the vote counting process. Again, for the kinds of > matters that arise in the context of internet governance we should > ask whether this is a real issue or whether we can simply hire some > people to do the counting and impose upon them some solid > contractual obligations not to disclose what they see (and perhaps > add a bonding requirement as well.) > > As for the costs - In the case of the company unions, the company > paid for the meeting halls and the beer. Of course that tended to > influence the opinions of the members - particularly when more beer > was provided. > > So, for a body to really be independent it needs to cover its own > costs from a source that is disinterested in the outcome. That > sort of disqualifies the body of internet governance that the > election is associated with. > > Assuming we've solved or are dismissing the coercion/privacy > question, then the main cost is the registration - identifying who > is whom - the actual voting itself isn't all that expensive. > > For example, when I vote my shares in a shareholder election the > main cost is in making sure that I have a unique voter ID number. > The actual dissemination of voting materials and the actual voting > is done by a relatively simple web mechanism. Again that's for > corporate stuff where the privacy requirements are less than in a > political election - and I'm hoping that internet governance voting > has privacy concerns more on par with what is the norm in the > corporate shareholder election rather than the typical political > election. > > The bottom line is, however, that the costs, whether high or low, > need to be borne by the body itself. Otherwise there is systemic > compromise of the integrity - it does not matter whether that > compromise is real or perceived - of the system, i.e. an ALAC. > > --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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 30 03:59:23 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:23 +0900 Subject: Voting, procedures, costs, and privacy. Was: Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <474F6A43.4020203@cavebear.com> <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> Message-ID: At the risk of dragging out this historical stuff... there was quite a lot of work done on the at large election, a few of us came up with ideas for improvements, see (of people active in IGF members included Carlos, Izumi, Jeanette, Raul and me.) Looked at national voting patterns, yes they existed, etc. Very simple set of recommendations: re-do the elections pretty much as ICANN organized, only with safeguards against the capture and distortion that occurred in the first election. And suggestions for the creation of participatory structures (a less complicated version of ALAC, I think), the elections gave a vote but no voice. Summary from (full report's 150 pages.) ICANN, Legitimacy, and the Public Voice: Making Global Participation and Representation Work Report of the NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) - September 2001 Today ICANN faces the critical need to establish its own legitimacy before the broad community of Internet users affected by its decisions. NAIS, based on its nine-month study of last year's ICANN At-Large election, believes that ICANN can only achieve that legitimacy by providing more significant opportunities for a public voice in ICANN decision-making. The NAIS report "ICANN Legitimacy and the Public Voice" provides a detailed and practical framework for reform, including: Open, Inclusive Membership * ICANN makes decisions that affect users broadly. It should create and maintain an At-Large Membership, open to the Internet public, to provide a meaningful channel for informed input into ICANN policies. * Inclusive approach - Membership should be open to adult Internet users who indicate their interest and complete a basic registration process. We believe the combination of online registration and postal return strikes the best balance between security, cost, and inclusiveness. * No membership fee - ICANN should support the Membership for the next several years through its general budget. Those who benefit financially from ICANN should most fairly pay for the membership, a necessary component of ICANN's legitimacy. A fee would create serious equity problems, and raise less money than needed. We expect the cost of membership to diminish greatly after initial one-time authentication costs. At-Large Membership: Participatory Structure * A Membership Council, elected by members, will oversee activities to inform members and facilitate participation. A Secretariat (appointed by the Membership Council) will facilitate the flow of information within the ALM and with ICANN's other structures. * Working committees will develop policy positions. Local, regional, and national associations will encourage participation globally. At-Large Membership: Representation on the Board * Direct elections for half of Board - Members to directly elect a number of Directors equal to the total number allocated to the SOs (i.e., currently nine At-Large Directors). Essential for balance of interests, check against bylaw changes, and part of basic historic bargain for support of ICANN. * Regional and global elections - Directors selected one-per-region (recognizing importance of global representation) and remainder globally (importance of non-geographical representation.) * Minimize fraud and capture - Each voting member should be tied to a real offline "personality" and have only one voting record in the At-Large database. Capture to be reduced by measures to restrict nationalistic voting patterns. Accountability Mechanisms * Structural constraints "fence" - To prevent unwanted expansion of its mission, ICANN should adopt limits on the scope of the Board's powers, including: bylaws and charter changes, explicit statements of user and provider rights, internal checks and balances within ICANN. * Transparency and accountability - In addition to the At-Large Membership, ICANN should pursue additional mechanisms to improve the Board's accountability and transparency. * Support for SO reform - Separate from At-Large reform, there is a strong desire by many in the community to reform the Supporting Organizations. We support reform of the Supporting Organization structure, but believe that such reform can and should be done independently of the At-Large Membership debate. NAIS is a unique collaboration of ten research teams from around the world. This Report and a corresponding Executive Summary are online at http://www.naisproject.org/. We look forward to comments and questions. History can be useful. Re-writing history's bad. Adam At 9:29 AM +0100 11/30/07, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >but these procedures exclude everyone who has neither a credit card nor >a bank account. i expect that is most people in the world. >or are they not rich enough to count? > >i find this so much less democratic then an >organisation that is enabled, though >adequate financing, to reach out to local >populations who do not have any means. > >yes, i would prefer to see financing come from a ICANN funded foundation >that was separate from staff, to eliminate the appearance of company union >(i am not arguing that it is happeing, but ICANN, or an company, remains >open to the accusation). > >but the idea that the instruments of the rich and middle class should be used >to determine who can vote, is rather frightening. > >additionally, again based on my life experience, >any vote that is not locally based, >is little more then a popularity contest based on puffery, illusion and lies. > > >a. > >On 30 nov 2007, at 02.41, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >>Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>>Sounds like it might be wise to establish the internet governance >>>equivalent of genuine, independent unions. >>>Given that such a new structure aiming to genuinely represent >>>internet users would probably have to be operated on extremely >>>limited financial resources (since otherwise it would quickly >>>lose its independence through being financially dependent on >>>its donors), how could it be set up to make it genuinely >>>democratic and robust against forgery of votes etc? >> >>Let's not try to solve the internet voting >>problem in its general case. In that general >>case one tries to permit everything from >>registration to voting to occur over the net. >>That means having means so that each human gets >>no more and no less than one ballot and one >>vote. That's a tough problem to solve - in >>fact it may not be solvable. And there is the >>separate problem of privacy of the votes so >>that voters can't be coerced. That's another >>problem that is extremely difficult to solve. >> >>So, any election process needs to have its >>requirement softened and/or to tie itself to >>some external, hopefully already pre-existing, >>mechanisms. >> >>One such mechanism was used in the proposal >>made to ICANN for a constitutency for >>individual domain name owners. In that case we >>tried to ride on the coattails of the credit >>card companies that most people use to pay for >>domain names. That wasn't completely >>satisfactory - because while it largely solved >>the problem of fictitious created people (for >>the most part, but clearly not completely, >>fictitious people don't have credit cards that >>they've used to pay for domain names) but it >>did not solve the problem of one person having >>many cards and thus potentially getting >>multiple votes. >> >>Paypal's system of making small deposits to >>bank accounts is also an interesting method. >> >>At the end one may end up with a sieve of >>techniques that reduce, but not eliminate the >>problems of fictitious people or one person >>with multiple votes - in this case the question >>is when the risk of such problems becomes >>acceptably low. Trying for perfection pretty >>much means that we will never get anywhere. >> >>The other problem - coercion of the internet >>voter as he/she casts his/her ballot - is a >>problem that perhaps we can solve by declaring >>it a non problem. Maybe the issues faced in >>internet governance will be such that the drive >>to coerce does not become a real problem. >>Maybe - I'm merely suggesting that this >>question should be asked. >> >>There's also the notion of voter privacy during >>the canvasing process, i.e. the vote counting >>process. Again, for the kinds of matters that >>arise in the context of internet governance we >>should ask whether this is a real issue or >>whether we can simply hire some people to do >>the counting and impose upon them some solid >>contractual obligations not to disclose what >>they see (and perhaps add a bonding requirement >>as well.) >> >>As for the costs - In the case of the company >>unions, the company paid for the meeting halls >>and the beer. Of course that tended to >>influence the opinions of the members - >>particularly when more beer was provided. >> >>So, for a body to really be independent it >>needs to cover its own costs from a source that >>is disinterested in the outcome. That sort of >>disqualifies the body of internet governance >>that the election is associated with. >> >>Assuming we've solved or are dismissing the >>coercion/privacy question, then the main cost >>is the registration - identifying who is whom - >>the actual voting itself isn't all that >>expensive. >> >>For example, when I vote my shares in a >>shareholder election the main cost is in making >>sure that I have a unique voter ID number.   >>The actual dissemination of voting materials >>and the actual voting is done by a relatively >>simple web mechanism. Again that's for >>corporate stuff where the privacy requirements >>are less than in a political election - and I'm >>hoping that internet governance voting has >>privacy concerns more on par with what is the >>norm in the corporate shareholder election >>rather than the typical political election. >> >>The bottom line is, however, that the costs, >>whether high or low, need to be borne by the >>body itself. Otherwise there is systemic >>compromise of the integrity - it does not >>matter whether that compromise is real or >>perceived - of the system, i.e. an ALAC. >> >> --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Nov 30 04:32:14 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:32:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Irony In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Alex, A few points of friendly (seriously) disagreement over my morning coffee... On 11/30/07 1:10 AM, "Alejandro Pisanty" wrote: > OK, > > so, no trust for Kieren or anyone who speaks for ICANN or in favor of > ICANN. Dan's minutious dissection proves that and everybody should take > that as dogma from now on. This may cut two ways but never mind for now. This seems an unfair misconstruction of what others have said. I will never understand the persistent tendency of ICANN partisans to respond to any and all criticism by going nuclear and personal, but Rovian rhetorical strategies are not the best way to draw in and engage people. It is all the more odd when read against the equally persistent (and utterly anti-democratic) claim from some that only people who are contributing to the work have the right and street cred to raise concerns. > Is there still a chance for anything productive to be done in this list > with the participation of people who think that ICANN is more half-full > than half-empty? There are at least three outstanding strands that I can > recognize from recent days: I've been on the list since it was created 4 1/2 years ago, and to my recollection the only folks who've consistently intoned darkly that the dialogue is unproductive, uncollegial crap are the same partisans. The list was originally set up to facilitate work in the IGC, and while you may disagree with some or all what's come out of that process, it's not been a waste of time for those involved, or they wouldn't have stayed here. As the list grew into an all-purpose multistakeholder debate space the complexion has changed, but 98% of the negative exchanges have been between ICANN defenders and critics. There've been very few flame wars and much useful discussion about other aspects of IG. > 1. my question to Meryem whether there is any positive he recognizes in > ICANN; She > 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet > Governance question that is not ICANN; As you well know, there's been four years of discussion and a great deal written on other aspects of IG. That these issues keep getting pushed aside is a pity, and if there's now interest in revisiting them seriously, great, but it'd take a lot of juice to go back and restate everything that's been said already. Poking through the list archive and relevant literature might be a time saver so we don't have to restart from scratch. > 3. the thread started by Adam about the IGF 2008 session; > > 4. Bill Drake's question to me, whether we should go through the exercise > of measuring ICANN against the WSIS criteria. He recalls correctly that I > thought that would be a useful exercise to perform with respect to the > ITU, and in fact that did not happen in the WGIG or any time later. It was > done for ICANN in the WGIG in 2004, and it was done again for ICANN ("to > use WSIS criteria as a kind of report card") in Sao Paulo in December > 2006, I think. Once again? Bill, yes, let's do it. I call it the > WSIS-o-meter, it's a nice, compact spreadsheet, let's, by all means, and > be able to move beyond. We have very different recollections here. You seem to remember only the bits where some people in WGIG said things about ICANN you didn't like. I remember us looking at ICANN and ITU side by side in terms of the principles and quickly concluding that the ITU fares poorly in comparison, particularly as it's not multistakeholder and transparent only to Members and members. In consequence, ITU fell out of the discussion, was mentioned only in one footnote of the WGIG report, and the developing country proponents of "oversight" turned instead to promoting new bodies outside the ITU, which clearly wasn't going to happen. The exercise effectively ended the "ITU vs ICANN" debate, a good result, but of course also directed closer attention then to making ICANN work better. That demonstrates the potential utility of " promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in [all] Internet Governance processes.² I'd have to go back and dig through the archive to find it, but I distinctly remember asking you on the list several years ago whether you'd support taking forward such an effort and not getting a response. If you're now on board with the idea, great. Would you participate in a DC on this? All the 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 veni at veni.com Fri Nov 30 05:24:32 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:24:32 -0500 Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474F9A7A.1010004@bertola.eu> References: <42154.5166.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <474F9A7A.1010004@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40711300224o31559219t579a2408162ffa1d@mail.gmail.com> Vittorio, Why do you have to wait for the chairs, and not initiate such a discussion on your own? I've noticed this in other forums, too - where people wait for someone to do something, so it is not unique to the Euralo. Veni On 11/30/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Danny Younger ha scritto: > > If the Euralo was dissolved tomorrow probably no one > > would notice... > > except maybe the people that it appoints at ALAC members :) > > Anyway, the EURALO was formed in March this year, and some people were > really in favour of introducing individual membership, while others were > really against. A few people (including Wolfgang and I) proposed a > compromise, to give to the first Board of the EURALO the mandate to work > out a practical proposal to allow for individual members and to let them > participate in electing representatives, to be discussed in the first > EURALO general assembly. Then the Board and Chairs were elected. That > was 6-8 months ago. > > Now, as a member of the EURALO Board, I am still waiting for the Chairs > to start the discussion, for example by calling for a meeting or posting > a message whatsoever (there was an attempt to have a physical meeting in > Warsaw, back to back with the Studienkreis, but ICANN did not accept to > fly 11 people there and suggested that work could first be conducted > online). I encourage them to do that asap, and get to work. That would > be a productive contribution to advancing the cause of individual > membership in the At Large (something that, honestly, posting to this > list is not). > > If this does not happen, I will support Danny's suggestion to dissolve > the EURALO. > -- > 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 30 05:46:56 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:46:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: Voting, procedures, costs, and privacy. Was: Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> (message from Avri Doria on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:29:18 +0100) References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <474F6A43.4020203@cavebear.com> <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> Message-ID: <20071130104656.19B972202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > an organisation that is enabled, though adequate financing, to > reach out to local populations who do not have any means. Good point. > yes, i would prefer to see financing come from a ICANN funded foundation > that was separate from staff, to eliminate the appearance of company > union While I agree that it is reasonable to *demand* that ICANN *should* provide, via such a foundation, the required financial resources for appropriately reaching out to people in poor regions where asking for a membership fee of any kind (and using the resulting financial transtion as part of the voter registration mechanism) is not appropriate, wouldn't it be pragmatic and more realistic to look elsewhere for hunding, at least initially? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Nov 30 06:40:19 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:40:19 +0100 Subject: Voting, procedures, costs, and privacy. Was: Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <20071130104656.19B972202B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <474F6A43.4020203@cavebear.com> <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> <20071130104656.19B972202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2A293240-28ED-42C9-B15A-1CFFCF57ED53@psg.com> Hi, Certainly building such a foundation with outside funding would be a very good thing and I can think of various other sources. But I believe, and this is both as a ICANN volunteer and as somewhat of an activist, that ICANN should provide initial funding for such a foundation at least to the same amount that they currently spend directly on such support. I believe that funding such a foundation with some of the ICANN income (i know it is not profit properly speaking) would be in keeping with the role of a public service corporation and would eliminate the possibility of people claiming that this was just hush money to keep the disaffected internet users from rebelling. As i said, though, I am not currently in favor of global elections and voter registration while I am in favor of the current ALAC effort, though I would like to see the funding for greater grass roots organization and inclusion so that it becomes a genuine force for Internet user participation in local, regional and global internet governance, including ICANN. and yes, a lot of funding is needed for such an effort to really be meaningful. and yes, i know i am just dreaming, but it is a nice lunch time fantasy. a. On 30 nov 2007, at 11.46, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> an organisation that is enabled, though adequate financing, to >> reach out to local populations who do not have any means. > > Good point. > >> yes, i would prefer to see financing come from a ICANN funded >> foundation >> that was separate from staff, to eliminate the appearance of company >> union > > While I agree that it is reasonable to *demand* that ICANN *should* > provide, via such a foundation, the required financial resources for > appropriately reaching out to people in poor regions where asking > for a membership fee of any kind (and using the resulting financial > transtion as part of the voter registration mechanism) is not > appropriate, wouldn't it be pragmatic and more realistic to look > elsewhere for hunding, at least initially? > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > Working on establishing a non-corrupt and > truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 30 06:48:27 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:48:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Google Policy Fellowships Message-ID: "We¹re [Google] looking for students who are passionate about technology, and want to spend the summer diving headfirst into Internet policy." Sounds good, someone on the list might be interested. 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 Fri Nov 30 07:34:43 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:34:43 +0800 Subject: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40711300224o31559219t579a2408162ffa1d@mail.gmail.com> References: <42154.5166.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <474F9A7A.1010004@bertola.eu> <2aa69fe40711300224o31559219t579a2408162ffa1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47500363.9090604@bertola.eu> Veni Markovski ha scritto: > Vittorio, > Why do you have to wait for the chairs, and not initiate such a > discussion on your own? It's a fair point, this is why if nothing happens I will be resigning from the Board of EURALO. Longer explanation is, one can be a leader only in processes where the group wants them to be a leader. If other people insist that they rather be the leaders, one can't do much to get the ball rolling - if one did, it would be criticized as egocentric and undermining their prerogatives. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Nov 30 07:39:50 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:39:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: 2008 Internet Society (ISOC) Elections - Call for Nominations References: <37302.192.168.1.70.1196419090.webmail@192.168.1.70> Message-ID: Another place where it might be useful for more CS participants to participate. a. Begin forwarded message: > From: "ISOC Notice" > Date: fredag 30 nov 2007 11.38.10 GMT+01:00 > To: isoc-news at isoc.org > Subject: [ISOC-members-announce] 2008 Internet Society (ISOC) > Elections - Call for Nominations > > This is a call for nominations for election to the Board of > Trustees of the > Internet Society (ISOC). The Board of Trustees is ultimately > responsible for > all aspects of the Internet Society, as outlined in the ISOC by- > laws which > can be found at: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/ > bylaws.shtml > > In 2008, two Trustees will be elected by the ISOC Organizational > Members and > one by the ISOC Chapters. > > In addition, one Trustee (the Standards Trustee) will be selected > by the > Internet Architecture Board. > > The new ISOC Trustees will be seated at the ISOC Board meeting in > Paris, > France, June 28th, 2008 and will serve three year terms, ending when > new ISOC Board members are seated in 2011. > > The procedures for the selection of Trustees of the Internet > Society can be > found at: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/select.shtml > > A profile of the current Board of Trustees can be found at: > http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/board.php > > The following Trustees' current terms will end in July 2008: > > 1. Fred Baker - Standards Trustee - Term 2002-2008 > 2. Daniel Karrenberg - elected by Org Members - Term 2005-2008 > 3. Glenn Ricart - elected by Org Members - Term 2002-2008 > 4. Alejandro Pisanty - elected by Chapters - Term 2007-2008 > > The ISOC Nominations Committee expects to choose a slate of at > least four > well-qualified candidates to be voted on by the Organizational > Members and > at least two well-qualified candidates to be voted on by Chapter > representatives. > > Candidates for ISOC Trustee should have demonstrable involvement in > the > Internet, particularly in the areas of standards, public policy or > education. Ideally, candidates should have understanding of > technology, > policy, business/finance and economics. > > The following qualifications are also highly desirable: > > - Organizational leadership capability > - General business/financial skills > - Not-for-profit experience > - General knowledge of how the Internet works and of Internet > related > organizations > - The ability to identify relevant ISOC projects > - Vision for the role of the Internet Society > > ISOC is interested in broadly-based representation on the Board of > Trustees > and seeks to identify candidates from industry, education, not-for- > profit or > government. The selection criteria will include regional location, > current > activities, relevant experience and professional background. > > Nominations should be sent to the Nominations Committee using the > web form > at: > > https://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/nomcom/2008/nominate.php > > Anyone may submit a name to the Nominations Committee. Nominations > should be > submitted no later than January 9, 2008 to ensure due consideration > of the > nomination by the committee. Self-nominations, agreed nominations and > suggestions are all welcome. > > Each nomination should be submitted separately, and should include: > > - the name of the nominated individual > - contact information for the nominee (including, at minimum, an > e-mail > address and country of residence) > - a brief explanation of why you believe that the nominee should be > considered for an ISOC Board position. > > Please indicate whether you consider the nominee a candidate to be > elected > by the Organizational Members, the Chapters or both. Although > Trustees are > selected by different constituencies, all Trustees serve the Internet > Society; they do not serve as delegates from the constituency which > elected > or selected them. > > Nominees will be contacted by the Nominations Committee and asked > to provide > further information about their qualifications and about their > ability and > willingness to serve on the ISOC Board of Trustees. > > The slate of nominated candidates will be announced on February 6, > 2008. At > that time, a petition period will begin and additional candidates for > election to the Board of Trustees may be nominated by the > Organizational > Members and Chapters by petition. > > The Election Committee will start the balloting for Organizational > Members > and Chapters on March 31, 2008 and the final Election Day is > scheduled for > April 28, 2008. > > The 2008 Nominations Committee is composed as follows: > > Chair: > > Patrick Vande Walle (ISOC chapter / Luxembourg) > > Members: > > 1. Hiroshi Esaki (WIDE, Japan) > 2. Desiree Miloshevic (Afilias, United Kingdom) > 3. Michael R. Nelson (IBM, USA) > 4. Sebastian Ricciardi (ISOC chapter, Argentina) > 5. Adiel Akplogan (Afrinic, Mauritius) > 6. Ian Peter (Ian Peter Associates, Australia) > 7. Alan Levin (AfriDNS, South Africa) > 8. Miriam Sapiro (Summit Strategies International, USA) > 9. Marc Blanchet (Viagenie, Canada) > > The timetable of the ISOC 2008 Elections is as follows: > Call for Nominations 30-November-07 > Nomination Period Closure 9-January-08, 23:59 hours (UTC) > Candidates Announced, Petition Period opens 06-February-08 > Petition Period Closure 10-March-08, 23:59 hours (UTC) > Final Candidate Slate Announced 13-March-08 > Ballot completed 24-March-08 > Ballots Posted (e-mail) 31-March-08 > Election 28-April-08 > Certification of Election, Challenge Period opens 8-May-08 > Challenge Period Closure 28-May-08, 23:59 hours (UTC) > Response to Challenges 17-June-08 > New Trustees Seated 28-June-08 > > Sincerely, > > Patrick Vande Walle, Chair > ISOC 2008 Nominations Committee > > > > _______________________________________________ > ISOC-members-announce mailing list > ISOC-members-announce at elists.isoc.org > http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-members-announce > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: isoc-members-announce- > leave at elists.isoc.org > > Please note that by leaving this membership list you will also be > resigning ISOC membership. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 08:40:24 2007 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:40:24 +0100 Subject: Effective Participation // Outcomes & Decision Making // Re: Hope springs eternal - Re: [governance] Innovation Message-ID: <4d976d8e0711300540jaa6066fjad8eae02c4e0a4b6@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Milton, You speak my heart! I am really interested in IG and willing to dedicated a significant amount of time, but the means of participation/collaboration and the fractality & heterogenity of the venues make it really difficult to take part effectively. For me mailinglists are doomed to information overload! I strongly support voting. Also I would love to see: - real digests / conclusions etc. on a thread or time basis. --> produce outcomes - experiments with innovative tools meant to structure & streamline discourse and facilitate DECISION MAKING (like http://www.wagenvoort.net/grass/introduction.php) - (as mentioned before) a site (in my view ideally the IGF site) with an Overview Map of the various Lists/DCs/ etc. and a common Netiquette Last but not least I believe it would be worthwhile to look for funding to have somebody officially (read regularly/non-voluntary) work to make this institution more productive. Best, Max On Nov 30, 2007 5:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > > "To be very honest, I don't see much work ongoing. To > > quote only one example, and referring to discussions I > > had in LA and Rio, I will mention the Euralo case: > > much bandwidth has been used to prepare and hold > > elections for a gigantic board, that has hardly ever > > met. I am still a member of the Euralo mailing list, > > and either I need to trim my mail filters, or not much > > has been going on lately." > > > > While Danny's characterization of the lack of activity on Euralo lists is correct, I hope that this is not interpreted as some kind of attack on the commitment or competence of the people involved. And it must not also be allowed to discredit the idea of public participation. > > The problem is, rather, a perfectly predictable function of the scarcity of people's time and the level of resources they have relative to their stakes in the policy outcome. > > The typical civil society person who would be interested and informed enough about Internet governance to participate in European civil society has dozens of other demands on his or her time. What tasks does the Euralo do, what benefits can it generate, that would command enough allegiance and commitment to make people participate on a daily basis? > > People have jobs. They have families. They have the duties associated with their own civil society organizations. Now add to that the duties associated with the internal organization and management of the RALO itself. And add to that the numerous committees, task forces and branches of ICANN, which is now issuing reports and asking for public comment about twice a week. And there are other public interest causes to attend to. There is IGF civil society; the OECD has a ministerial and wants CS participation, there are domestic issues and local issues, and oh, there might be driveways full of snow to shovel in the winter (that one's for us Northern North Americans....) > > The fatal flaw of the whole ALAC concept is that it overlooks this simple fact of human nature. It asks people to devote big chunks of their lives to an issue that (for a typical individual) is worth only about .01% of their lives in terms of the overall stakes. > > A common assumption of many of these debates is that if thousands of people aren't clamoring to join and participate in these "bottom up" organizations that there must be something wrong with the organizations, or the people. > > That is not right. What's wrong is our expectations about how much time people can be expected to donate to public policy making and public causes. > > People are basically rational in the way they spend their time; they spend more time on things that have bigger payoffs for them and are more enjoyable than on things that are a lot of work and offer little or no payoffs. > > ALAC offers people an opportunity to spend tons of time -- a lot of it purely internal organizational crap with no payoff at all, just overhead -- to achieve very little influence. The mismatch in that equation has been evident from the beginning. > > And that's why I insist on voting. It offers people who care a simple, direct and low-cost way to express and aggregate their preferences. > > People like Kieren who get paid to do this may have a hard time understanding this argument. Businesses with a direct, very large economic stake in policy outcomes will be able to pay professional lobbyists, lawyers and staffers to do this work. True civil society and individual representation, on the other hand, is always going to involve large numbers of people with very small individual stakes in the outcome. They will rarely be able to sustain the level of participation that organizing a RALO requires. If you don't allow them to vote, if you ask them to assume the role of full-time professional lobbyists, you inherently disenfranchise the vast majority of them. > > --MM > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 12:29 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 > -- -------------------------------------------------------- "I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not the plains, and it seemeth I cannot long sit still. And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering will be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end one experienceth only oneself." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke Zarathustra) ------------------------------------------------------------ Max Senges Research Associate Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3 08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN PhD Candidate Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) Programme on the Information Society Tel: Spain +34-627193395 Germany +49-17660855358 @: maxsenges at gmail.com www.maxsenges.com http://entrepreneur.jot.com https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/ ------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Nov 30 08:47:21 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:47:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Publishers Seeking Web Controls - washingtonpost.com Message-ID: Publishers Seeking Web Controls - washingtonpost.com News Organizations Propose Tighter Search Engine Rules By Anick Jesdanun Associated Press Friday, November 30, 2007; D02 Artl.: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902207 .html Print: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902207 _pf.html The desire for greater control over how search engines index and display Web sites is driving an effort launched yesterday by leading news organizations and other publishers to revise a 13-year-old technology for restricting access. Currently, Google, Yahoo and other top search companies voluntarily respect a Web site's wishes as declared in a text file known as robots.txt, which a search engine's indexing software, called a crawler, knows to look for on a site. But as search engines expanded to offer services for displaying news and scanning printed books, news organizations and book publishers began to complain. News publishers said that Google was posting their news summaries, headlines and photos without permission. Google claimed that "fair use" provisions of copyright laws applied, though it eventually settled a lawsuit with Agence France-Presse and agreed to pay the Associated Press without a lawsuit filed. Financial terms haven't been disclosed. The proposed extensions, known as Automated Content Access Protocol, partly grew out of those disputes. Leading the ACAP effort were groups representing publishers of newspapers, magazines, online databases, books and journals. The AP is one of dozens of organizations that have joined ACAP. The new rules allow a site to block indexing of individual Web pages, specific directories or the entire site, though some search engines have added their own commands. The proposal, unveiled by a consortium of publishers at the global headquarters of the AP, seeks to have those extra commands -- and more -- apply across the board. Sites could try to limit how long search engines may retain copies in their indexes, for instance, or tell the crawler not to follow any of the links that appear within a Web page. "ACAP was born, in part at least, against a growing backdrop of mistrust," said Gavin O'Reilly, president of the World Association of Newspapers. The current system doesn't give sites "enough flexibility to express our terms and conditions on access and use of content," said Angela Mills Wade, executive director of the European Publishers Council, one of the organizations behind the proposal. "That is not surprising. It was invented in the 1990s and things move on." Tom Curley, the AP's chief executive, said the news cooperative spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually covering the world, and that its employees risk often their lives doing so. Technologies such as ACAP, he said, are important to protect AP's original news reports from sites that distribute them without permission. "The free riding deprives AP of economic returns on its investments," he said. Jessica Powell, a spokesman for Google, said the company supported all efforts to bring Web sites and search engines together but needed to evaluate ACAP to ensure it can meet the needs of millions of Web sites, not just those of a single community. "Before you go and take something entirely on board, you need to make sure it works for everyone," Powell said. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Nov 30 10:12:44 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:12:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <049801c83363$78faa450$6aefecf0$@com> -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > > It is good to hear that people are getting interested. > > Was it you who mentioned previously that you thought that the Director > elected for LA in year 2000 did not fully represent the Caribbean area? Yes, it was. And I note that yet again you write LA, not LAC. So - if as you say, the Director was elected for LA - not LAC, obviously they didn't represent the Caribbean at ALL, as there isn't even the single letter that includes us in the regional name. > Do you think that the ALAC - a channel in which your regions views > are > filtered and then filtered and then filtered again - is as good as > having a Director you can chose and elect? I disagree with the premise - I don't think that the views are " filtered and then filtered and then filtered again". And honestly, once one elects a Director, until the next election, there's no accountability - or that's what I am accustomed to here. The elected person or persons can choose to put forward the regional views or their personal ones, as they want. At the end, they can be voted out, but the next person will do exactly the same thing. In the current case, all the views are going forward, without filtration. > Back here in the US there was a thing known as a "company union" - see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union OK... I don't see the analogy, but ... > If you were drowning, as internet users are, in a sea of powerlessness, > and if given a choice between the ALAC, and its nearly vacuous ability > to hold ICANN to account, and real elections for real identifiable > people - including themselves if they chose to run, don't you think > that many, perhaps most would chose elections? Yet again, I disagree with the base concept here. I think that Internet users in the Caribbean are drowning in a sea of lack of information, lack of infrastructure, lack of affordable technology; not powerlessness that can be fixed with a vote. We need information, outreach, we need to know and understand what the issues are. Then we can determine what we think about those issues and then we can say- this is what we want/need. An election system won't do that IMO. NGOs and information campaigns and technology transfer and training programs will. And the ALSes can work on that, and they can get support from ICANN and other organizations to do that. Honestly, I think that you are coming from a place that is so different to the reality here that it's almost impossible to relate. Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 20:32 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Nov 30 11:20:21 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:20:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? Message-ID: Dear Karl, At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread on this list, I have to comment on your comment below. I found it an amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not as productive as it could be. 99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! Instead, if they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a sea of extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they couldn't have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago. I think that any one of them would say that they revel in the freely available services that the Internet offers them, and they would say that the Internet has empowered them in many ways. in particular, they can get a multiplicity of domain names if they want; they can even set up whole networks and connect them to the Internet. Where is the powerlessness, except from the at most 0.001% who are in some way not satisfied with that, and who believe that they could run the Internet better? I think that you are looking at these issues through a distorted lens. I surely admit that there are improvements that can be made, mostly IMHO in the area of available and affordable Internet access. I also admit that there are surely threats in areas such as confidentiality and freedom of expression, just like there are with respect to every other form of communications medium, including private conversations. Concern over those issues is hardly sufficient to induce a feeling of powerlessness on the part of Internet users. If you're going to speak for the less than 0.0001% of Internet users, you may wish to qualify your statements accordingly. I choose to concentrate on the vast majority of Internet users, and I strongly believe that they feel empowered by this technology, rather than feeling powerless. Furthermore, I believe that the discourse on this list would be much more productive if we all concentrated on the great majority of users and potential users, and ask what kinds of structure, behavior and governance with respect to the Internet would make the Internet a better vehicle for meeting these users' needs. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > If you were drowning, as internet users are, in a sea of powerlessness, > and if given a choice between the ALAC, and its nearly vacuous ability > to hold ICANN to account, and real elections for real identifiable > people - including themselves if they chose to run, don't you think > that many, perhaps most would chose elections? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 30 11:51:12 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:51:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony] In-Reply-To: <474FBBA6.2040006@cavebear.com> References: <20071129114012.2095667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <006301c832ae$58b5b1e0$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <00e301c832d4$7ca87710$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90110C578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <474FBBA6.2040006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <47503F80.6040908@cavebear.com> >> There is strong interest here in many IG issues that are not purely >> ICANN. I see four main categories: There's one more that we both forgot: 7. Oversight of the upper tiers of DNS to assure that DNS query packets are quickly, efficiently, accurately, and reliably transformed into DNS response packets without prejudice for or against any query source or queried name. We have informal protection through the stellar performance of the root server operators, but they are under no oversight except their individual selves and they are free to go other ways, even to cease, at their own whim and option. And most TLD operators run good quality operations, but again, there is little oversight. Many believe that ICANN provides that oversight, but if one looks at what ICANN does one sees that that oversight is primarily on the "front office" operation - they buying and selling of domain names - and not on the part that the vast majority of internet users care about, the actual handling of DNS query packets. (ICANN does have a few requirements, but they are so broad and orders of magnitude off scale as to be largely useless. Many internet users are of the belief that such oversight exists. In that regard they hold an opinion that is not greatly different from that held by the residents of New Orleans in the summer of 2004 when they thought that the US government was prepared to respond to hurricane disasters. I described some of the concrete aspects in the note on this list at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-11/msg00589.html --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 30 11:58:01 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:58:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: (message from George Sadowsky on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:20:21 -0500) References: Message-ID: <20071130165801.129C12202B6@quill.bollow.ch> George Sadowsky wrote: > Furthermore, I believe that the discourse on this list would be much > more productive if we all concentrated on the great majority of users > and potential users, and ask what kinds of structure, behavior and > governance with respect to the Internet would make the Internet a > better vehicle for meeting these users' needs. Great question. How about creating an "International Internet Users Parliament"? That would IMO satisfy Karl's concerns as well as what you're asking for. Initially the parliament would have no power besides the moral authority that comes immediately from democratic legitimacy. Over time, as new internet governance structures are created or a need is felt to increase democratic legitimacy for existing ones, they can be made accountable to the "International Internet Users Parliament" similar to how national governments are accountable to national parliaments. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 30 14:09:13 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:09:13 -0800 Subject: Voting, procedures, costs, and privacy. Was: Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <474F6A43.4020203@cavebear.com> <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> Message-ID: <47505FD9.6010506@cavebear.com> Avri Doria wrote: > but these procedures exclude everyone who has neither a credit card nor > a bank account. i expect that is most people in the world. > or are they not rich enough to count? I don't disagree with you. I was mainly pointing out the method that we adopted for the individual domain name owners association - in which case the members had enough money to acquire a domain name and engage in a financial transaction to pay for it. To my mind the answer is to try to combine various methods - a credit card or bank account being but one method. Others could include direct contact as in the ICANN year 2000 election or an X attests for Y who attests for Z kind of chain. > yes, i would prefer to see financing come from a ICANN funded foundation > that was separate from staff, to eliminate the appearance of company union > (i am not arguing that it is happeing, but ICANN, or an company, remains > open to the accusation). That's a useful idea. If this were the case the money would have to be applied in a form that avoided not only the actuality of bias and influence but also the appearance of such. And the money should be restricted to facilitating the election process - if it were used for watering holes like the ALAC then there is an appearance, if not the actuality, of influence. --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 Fri Nov 30 14:13:14 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:13:14 -0800 Subject: Voting, procedures, costs, and privacy. Was: Re: [governance] Innovation In-Reply-To: <47505FD9.6010506@cavebear.com> References: <20071123184009.5D6CDA6CAE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DD6E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00b401c8305f$1c31ef00$8336fea9@TEST55C9A4E356> <474B2D07.2030702@cavebear.com> <01dd01c83131$31133500$93399f00$@com> <474F5326.6040609@cavebear.com> <20071130005526.021132202B6@quill.bollow.ch> <474F6A43.4020203@cavebear.com> <9F788471-2DD7-456F-83A3-C3389805B4A6@psg.com> <47505FD9.6010506@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <00a201c83385$15f89a20$41fc574c@TEST55C9A4E356> >> but these procedures exclude everyone who has neither a credit card nor >> a bank account. i expect that is most people in the world. >> or are they not rich enough to count? > To my mind the answer is to try to combine various methods - a credit > card or bank account being but one method. Others could include direct > contact as in the ICANN year 2000 election or an X attests for Y who > attests for Z kind of chain. Just on this. PIR developed a system to be able to provide people in developing countries with domain names for $1. It might be worthwhile finding out exactly what that method was and whether it could prove helpful in this instance. Kieren ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 30 14:20:18 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:20:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> George Sadowsky wrote: > At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread on > this list, I have to comment on your comment below. I found it an > amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not as > productive as it could be. > > 99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! Instead, if > they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a sea of > extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they couldn't > have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago. The context in which I use the world "powerless" is in the context of existing and future bodies of internet governance. For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to select ISP's and the like. But we users have virtually no voice in the body that extracts over half a billion dollars (US$) out of the pockets of domain name buyers every year and, at the same, time subjects us to the kangaroo court system of the UDRP and the privacy-busting Whois. The fear and concern that I am expressing is that in bodies of internet governance - and remember a body of governance is a body that exercises a near plenary form of power - that in these bodies, current and present, internet users are denied the means to hold that body, and the decision makers within it, accountable for its actions. In other words, my intent is the word "powerless" is interpreted in the context of bodies of governance. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Nov 30 15:32:04 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:32:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, I understand and appreciate your points. However, I do think that the way you phrase it, i.e. "the body that extracts over half a billion dollars (US$ out of the pockets of domain name buyers every year," goes in the wrong direction. It's correct that ICANN is involved in price setting, but per domain name the cost is closer to $6. One might as well say that The newspaper industry extracts billions of dollars from the reading public every year. And I'll take your future point that you don't have to buy newspapers; you can get your news elsewhere. However, note that the same is true with respect to the Internet; the great majority of Internet users don't have domain names, and in fact don't need domain names to extract very substantial value from the Internet. Having a domain name is like having a license to set up shop on the net, to hang out a sing saying in effect, "open for business." That does cost something, because the DNS collectively then has the responsibility of defining the specific path between you and every one of your correspondents. Somehow $6 per year seems like a very trivial amount for that service provided on a worldwide basis. I agree with you that WHOIS continues to be a problem, complicated by competing interests but also by non-interoperable national legal codes, over which we have relatively no control (at least in the short run). I'd like to see that sorted out also, but I don't see any voting scheme able to solve that problem without creating other problems of equal or greater magnitude. I understand that you have a severe dislike of the current UDRP. Is there a comprehensive alternative you would like to suggest that is significantly better? If you have already suggested it, what has been its reception and why? What do you think of my suggestion to concentrate on the great majority of Internet users, mostly those without domain names, and do two things. First, define their real needs to the best of our ability. Second, and only after we've done the first, discuss what forms of structure, conduct and governance would best meet those needs, nows and in the future? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 11:20 AM -0800 11/30/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >George Sadowsky wrote: > >>At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread >>on this list, I have to comment on your comment below. I found it >>an amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not >>as productive as it could be. >> >>99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! >>Instead, if they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a >>sea of extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they >>couldn't have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago. > >The context in which I use the world "powerless" is in the context >of existing and future bodies of internet governance. > >For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >select ISP's and the like. > >But we users have virtually no voice in the body that extracts over >half a billion dollars (US$) out of the pockets of domain name >buyers every year and, at the same, time subjects us to the kangaroo >court system of the UDRP and the privacy-busting Whois. > >The fear and concern that I am expressing is that in bodies of >internet governance - and remember a body of governance is a body >that exercises a near plenary form of power - that in these bodies, >current and present, internet users are denied the means to hold >that body, and the decision makers within it, accountable for its >actions. > >In other words, my intent is the word "powerless" is interpreted in >the context of bodies of governance. > > --karl-- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Nov 30 15:31:17 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:31:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> At 11:20 11/30/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: >For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >select ISP's and the like. This sounds strange. At least in New York City there is a choice - between cable Internet and Verizon. Both are at the same price, more or less. Is this really a choice? Compare: in Sofia, Bulgaria you can choose among about 20 big ISPs, and about 500 smaller (true, in the whole city, not each of them covers all of the buildings). In New York you can choose between "business" and "family" or something like that plan. Speeds - up to 6Mbps. In Sofia - tens of plans, speeds - up to 1000 Mbps. Prices - adequate: in New York City it is more expensive than in Sofia. I call that a choice. But, again, that is my own, non US-centric, point of view. Or, rather, fact? veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 30 15:48:06 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 07:48:06 +1100 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <272f01c83392$55fa7be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Sorry to raise yet another heresy, But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users Constituency and a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who would get involved in ALAC? I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an ALAC and a NCUC? Ian Peter No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: 29/11/2007 20:32 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Nov 30 16:01:13 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:01:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how? In-Reply-To: <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <47506272.6060306@cavebear.com> <20071130203836.087162BC005@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <47507A19.9060105@rits.org.br> Happy people, the Bulgarians in Sofia -- here in Rio, we have only two providers (one is the near-monopoly of cable TV controlled by Carlos Slim, the other is the regional telco private monopoly), like in the USA, limited to 8 Mb/s, at prices many times higher than in Western Europe. In state capitals in the Northern and Northeastern region, prices might be 200 times higher than in Western Europe, and in most of these capitals there is only one broadband provider, at speeds much lower than 8 Mb/s. Unbundling, although recommended by ANATEL, is opposed by the regional monopolies and of course does not exist. To complete the "freedom of choice" picture, broadband providers in BR, all of them (Comcast included, which runs satellite services in BR -- see EFF's actions agains Comcast violations in the USA here: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/11/28) practice all sorts of net neutrality violations. So much for choice, like in the USA.... :( --c.a. Veni Markovski wrote: > At 11:20 11/30/2007 -0800, Karl wrote: > >> For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to >> select ISP's and the like. > > This sounds strange. At least in New York City there is a choice - > between cable Internet and Verizon. Both are at the same price, more or > less. Is this really a choice? Compare: in Sofia, Bulgaria you can > choose among about 20 big ISPs, and about 500 smaller (true, in the > whole city, not each of them covers all of the buildings). > In New York you can choose between "business" and "family" or something > like that plan. Speeds - up to 6Mbps. In Sofia - tens of plans, speeds - > up to 1000 Mbps. Prices - adequate: in New York City it is more > expensive than in Sofia. I call that a choice. > > But, again, that is my own, non US-centric, point of view. Or, rather, > fact? > > veni > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Nov 30 16:16:48 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:16:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether?? In-Reply-To: <272f01c83392$55fa7be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <272f01c83392$55fa7be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <32c5084f0711301316v259cdb90re6604b3ef8aaec90@mail.gmail.com> Cause they are different. One is a GNSO consitutency and one is a Board Advisory Committee. In the GNSO, the focus is narrower - ALAC can have a broader focus. And we are not all either business or non-commercial focused. Jacqueline On Nov 30, 2007 4:48 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Sorry to raise yet another heresy, > > But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users Constituency and > a Business Users Constituency? Don't they cover all users who would get > involved in ALAC? > > I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing > structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an ALAC and > a NCUC? > > Ian Peter > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: 29/11/2007 > 20:32 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance