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,